Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves plaintiff Ginko, LLC, a Michigan corporation, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573 against defendant Apple Inc.. Ginko, LLC appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), as its publicly available information primarily links to patent assertion activities. Apple Inc. is a well-known operating technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. The core of the dispute centers on Apple's iPhones (including various models like iPhone 16 Pro, 16, 15 Pro Max, 15 Pro, 15, 14 Pro Max, 14 Pro, 14, 13 Pro Max, 13 Pro, 13 Mini, 13, 12 Pro Max, 12 Pro, 12 Mini, and 12) and Apple Watch devices (including Apple Watch Series 9, Series 10, Apple Watch SE (2nd Generation), and Apple Watch Ultra), specifically alleging infringement by the "NameDrop®" feature. U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573, titled "Method and Apparatus for Data Sharing," generally describes a system and method for sharing data between user devices, particularly involving location-based proximity for data exchange.

The case, originally 1:24-cv-01279, was initially filed in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco Division under Judge Alan Albright, became a prominent venue for patent litigation due to its streamlined patent rules and quick trial schedules, attracting a significant number of patent cases, often filed by non-practicing entities. However, on July 25, 2022, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas implemented random assignment of patent cases in the Waco Division, impacting the previous certainty of appearing before Judge Albright. This case was assigned to Judge DAE (U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra) in the Austin Division. Notably, the proceeding has since been transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, where it is now captioned Ginko, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 3:25-cv-11014-LJC, with the transfer occurring around December 29, 2025.

The transfer to the Northern District of California is a significant development, as the Western District of Texas had been a forum of choice for many patent plaintiffs seeking expedited proceedings. This case is notable as it involves a major technology company, Apple, and an alleged NPE, Ginko, LLC, challenging the "NameDrop®" feature, which allows for easy sharing of contact information by bringing iPhones close together. The litigation is also linked to an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01388, which names Ginko as the patent owner. This IPR challenge against the '573 patent could impact the district court litigation's trajectory.Ginko, LLC, a Michigan corporation and apparent non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc.. Apple, a global technology giant, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573 through its "NameDrop®" feature, found in various models of its iPhones (including iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16, and earlier models) and Apple Watch devices (such as Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch Series 10, Apple Watch SE (2nd Generation), and Apple Watch Ultra). The asserted patent, titled "Method and Apparatus for Data Sharing," generally covers technology related to data sharing between user devices, particularly utilizing location data to determine proximity for data exchange.

The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, under case number 1:24-cv-01279, and was assigned to Judge David A. Ezra (DAE). The Western District of Texas, especially the Waco Division under Judge Alan Albright, had previously become a popular venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for streamlined patent litigation and faster trial schedules. However, a change in judicial assignment practice in July 2022 introduced random assignment for patent cases in the Waco Division, making it less predictable for plaintiffs to secure Judge Albright. This specific case, initially in Austin, has since been transferred to the Northern District of California, where it is now proceeding as Ginko, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 3:25-cv-11014-LJC, as of late December 2025.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It pits an alleged NPE against a major operating company, Apple, over a feature central to its mobile ecosystem. The transfer of the case from the Western District of Texas, a previously favored venue for patent owners, to the Northern District of California, a forum often seen as more defendant-friendly, marks a significant procedural shift. Furthermore, there is a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01388, filed against the '573 patent, which could influence the outcome of the district court litigation by potentially invalidating claims of the asserted patent.

The patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573, filed under case number 1:24-cv-01279, has seen several key developments, including a transfer of venue and the initiation of a parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding.

Chronological Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-10-24: Plaintiff Ginko, LLC filed its initial Complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • 2025-02-03: Ginko, LLC filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
  • 2025-10-10: Defendant Apple Inc. filed its Answer and Counterclaim to Ginko, LLC's First Amended Complaint.
  • Date Not Specified: Ginko, LLC filed an Answer to Apple Inc.'s Counterclaim.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2025-05-14: A Scheduling Order was issued by the Western District of Texas, adopting the parties' recommendations for various deadlines. Key dates included preliminary infringement contentions by July 25, 2025, preliminary invalidity contentions by September 26, 2025, and Apple's opening claim construction brief by January 16, 2026. Mediation was scheduled to occur on or before August 21, 2026.
  • 2025-12-09: Apple Inc. filed an "Opposed Motion to Stay" in the Western District of Texas.

