Source: https://www.arentfox.com/services/communications-technology/trial-appellate-agency-adjudications
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:35:06+00:00

Document:
Our nationally known communications, mobile, and technology attorneys are sought after for litigation matters, because we never forget to know the audience. For judges with busy dockets and limited telecommunications experience, we work hard to leave telecom’s acronym soup at the door and explain in plain English (and pictures, if necessary) why our clients should win.
With administrative agencies, we can speak the industry parlance fluently and focus on why the facts, law, and policy dictate a ruling in your favor. We’re also sought after because we never forget that we have to provide value. We’re intelligently aggressive – we make the best case clearly, so we do not distract from the real issues, or spend undue time in discovery fights that prevent an efficient resolution of the case.
We serve as trial and appellate counsel in a diverse array of telecommunications matters throughout the country. Our attorneys have acted as lead appellate counsel before the federal courts of appeals and lead trial counsel in a variety of federal and state judicial and administrative proceedings. We have represented carriers and service providers in cases against private parties or the government in federal and state courts, and we have substantial experience litigating formal and informal complaints before the FCC and state public utilities commissions. Our experience has given us the technological understanding, policy experience, and litigation tools to provide comprehensive counsel and advocacy in any litigation forum that your company may need.
Global Tel*Link, et al. v. FCC, 859 F.3d 39, amended and superseded, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017): Successful appeal from the Second Inmate Calling Services Order resulting in vacatur or reversal of several key rules and findings.
Hypercube, LLC v. Level 3 Communications, LLC (Cal. P.U.C. 2011): Attained reconsideration order vacating and remanding an administrative law judge’s decision on tariff based charges for exchange access service to toll free telephone numbers.
Northern Valley Communications v. FCC, et al., No. 11-1467 (DC Cir. filed Dec. 1, 2011): Challenging FCC orders relating to interstate access service tariffs.
Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Core Communications, Inc., 2010 WL 5189455 (4th Cir. 2010): Obtained an opinion holding that Verizon breached its interconnection agreement with Core as a matter of law for failing to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection at a technically feasible point.
Paetec Communications, Inc. v. CommPartners, LLC, 2010 WL 1767193 (D.D.C. 2010): Obtained an opinion on summary judgment that VoIP traffic exchanged between local exchange carriers is not subject to legacy access regulation.
Club Texting, Inc. d/b/a EZ Texting, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2010): Secured prompt, favorable settlement for mobile marketing company that had its shared short code blocked by a wireless carrier.
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008): Obtained a writ of mandamus to the FCC to respond to the court’s earlier remand regarding intercarrier compensation for telecommunications traffic terminated to Internet service providers.
Hypercube, LLC v. Comtel Telcom Assets d/b/a Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2008): Secured favorable settlement of dispute arising out of client’s provision of federal and state tariffed access services predominantly in connection with toll free calls made by wireless users.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.