Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 4:25-cv-00576, is currently in litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

However, public records for Case No. 4:25-cv-00576 in the Eastern District of Texas consistently identify the parties as Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al., as plaintiffs, and American Airlines, Inc., as the defendant. This publicly available information indicates that the case was filed on May 30, 2025, and is assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Despite the prompt specifying patent 10103845 as at issue, extensive public database searches, including on Google Patents and the USPTO's Patent Public Search, did not yield a readily identifiable U.S. patent with the number 10103845, nor was this patent linked to the Intellectual Ventures v. American Airlines case. Therefore, a specific one-line technical sketch of patent 10103845 cannot be provided, and the specific accused product or technology related to patent 10103845 cannot be identified within the context of this specific case number based on verifiable public information.

The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent infringement litigation, often favored by patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities (NPEs), due to its historically efficient dockets and experience with complex patent cases. While patent filings in the EDTX saw a decline after the 2017 TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, the district has experienced a resurgence in recent years, cementing its status as a top patent litigation forum. Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, who is assigned to this case, is an experienced patent judge in the EDTX, known for handling significant patent disputes and applying evolving standards for damages, such as in cases involving willful infringement. The notability of litigation in this district often stems from its high volume of cases, the potential for substantial jury verdicts, and the strategic advantages it may offer to plaintiffs.

It appears there is some difficulty in directly identifying the key legal developments for case 4:25-cv-00576 in the Texas Eastern District Court solely based on the provided case number and patent 10,103,845. Direct searches for this specific case number did not immediately yield a clear docket with parties and detailed events.

However, a search for parallel PTAB proceedings revealed information about U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441 ('441 patent), which was subject to concurrent inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) petitions filed by MPL Brands NV, Inc. ("MPL") against BuzzBallz, LLC. This proceeding occurred in anticipation of a dispute over whether the America Invents Act (AIA) would apply to the patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that the AIA applies to the '441 patent and subsequently denied institution of the IPR petition while granting institution of the PGR petition. This development regarding patent 11,932,441 is noted, as patent numbers can sometimes be misstated or related in a patent family, but currently, no direct PTAB proceedings have been identified for patent 10,103,845 itself.

Due to the lack of specific docket details for 4:25-cv-00576, including the parties involved, it is not possible to provide a chronological list of filing and initial pleadings, pre-trial motions, claim construction outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or the final disposition of this particular district court litigation at this time. Further information regarding the plaintiff and defendant in case 4:25-cv-00576 would be necessary to conduct more targeted searches for its specific legal developments.

Based on available information for case 4:25-cv-00576 in the Texas Eastern District Court, the plaintiff is Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The case is a patent infringement lawsuit against American Airlines, Inc..

However, despite extensive searching, there is no indication that patent 10103845 is at issue in this specific case. Intellectual Ventures is known for its broad patent assertion activities involving numerous patents, but this particular patent number was not found in direct association with case 4:25-cv-00576 in the search results.

The identified counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) is:

• Jonathan K. Waldrop
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Waldrop chairs Kasowitz's Intellectual Property group and is highly regarded for representing industry-leading companies, including Intellectual Ventures, in complex patent litigation. He has extensive experience as lead trial counsel in patent and trademark cases, securing favorable jury verdicts. His notable experience includes cases involving interactive web technologies, video-on-demand telecommunications, cable technology, computer-assisted sales processes, medical devices, and gaming systems. He has been recognized as an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer" by The National Law Journal and a "Top Intellectual Property Lawyer" by The Daily Journal.

While it is common practice for out-of-state firms to engage local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, specific local counsel for Intellectual Ventures in this particular case, 4:25-cv-00576, could not be definitively identified from the public search results.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["4:25-cv-00576 Texas Eastern District Court defendant counsel", "4:25-cv-00576 docket", "4:25-cv-00576 BuzzBallz MPL Brands"]))
thought
The user is asking me to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in case 4:25-cv-00576 in the Texas Eastern District Court, specifically for patent infringement involving patent 10,103,845. I need to find their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience. I should use PACER, docket sheets, firm websites, court opinions, Law360, and Reuters Legal.

My previous search noted difficulty in directly identifying the key legal developments for case 4:25-cv-00576 and suggested that further information regarding the plaintiff and defendant would be necessary. The previous section also mentioned a related case involving MPL Brands NV, Inc. and BuzzBallz, LLC concerning patent 11,932,441. It's possible there's a connection or a misstatement of the patent number. I need to ensure I am looking for counsel in 4:25-cv-00576, specifically for patent 10,103,845.

Given the prior difficulty, my first step should be to find the parties involved in 4:25-cv-00576 to narrow down my search for counsel. If the parties are BuzzBallz and MPL Brands, then the information regarding the PTAB proceedings for patent 11,932,441 might be relevant, although the current task is for patent 10,103,845.

Let's start by trying to find the docket for 4:25-cv-00576 to identify the parties and then the defendant's counsel.It appears there is a discrepancy between the parties previously associated with PTAB proceedings and the parties identified for the specific District Court case 4:25-cv-00576. While the previous summary discussed PTAB proceedings involving MPL Brands NV, Inc. and BuzzBallz, LLC related to patent 11,932,441, new information directly links case 4:25-cv-00576 in the Texas Eastern District Court to different parties and suggests a different patent context.

According to Unified Patents, case 4:25-cv-00576, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, involves Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Intellectual Ventures Management LLC as plaintiffs and American Airlines Inc. as the defendant in a patent infringement dispute. The patents mentioned in this listing are given as an example (e.g., 8855637), and not explicitly 10,103,845 as stated in the case metadata for this task. However, for the purpose of identifying defendant's counsel for case 4:25-cv-00576, American Airlines Inc. is identified as the defendant based on the most direct search result for the case number and court.

As of May 28, 2026, details regarding the specific counsel of record for American Airlines Inc. in case 4:25-cv-00576, including names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience, are not readily available through general web searches for this relatively new case. Access to the official PACER docket would be necessary to identify the specific attorneys who have made an appearance. Without this direct docket access, it is not possible to provide the requested detailed information for each attorney representing the defendant.