Untitled case

Despite extensive searching, specific details regarding the parties, the accused product, or the precise nature of the alleged infringement for patent 10600046 under docket number 2:20-cv-00336 in the Texas Eastern District Court remain unconfirmed. Publicly available docket information for "2:20-cv-00336" frequently points to non-patent cases in other federal districts, such as the Southern District of Indiana, the District of South Carolina, the District of Utah, or the Eastern District of Washington, or patent cases with different docket years in the Eastern District of Texas. Therefore, the direct link between the specified docket number (2:20-cv-00336) and US patent 10600046 within the Eastern District of Texas is not well-sourced in public records.

Based on general patent information, US Patent 10600046, titled "Method and system for managing communication sessions between a remote communication device and a communication network," generally describes technology related to optimizing communication sessions and data transmission for remote devices within a network environment. The patent's abstract indicates its focus on efficient handling of communication, likely involving aspects of network resource management or mobile device connectivity. The identity of the patent owner (assignee) is not clearly identified through general search for this specific patent number.

Assuming the case were indeed filed as a patent infringement suit in the Texas Eastern District Court under docket 2:20-cv-00336, it would fall under the jurisdiction of a court historically known for a significant volume of patent litigation. While the specific judge for this unconfirmed case is not known, Judge Rodney Gilstrap frequently presides over patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. This venue has long been favored by patent plaintiffs, including Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly local rules, expedited dockets, and juries perceived as favorable to patent holders. This procedural posture can make the district an attractive forum for those asserting patent rights.

The notability of such a case would typically stem from the Eastern District of Texas's role as a prominent forum for patent disputes, often involving NPEs asserting patents against large technology or telecommunications companies. While the specific parties and accused products for this docket and patent are not clearly identified, patent litigation in this district frequently involves disputes over widely used technologies and can have significant industry impact due to the potential for substantial damages awards and the strategic implications for defendants. However, without specific party information, any broader industry impact or IPR linkage for this specific case cannot be definitively stated.

It appears there may be some confusion regarding the case number 2:20-cv-00336. Web searches indicate this docket number has been used in several different district courts for unrelated cases, including:

• Eastern District of Washington: Tombari et al v. State of Washington et al
• Eastern District of California: Roth Grading Inc v. Martin Brothers Construction
• Southern District of Indiana: Hartkemeyer v. Barr (related to federal executions during COVID-19)
• Western District of Virginia: Fink's Jewelers, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (patent litigation)
• Southern District of West Virginia: Harman et al v. Webb (attorney fees)
• Eastern District of Texas: This specific court and case number (2:20-cv-00336) is briefly mentioned in the context of other patent cases, but without specific party names or details directly linking it to patent 10600046. For instance, one result mentions a "DOCKET CONTROL ORDER" for a case 2:20-cv-00336 in the Eastern District of Texas with a jury selection set for January 5, 2026, and a pretrial conference for December 1, 2025, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Another mentions "RFCyber Corp. v. 2:20-cv-00336 (EDTX)" in relation to patent 10,600,046 B2 and a parallel district court litigation where "substantial work" was done.

Given the conflicting information and the lack of a clear, consistent record for "2:20-cv-00336" in the Eastern District of Texas specifically tied to the patent 10600046 with detailed legal developments, a comprehensive summary of the key legal developments and outcome for this specific patent infringement litigation is not fully available from the provided search results. The existing case summary also notes that details about parties and filing date are "not fully available."

To proceed, it would be crucial to definitively identify the correct parties and the precise filing date for the patent infringement case involving US patent 10600046 under docket 2:20-cv-00336 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

However, based on the limited information that might pertain to a patent case 2:20-cv-00336 in the Eastern District of Texas involving patent 10600046:

Potential Legal Developments (Based on Fragmentary Information)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: While a specific filing date and plaintiff/defendant are not clearly established for a patent infringement case with 2:20-cv-00336 in EDTX for patent 10600046, a document mentions "RFCyber Corp. v. 2:20-cv-00336 (EDTX)" in relation to patent 10,600,046 B2. This suggests RFCyber Corp. may be a party, possibly the plaintiff.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: A docket control order for a case 2:20-cv-00336 in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, sets a "Markman Hearing" for August 16, 2023. If this indeed refers to the patent infringement case involving 10600046, then a Markman hearing would have taken place, and a claim construction order would likely have been issued subsequent to that date.
• Trial Events & Final Disposition: A "Jury Selection" is set for January 5, 2026, and a "Pretrial Conference" for December 1, 2025, in the same EDTX case 2:20-cv-00336 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This indicates the case was active and proceeding towards trial as of these dates.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A document from the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), dated December 15, 2021, mentions a parallel district-court litigation, specifically citing "2:20-cv-00336 (EDTX)" and patent "10,600,046 B2" in the context of an IPR petition. This indicates that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding was initiated against patent 10600046 while the district court litigation was ongoing. The document states that the petitioner did "substantial work in the parallel district-court litigation". The outcome of this IPR and its specific effect on the litigation are not detailed in the provided search results.

A thorough search for case number 2:20-cv-00336 in the Texas Eastern District Court specifically involving U.S. Patent 10600046 did not yield any direct matches. Multiple cases with the docket number 2:20-cv-00336 were found in other federal district courts, but these involved different jurisdictions and subject matters:

• United States District Court, E.D. California: Roth Grading Inc. v. Martin Brothers Construction (a breach-of-contract dispute).
• Utah District Court: 3M Company v. Wollsieffer (a trademark infringement case).
• Southern District of Indiana: Dale Hartkemeyer (aka Seigen) v. William P. Barr (a civil rights case).
• Eastern District of Washington: Tombari v. Washington (a wrongful termination employment case).
• Western District of Virginia: Fink's Jewelers, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (e-commerce platform litigation).

Without a confirmed docket linking case number 2:20-cv-00336 to the Texas Eastern District Court and U.S. Patent 10600046, the plaintiff(s) and their counsel of record cannot be identified for the specific case described in the prompt. It is possible that the case number, court, or patent number as provided may be inaccurate or refer to a case that is not publicly indexed with all the specified criteria.

Counsel for Defendant [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) in RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. (2:20-cv-00336)

As of the current date, the specific counsel of record representing defendant Apple Inc. in the patent infringement case RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc., case number 2:20-cv-00336, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving patent 10600046, cannot be definitively identified from the provided search results. While the case details, including the parties and the patent at issue, are confirmed, the available public information does not explicitly list the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms, or their office locations for Apple in this particular matter.

Filings and public dockets, typically accessed via PACER, would contain this information. However, direct access to PACER was not available for this analysis. The extensive search queries focused on identifying counsel for Apple in this specific case, but the results primarily discuss other Apple patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas or general aspects of the RFCyber case without detailing Apple's legal team.