Untitled case

I'll start by researching the patent and the docket.

The patent appears tied to Jawbone Innovations. Let me dig into that.

Let me verify the exact patent number and hunt for the Federal Circuit docket.

Case Overview — Jawbone Innovations, LLC patent campaign; Fed. Cir. No. 26-1111

Two threshold verification caveats before the substance. First, the patent number in the case metadata appears to be a transposition: every primary source I located — the PTAB papers, the district court orders, and the Federal Circuit's own mandamus order — identifies the asserted patent as U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 B2 ("the '357 patent"), not 11,223,757. Secondary databases (Unified Patents' portal, Patsnap) propagate the digits both ways, but the underlying bibliographic data (application 13/959,708, filed Aug. 5, 2013, issued Sept. 14, 2021, inventor Gregory C. Burnett) all point to 11,122,357. I found no independent evidence of a separate 11,223,757 patent, so I analyze the '357 patent and flag the discrepancy rather than resolve it. Second, I was unable to verify a Federal Circuit docket numbered 2026-1111 in the time available — the appeal number, appellant, and appealed-from judgment are not confirmed in any source I could reach, and the case metadata itself marks the status "unverified." What follows therefore reconstructs the underlying litigation record, which is well documented, and identifies the plausible appeal paths.

The parties. Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC is a patent-assertion vehicle, not an operating company. It was incorporated in Texas in February 2021, took assignment of nine patents from the AliphCom/Jawbone estate in May 2021 (via JAWB Acquisition LLC / JI Audio Holdings LLC, following Jawbone's July 2017 liquidation), rented document-storage space in Waco, and sued Google in the Western District of Texas that September — a chronology the Federal Circuit laid out in In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023), where the court noted it was "undisputed that Jawbone (unlike its predecessor owners of the patents) is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace." The patents themselves descend from AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone, the San Francisco headset and wearable pioneer, and were prosecuted by Nutter McClennen & Fish. The named inventor on the '357 patent is Gregory C. Burnett. Jawbone Innovations ran a coordinated campaign against essentially every major consumer-audio defendant — Google, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Meta, Sony, LG, Panasonic, OPPO and HTC — which is the classic NPE pattern: a single acquired portfolio asserted in parallel against an entire industry segment, with IPR petitions filed by each defendant in sequence and settlements peeling defendants off one at a time.

The technology and accused products. The '357 patent, Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA), claims a noise-suppression architecture in which two physical omnidirectional microphones are signal-processed into two virtual directional microphones deliberately configured to have very similar noise responses and very dissimilar speech responses; a null is formed only to remove the user's own speech from the second virtual mic, and the pair is combined with an adaptive filter and voice-activity detection to raise SNR without distorting speech. It claims priority to June 13, 2007 and is a continuation of application 12/139,333 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691), and it carries a terminal disclaimer tying its term to the earlier patent. In the Google action it was asserted against Google's consumer audio/wearable lineup — the W.D. Tex. pleadings map the '091 and '058 patents to Pixel Buds and Pixel smartphones, with the '072, '080, '357 and '691 patents directed to further earbud, phone, speaker and display functionality. In short, the accused technology is the beamforming-and-noise-suppression stack inside mass-market earbuds, phones, smart speakers and displays.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The Google suit was filed Sept. 23, 2021 in W.D. Tex. (Waco, Judge Alan D. Albright) as No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, asserting eight patents — the '091, '058, '072, '213, '611, '080, '357 and '543 — with the '691 added by amended complaint in December 2021. Judge Albright denied transfer; the Federal Circuit granted Google's mandamus petition on Feb. 1, 2023, in a precedential order finding clear abuse of discretion on five of the eight Fifth Circuit transfer factors, and directed transfer to N.D. Cal. The case became Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00466-TLT (N.D. Cal.), reassigned from Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins to Judge Trina L. Thompson after Jawbone declined to consent. The PTAB had instituted IPR on eight of the nine patents, and on April 27, 2023 Judge Thompson stayed the entire action pending IPR (ECF No. 137), reasoning that institution on eight of nine patents would likely simplify the case; the Google dispute then resolved, with Jawbone filing a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on July 25, 2023, followed by joint motions to terminate the Google IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-01131 as to the '611 patent). The '357 patent specifically drew at least six validity challenges: Google's IPR2022-01124 (instituted, final written

I'll start by identifying the patent and any litigation or PTAB record tied to it.

The patent appears connected to Jawbone Innovations. Let me confirm the patent's owner and identify any litigation.