• Transfer of Venue:

  • 2025-12-29: The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is now captioned Ginko, LLC v. Apple, Inc. and assigned case number 3:25-cv-11014-LJC. An "Order Setting Initial Case Management Reference and ADR Deadlines" was subsequently issued in the Northern District of California.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As of the current date, no Markman hearing has been held, nor has a claim construction order been issued. The Western District of Texas scheduling order indicated a Markman hearing would be set by separate order after briefing was filed. Apple's opening claim construction brief was due by January 16, 2026, though this deadline would have been subject to the new scheduling order in the Northern District of California following the transfer.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Under the initial Western District of Texas scheduling order, fact discovery was set to open one week after the claim construction hearing and complete 30 weeks after the hearing. These deadlines would be reset or adjusted by the Northern District of California court.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • 2025-08-28: Apple Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573, designated as IPR2025-01388. Ginko, LLC, as the Patent Owner, was provided an opportunity to file a preliminary response. This IPR proceeding is ongoing and related to the district court litigation.

• Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • The case is currently active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 3:25-cv-11014-LJC, following its transfer from the Western District of Texas. Mediation was initially set for on or before August 21, 2026, in the Western District of Texas, which will likely be re-evaluated under the Northern District of California's case management plan.

In the patent infringement case 1:24-cv-01279 in the Texas Western District Court, Ginko, LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Michael C. Smith (Counsel of Record)
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but he signed the First Amended Complaint. Further search is needed to confirm his firm and location.
  • Relevant Experience: Signed the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on behalf of Ginko, LLC, indicating his active role in the case.

Further investigation is required to identify his specific firm and office location, as well as to determine if other attorneys are also representing Ginko, LLC and to provide a more detailed note on his patent litigation experience.

Given the current information, I cannot provide additional attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, or detailed experience notes without further search.Here is the counsel of record representing Ginko, LLC, the plaintiff(s) in case 1:24-cv-01279:

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Local Counsel for Texas)
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: A partner focusing on complex commercial and patent litigation in federal court, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, where he has appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases. He served as chairman of the Eastern District's Local Rules Advisory Committee and maintains the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice web log. He is also the editor of "O'Connor's Federal Rules * Civil Trials" since 1998.

• Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.

  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, Missouri
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as an attorney for Plaintiff Ginko, LLC. (Further specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided snippets.)

• Jeffer Ali

  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel
  • Firm: Husch Blackwell LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as an attorney for Plaintiff Ginko, LLC. (Further specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided snippets.)

• Anthony G. Simon

  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel
  • Firm: The Simon Law Firm, P.C., St. Louis, Missouri
  • Relevant Experience: Appears as an attorney for Plaintiff Ginko, LLC. (Further specific patent litigation experience not detailed in provided snippets.)

In the patent infringement case, Apple Inc. is represented by attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) and its in-house legal team.

Here is the counsel representing Apple Inc.:

• Mark D. Selwyn

  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale), Palo Alto, California
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Apple in its global patent litigation against Samsung that spanned across multiple jurisdictions and resulted in a significant jury award for Apple. He is a key contact for WilmerHale's intellectual property litigation practice.

• Other WilmerHale Attorneys

  • While specific names beyond Mark D. Selwyn are not readily available in the provided snippets for this particular case, WilmerHale has a strong track record of representing Apple in significant patent litigation. Their team has extensive experience in IP litigation and international trade, handling thousands of patent assets worldwide.

• Apple Inc. In-house Counsel

  • Apple employs a substantial in-house IP litigation team that is directly engaged in formulating and driving strategy, as well as providing counsel to internal clients. These in-house attorneys are not merely monitoring outside counsel but are actively involved in managing complex patent disputes and providing strategic advice to executives. While individual in-house attorneys are not named in the initial court filings, their presence is integral to Apple's patent litigation strategy.