Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al, Case No. 2:26-cv-00011, is currently before the Texas Eastern District Court. The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), a common characteristic of plaintiffs filing patent cases in this venue. The defendants include ADT Inc., a well-known operating company providing security, automation, and smart home solutions. While the specific accused products, services, or technologies are not detailed in the initial search results, the "Nature of Suit" for the case is listed as "830 Property Rights - Patent," indicating allegations of patent infringement related to ADT's offerings.

The sole patent at issue is US Patent No. 10,009,720. A technical sketch of this patent, based on its likely subject matter given the plaintiff's name and the defendant's business, would typically involve technologies related to location services, tracking, monitoring, or potentially emergency response systems within a security or smart home context. However, without direct access to the patent's abstract or claims, a precise one-line technical sketch cannot be definitively provided from the current search results.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is historically significant for patent litigation, often dubbed a "rocket docket" due to its reputation for adjudicating patent cases quickly and having local rules specifically tailored for patent disputes. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings (e.g., TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC) that have aimed to restrict venue options and make it harder for plaintiffs to file in districts where defendants lack a "regular and established place of business," the Eastern District of Texas, and particularly Judge Gilstrap, continues to see a high volume of patent cases. The case is notable for fitting into a pattern of NPEs asserting patents against established operating companies in a forum often considered plaintiff-friendly. Furthermore, there are already Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, IPR2025-01256 and IPR2025-01257, initiated by Apple Inc. against Avant Location Technologies LLC, challenging the validity of related patents, including the '720 patent and patent '040, indicating potential prior art challenges and a multi-front litigation strategy by defendants in other related cases.

Case Overview: Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00011, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, centers on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720. The current status of the case is "Critical."

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Avant Location Technologies LLC initiated the lawsuit on January 6, 2026, alleging patent infringement against ADT Inc. and other defendants. The complaint asserts claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 for patent infringement.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Given the recent filing date (January 6, 2026), detailed information on significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment is not readily available through general search results at this early stage of litigation. However, a prior related case involving Avant Location Technologies and Apple provides crucial context regarding potential motions to stay due to parallel PTAB proceedings.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of May 27, 2026, the case is in its very early stages. It has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) phase, which typically occurs later in patent litigation.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• There are no publicly available details on strategic discovery milestones at this early point in the litigation.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and has not reached a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on Asserted Patents:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720, along with six other patents, was previously asserted by Avant Location Technologies LLC in a separate patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. (Avant Location Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00757-JRG, E.D. Tex., filed September 13, 2024).
• In that prior litigation, Apple filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of the seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720. These IPR petitions were filed on September 11, 2025.
• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is expected to render decisions on these IPRs by March 2027.
• The prior lawsuit against Apple was voluntarily dismissed by Avant after the case was transferred from Avant's preferred judicial district and after the IPR petitions had been filed. The existence of these IPRs suggests that similar challenges could arise or be cited in the Avant v. ADT case, potentially leading to motions to stay the district court litigation pending the PTAB's decisions.
• As of now, there is no public record of IPR petitions specifically initiated by ADT Inc. against Patent No. 10,009,720 in relation to the present Avant v. ADT case. Information on IPRs can be tracked via the USPTO's P-TACTS system.

Avant Location Technologies LLC, the plaintiff in case 2:26-cv-00011 in the Texas Eastern District Court, is represented by attorneys from Fabricant LLP.

While direct PACER access to confirm the specific appearance in this district court case was not available through web search, Avant Location Technologies LLC's representation in closely related patent proceedings, including an Inter Partes Review (IPR) concerning one of the patents at issue in their broader litigation efforts, strongly indicates the following counsel:

• Peter Lambrianakos

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in related PTAB IPR)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Lambrianakos is listed as lead counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR2025-01257, an IPR filed by Apple Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030, a patent also asserted by Avant in Eastern District of Texas litigation.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III

  • Role: Counsel (in related PTAB IPR)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Rubino is listed as counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR2025-01257.

• Julian G. Pymento

  • Role: Counsel (in related PTAB IPR)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Pymento is listed as counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR2025-01257.

• Jacob Ostling

  • Role: Counsel (in related PTAB IPR)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Ostling is listed as counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR2025-01257.

It is common practice for patent owners, particularly non-practicing entities like Avant Location Technologies LLC, to use the same legal team or firm for both district court litigation and parallel PTAB proceedings. Given the recent filing of the district court case (2026) and a joint motion to dismiss indicating resolution, it is likely that these attorneys were involved in the district court action, potentially working with local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, although specific local counsel for this particular case could not be identified through public web searches.

As of May 27, 2026, the case Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al, Case No. 2:26-cv-00011, in the Texas Eastern District Court, has been resolved and a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice has been filed by both parties, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. This suggests a confidential settlement has been reached. Therefore, identifying specific "counsel of record representing the defendant(s)" with their roles, firms, and experience for ongoing litigation is no longer directly applicable for this particular case.

However, for context regarding ADT's typical patent litigation counsel and the Eastern District of Texas's local counsel requirements, the following information is relevant:

ADT's Previous Patent Litigation Counsel (Illustrative Examples):

While not specific to this dismissed case, ADT has been represented by prominent firms in other patent litigation matters. For instance, in an appeal affirming a PTAB decision invalidating patent claims (ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.), Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP partners Keith R. Hummel and Sharonmoyee Goswami were involved, with Hummel and Goswami arguing before the PTAB and on appeal. This suggests that for significant patent disputes, ADT engages firms with strong intellectual property litigation practices.

Eastern District of Texas Local Counsel Requirements:

The Eastern District of Texas, and particularly Judge Rodney Gilstrap's court, has specific requirements for attorney appearances and local counsel involvement.

• Lead Attorney and Local Counsel: Every document filed must be signed by the lead attorney or by an attorney of record with the lead attorney's permission. All motions, except for certain exceptions, must include a "certificate of conference" signed by the lead attorney and any local counsel.
• Active Participation of Local Counsel: Judge Gilstrap's standing order emphasizes the active and material participation of local counsel in all phases of trial practice, including mediation efforts. Local counsel are required to be physically present and materially involved in the mediation process at all times and stages. Failure to involve local counsel in mediation may be presumed as a failure to mediate in good faith and could lead to sanctions.

Given these requirements, it is highly probable that ADT Inc. would have engaged both lead counsel, likely from a national firm with significant patent litigation experience, and local counsel based in the Eastern District of Texas, who would be actively involved in the case proceedings.