The prompt cites patent 11,223,757, but the litigation trail so far involves 11,122,357. I need to determine whether these are distinct patents or a citation error.

Verification status — read this first

Before the chronology, a material identification problem in the case metadata:

The only coherent reading of the metadata is that "11223757" is a digit transposition of 11,122,357, and that the appeal (if it exists) arises from the Jawbone Innovations campaign. Everything below is therefore the verified record on the '357 patent, with the caveat that I am mapping it onto your metadata rather than confirming it. If the metadata is correct and 11,223,757 is a different patent, then no litigation exists on it that I could find, and the honest answer is that the case has no traceable history.

---

The '357 patent litigation family (verified events, chronological)

*2021-05-27 — First suit: Jawbone Innovations v. Samsung Electronics, E.D. Tex. No. 2:21-cv-00186 (Gilstrap, J.).* This Marshall Division case (patents 7,246,058 / 8,019,091 / 8,280,072 / 8,467,543 family) opened the campaign. The '357 patent was still being prosecuted/just issued, so the '357 assertion came later; Samsung ultimately challenged the '357 at the PTAB (below).

2021-09-14 — '357 patent issues.

2021-09-23 — Jawbone v. Google, W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA (Albright, J.), and companion Jawbone v. Apple, No. 6:21-cv-00984-ADA. The Google complaint asserted eight patents including the '357 patent; an amended complaint on 2021-12-23 added a ninth, the '691 patent. See Google's Rule 2-1 notice, N.D. Cal. ECF No. 128, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[407900](/patent/407900)/gov.uscourts.cand.407900.128.0.pdf

*2021-11-29 — Jawbone v. Amazon.com, E.D. Tex. No. 2:21-cv-00435.* The original complaint attached the '357 patent as Exhibit G; an amended complaint followed. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61580644/jawbone-innovations-llc-v-amazoncom-inc/

2022 — Google files IPR petitions against all nine asserted patents, including IPR2022-01124 on the '357 patent (filed 2022-06-16). Per Google's own summary table, the PTAB instituted on all claims of the '357, with a final written decision due 2024-01-04. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407900/gov.uscourts.cand.407900.132.0.pdf

2022-04 / 2022-10 — Venue fight. Google moved to transfer to N.D. Cal. (W.D. Tex. ECF No. 41); Judge Albright denied transfer (ECF No. 84) in October 2022.

Late 2022 — Markman ruling, W.D. Tex. ECF No. 88. This is the single most consequential ruling for the '357 patent: Judge Albright construed the terms and held numerous terms indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2, invalidating all claims of the '691, '080, and '357 patents and some claims of the '213 and '611 patents. Jawbone moved for reconsideration and failed to identify new evidence. Sources: Google's stay motion at 10, ECF No. 132 (cited above); Google's Rule 2-1 notice. Strategic effect: the '357 patent was, as of that order, dead in the Google case — which reframes the entire campaign, since the '357 was one of the newest and most valuable assets in the portfolio.

2022-11-01 — Jawbone v. Amazon.com, N.D. Cal. No. 3:22-cv-06727-TLT (the Amazon dispute re-filed/landed in N.D. Cal.; closed 2023-07-26). https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[269087](/patent/269087)

2023-01-09 — PTAB: Apple / Samsung v. Jawbone, IPR2022-01321 ('357 patent) terminated on settlement, on a joint motion to terminate predicated on the parties' settlement. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01321/ (This is the clearest evidence of a Samsung/Apple settlement touching the '357 patent; the W.D. Tex. Apple case 6:21-cv-00984 is docketed as CLOSED – STAYED.)

2023-02-01 — In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) — precedential mandamus grant vacating Judge Albright's transfer denial and ordering transfer of the Google case to N.D. Cal. This is a nationally significant venue decision (it also underlies later attacks on W.D. Tex. filing practices). Case became N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00466-TLT (Thompson, J.), after Jawbone declined to proceed before Mag. J. Cousins.

2023-02-28 — Two new suits filed: Jawbone v. Meta Platforms, W.D. Tex. No. 6:23-cv-00158-ADA (now closed), and Jawbone v. Sony Electronics, D.N.J. No. 2:23-cv-01161 (Choe-Groves, J.), which remains active with pretrial conference 2027-10-12 and bench

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel across the verified dockets and any Federal Circuit filings.

Solid plaintiff-side records found. Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appeal and current N.D. Cal. counsel.

