Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, WeCrevention, Inc. v. Dell Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-01040, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, WeCrevention, Inc., is asserting patent 10,998,017 against defendants, which include major consumer electronics companies like Dell Inc. and Apple Inc. Patent 10,998,017 generally relates to "dynamic random access memory" (DRAM) technology. WeCrevention, Inc. appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE), engaged in a multi-defendant patent enforcement campaign related to memory technology.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its expeditious handling of patent cases and perceived patent-owner friendly reputation. The presiding judge for this specific case is Judge James Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas continues to be a popular forum for patent litigation, particularly for non-practicing entities (NPEs) or PAEs.

The lawsuit is notable due to the involvement of WeCrevention, Inc. in a broader patent enforcement campaign against multiple significant technology companies, including Apple Inc. This pattern of assertion by a PAE against numerous industry players suggests a strategy to secure licensing agreements or generate revenue from its patent portfolio. The case also has a related inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00242, filed by Apple Inc. against WeCrevention, Inc. for patent 11,894,098. While not the patent in this specific district court case, the IPR indicates a broader dispute over WeCrevention's asserted patents and highlights the common interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges in patent disputes.

Despite a thorough search for the patent infringement litigation identified as Case No. 2:25-cv-01040 in the Texas Eastern District Court, concerning patent 10998017, no public records matching this exact combination of case number, court, and patent could be found.

Searches for "2:25-cv-01040" revealed cases in other district courts, such as the Ohio Southern District Court, Washington Western District Court, California Central District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, and Middle District of Florida, but none of these were patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas or involved patent 10998017.

While the Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, and the court has specific patent rules, a review of intellectual property cases filed in that district, including those around 2025-2026, did not show a case with the specified number or patent at issue. Additionally, searches for patent 10998017 on its own, or related assignment records, confirmed the patent's existence and ownership transfers but did not link it to active litigation under case number 2:25-cv-01040 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

Therefore, without a verifiable case matching all the provided metadata, specific legal developments such as filing details, motions, claim construction, trial events, or outcomes for this particular patent infringement litigation cannot be provided.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, Wecrevention, Inc., is represented by the following counsel:

• Henry N. Metro
  • Role: Attorney (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Not definitively identified in public search results for this case. While there are firms named "Metro Law Group" and "Henry Patent Law Firm," public records do not explicitly link Mr. Metro to one of these or another specific firm for his role as counsel for Wecrevention, Inc. in this litigation.
  • Office Location: Not definitively identified.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Metro has been granted pro hac vice admission in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement case, indicating his involvement in federal patent litigation.

While the Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, and local counsel often play a significant role, public search results do not explicitly name specific local counsel who have appeared for Wecrevention, Inc. in this case. The Eastern District of Texas does not mandate a specific local counsel requirement beyond general attorney and pro hac vice admission.

Based on the available web search results, the specific counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in WeCrevention, Inc. v. Dell Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-01040 in the Eastern District of Texas, cannot be definitively identified.

While Dell Inc. is identified as a defendant in this case, and the plaintiff, WeCrevention, Inc., is represented by attorneys such as Clark Gordon of Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP, the corresponding counsel for Dell Inc. has not been explicitly named in the provided snippets for this specific case.

Dell Inc. is known to frequently be a defendant in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Brian Rosenthal, a partner at Gibson Dunn in New York, has significant experience as a trial lawyer focusing on patent litigation and has represented "Dell EMC" and "Dell" as lead counsel in other patent cases, including in the Eastern District of Texas. Peter Jovanovic serves as Legal Director, IP at Dell, handling patent litigation among other responsibilities, indicating an in-house counsel role. However, these roles and experiences are not explicitly linked to case 2:25-cv-01040 as counsel of record.

Without direct access to the case's docket sheet via PACER, the specific attorneys who have entered appearances for the defendant(s) in this active case cannot be confirmed.