The motion of Traxcell Technologies, LLC (“Traxcell I”) to substitute Traxcell Technologies II LLC (“Traxcell II”) as the plaintiff in a case that the former filed against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) back in December 2020 is now fully briefed, through the sur-reply of Verizon Wireless and the sur-sur-reply of Traxcell I. Traxcell I contends that it sold the patents-in-suit to Traxcell II “in the regular course of business”, which for the Traxcells is patent monetization, and wants District Judge Alan D. Albright to allow a plaintiff swap, lift a stay, and let litigation proceed against not just Verizon Wireless but also other defendants—in part to satisfy a prior award of attorney fees, now north of $500K. Both in opposition to Traxcell I’s motion and in a separate West Texas case (6:24-cv-00163, filed on March 28, 2024), Verizon Wireless argues that the purported patent sale was an ineffective and fraudulent attempt to avoid satisfaction of Traxcell I’s creditor with respect to that attorney fees judgment. That creditor is Verizon itself.