Let me check for recent appellate activity and the still-active Sony case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC

Threshold caveat (carried forward)

I could not locate a Federal Circuit docket numbered 2026-1111, so I cannot tell you which attorney has entered an appearance in this appeal. What I can document with specificity is who represents Jawbone Innovations, LLC in the underlying litigation family — the pool from which appellate counsel would be drawn. Every name below is sourced to a docket entry, a PTAB power of attorney, or a Federal Circuit filing caption. I have not inferred any attorney.

---

1. Fabricant LLP — portfolio-wide lead counsel (the core team)

Fabricant LLP, 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, NY 10580 (212-257-5797). This small New York IP boutique is Jawbone Innovations' lead counsel in every matter I could verify — the W.D. Tex. Google and Apple suits, the E.D. Tex. Amazon suit (alongside McKool Smith), all PTAB proceedings, and the In re Google mandamus opposition.

Sources: W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA docket sheet (plaintiff-attorney block), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01027/Google_LLC_v._Jawbone_Innovations_LLC/docs/09-28-2022-Petitioner/Exhibit-1021-23-Docket,_Jawbone_Innovations,_LLC_v_Google_LLC,_No_621_cv_00985_WD_Tex_September_26,_2022.pdf ; Jawbone's Power of Attorney in IPR2022-01124, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01124/Google_LLC_v._Jawbone_Innovations_LLC/docs/07-07-2022-Patent_Owner/Power_of_Attorney-4-Jawbone_Innovations,_LLCs_Power_of_Attorney.pdf ; Fed. Cir. No. 2023-101 order caption, https://www.lit-ip.aoshearman.com/siteFiles/41068/In%20re%20Google%2023-101.ORDER.2-1-2023_2073596.pdf ; E.D. Tex. No. 2:21-cv-00435 docket, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61580644/jawbone-innovations-llc-v-amazoncom-inc/

Client-side signatory (not counsel): Sason Gabay executed Jawbone Innovations' PTAB powers of attorney (e.g., Sept. 14, 2023 in IPR2023-01352) — an authorized representative of the LLC, not an attorney of record.

---

2. Texas local counsel — depends on forum

• Raymond W. Mort, III — The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, 501 Congress Ave., Suite 150, Austin, TX 78701 (512-865-7950). Listed on the W.D. Tex. Google docket as "Attorney to be Noticed"; the Apple complaint (No. 6:21-cv-00984) was likewise filed through Mort. This is the local-counsel role for the Waco filings.
• McKool Smith PC, Marshall, TX — Samuel Franklin Baxter and Jennifer Leigh Truelove filed notices of appearance for Jawbone in the E.D. Tex. Amazon case (late Nov./Dec. 2021). Public commentary from China's Shenzhen IP Protection Center identifies Fabricant + McKool Smith as the joint co-counsel pairing on Jawbone's E.D. Tex. campaign against OPPO, HTC, LG, Panasonic and ZTE (Nos. 3:23-cv-00079, -00077, 2:23-cv-00078, 2:23-cv-00081, 3:23-cv-00082), with a court order in the HTC member case confirming dismissal with prejudice. http://m.iprdaily.cn/news_33624.html ; https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/jawbone-innovations-v-htc-corp-voice-activity-detection-patent-dispute-patsnap/

Not plaintiff's counsel — a caution: Deron R. Dacus (Ramey & Flock, Tyler, TX) appears on the N.D. Cal. Amazon docket and answers for the Amazon entities; he is defense counsel. Similarly, if a caption search returns Keker, Van Nest & Peters (Christa Anderson, David Silbert, Luis Hoyos, Erin Meyer, Rylee Kercher Olm, Reid Mullen, Kaiyi Xie, Jacqueline Concilla), that is Google's team, not Jawbone's.

---

3. Federal Circuit posture specifically

The only Federal Circuit appearance I can verify for Jawbone is No. 2023-101, In re Google LLC (mandamus), where the respondent was represented by Alfred R. Fabricant, Richard M. Cowell, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino, III of Fabricant LLP. That is the firm's demonstrated appellate team for this portfolio. If No. 26-1111 is a defendant-initiated appeal (Google, Sony, Panasonic, etc.), Jawbone would appear as appellee through Fabricant LLP; if Jawbone is the appellant, the notice of appeal would have been signed by its trial counsel of record in the court below — most likely Fabricant LLP again, with local counsel depending on the district.

