Larry D. Fiourito

I'll verify this attorney's background before writing.

The first result appears unrelated. Let me dig further.

The attorney's name returns no results. Let me verify the firm and case counsel.

Professional Summary: Larry D. Fiourito

Sourcing caveat up front. The authoritative case list shows only one tracked appearance, and I was unable to verify any independent public record for an attorney named "Larry D. Fiourito." Targeted searches for the name and surname variants returned no matching attorney profile, firm bio, bar record, or court appearance. The closest hits were unrelated practitioners with similar surnames (e.g., Sheena Fioritto, a Michigan real estate lawyer; James Fiorito at Finnegan; Michael Fioretti in Illinois) — none of whom appear connected to this matter. The comments below are drawn from the structured case list and from publicly available records about the underlying litigation, with verification gaps flagged.

Specialty / focus. The single tracked matter is Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. AXP Group (Vivint), a patent infringement action filed in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:19-cv-00310, filed February 6, 2019; docket reflects termination in December 2019). The asserted patents — U.S. 8,914,526 ("Local and Remote Monitoring Using a Standard Web Browser") and U.S. 9,961,097 ("System for Remote Access of a User Premises") — cover networked home security and remote monitoring, i.e., IoT/connected-home and remote-access-over-Internet technology. That is the only technology area evidenced by the case list.

Side preference. The case list records one plaintiff-side appearance and no defendant-side appearances, with Mr. Fiourito listed as lead counsel. Portus Singapore is a non-practicing entity that has asserted the same two patents against a broad set of home-security and appliance defendants (Samsung, ADI, Whirlpool, Trane, LG, Lennox, Tonal, Peloton, BSH, Amazon, Schneider Electric, and others), so the tracked data points to patent-holder/plaintiff-side work rather than defense of operating companies. A single data point is a weak basis for a stated preference, and I found no other litigation matters to confirm the pattern.

Firm context and notable outcome. The case list identifies the firm as Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, which I could not independently verify in the time available. On the merits, the Portus campaign fared poorly in public records: the asserted patents expired June 7, 2020, and courts addressing parallel suits held that the accused systems require a customer-owned internet access device that the defendants do not make, sell, or control, defeating direct infringement. Amazon moved to dismiss on those grounds, and the Vivint action itself was resolved without any reported judgment or verdict. Note also that the UniCourt docket entry for Portus v. Vivint lists Stevenson Moore V and Timothy Tiewei Wang as plaintiff-side counsel; Mr. Fiourito does not appear in that docket snapshot, which may simply reflect incomplete third-party docketing but is worth confirming against the court file.

PTAB / IPR experience. No IPR, PGR, or other PTAB filings, and no bar admissions or education, could be verified for this attorney. I would not state any bar, education, or IPR-experience claim without direct confirmation — the name as provided does not resolve to a checkable professional record, and that discrepancy should be resolved before this profile is relied upon.