---

4. What I could not verify — stated plainly

1. No Federal Circuit docket for 2026-1111 was reachable, so I cannot name the attorney whose appearance is filed in this appeal, nor confirm whether plaintiff's counsel has even entered an appearance. Sealed/not-yet-filed appearances are a live possibility.
2. D.N.J. No. 2:23-cv-01161 (Jawbone v. Sony) is the one plaintiff case still visibly active into late 2026 — CourtListener shows a Markman hearing on Aug. 12, 2026, a notice of appearance at ECF No. 117 (Apr. 2026), a "Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF" at ECF No. 112, another notice of appearance at ECF No. 141 (July 21, 2026), and motion briefing through mid-October 2026. I could not open those entries to confirm the names, and my research budget ran out before I could. If No. 26-1111 traces to Sony, the newly appearing 2026 attorneys on ECF Nos. 112, 117 and 141 are the people you need. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66910495/jawbone-innovations-llc-v-sony-electronics-inc/
3. I did not independently confirm current registration status or firm tenure for Alfred R. Fabricant (no Reg. No. was printed in the sources I reached, and he appeared pro hac vice at the PTAB, suggesting he may not be a registered practitioner). I also could not confirm whether Fabricant LLP has added appellate-only counsel for the 2026 cycle.
4. Third-party aggregators (UniCourt) additionally list Minna Y. Chan and Benjamin T. Wang as plaintiff-side attorneys in the N

I'll research the docket and counsel. Since the case number and patent number are both unverified, I need to look for the actual Federal Circuit docket and any parallel records.

The docket number isn't surfacing yet. Let me probe the likely source litigations and their appellate posture.

Bottom line first: the appeal docket itself is unverified, so I cannot name "the" appellee or its counsel

I was unable to locate a Federal Circuit docket numbered 2026-1111, and the last search round was cut off before I could reach the Federal Circuit's own docket tools or PACER. Every search for that docket number returned unrelated matters. Because I cannot confirm which judgment is on appeal, I cannot confirm which defendant's counsel of record signed the Federal Circuit entries — and I will not guess at names and attribute them to a docket I could not open.

What I can do reliably is give you the verified defendant-side counsel of record in every district court and PTAB proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 ("the '357 patent," the patent I identified in the prior sections as the likely subject of the metadata's "11223757"). Since a Federal Circuit appellant/appellee almost always carries forward its trial or IPR counsel, this is the defensible candidate list — with the caveat that any of these could have been replaced at the appellate stage.

---

1. Verified defendant-side counsel, by underlying proceeding

A. Amazon.com, Inc. — IPR2023-00251 ('357 patent) and N.D. Cal. No. 3:22-cv-06727

Source: Lezama pro hac vice declaration, IPR2023-00251 (July 6, 2023), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00251/Amazon.com_Inc._v._Jawbone_Innovations_LLC/docs/07-06-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1014-Declaration_of_Mark_Lezama_in_Support_of_Unopposed_Pro_Hac_Vice_Motion.pdf

B. Sony Electronics Inc. — D.N.J. No. 2:23-cv-01161

Sources: Justia docket for 2:23-cv-01161, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2:2023cv01161/[509041](/patent/509041); Sony's Updated Mandatory Notice, IPR2023-01176, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554345](/patent/1554345)/download-documents?artifactId=Gs_kf1xqNy7hOX31A15LcBRFwPdRBU8-3C4NxoiK9nN1S86w0RDOp7U; Law.com Radar card (defendant counsel: Lerner David), https://www.law.com/radar/card/jawbone-innovations-llc-v-sony-electronics-inc-47970599-1/

C. Google LLC — W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00985 / N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00466 and IPR2022-01124 ('357 patent)

Source: Jawbone's Power of Attorney and certificate of service in IPR2022-01124 (July 7, 2022), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01124/Google_LLC_v._Jawbone_Innovations_LLC/docs/07-07-2022-Patent_Owner/Power_of_Attorney-4-Jawbone_Innovations,_LLCs_Power_of_Attorney.pdf

Caveat: these are Google's IPR counsel. I did not verify Google's district-court trial team in N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00466 — that case was dismissed with prejudice in July 2023, so its trial counsel is of limited relevance to a 2026 appeal.

D. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) (and Sony, co-petitioner) — '058 and '543 IPRs

Source: LG Power of Attorney, IPR2023-01110/-01119, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554287](/patent/1554287)/download-documents?artifactId=pChIZwRNnKPvpEbqfYVj_bC6xtXHhw_umpmCpht8lQ77AsXs1pct_sg

E. Defendants whose counsel I could not verify

• Panasonic Holdings Corp. (