Untitled case

A patent infringement lawsuit, 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08769, was filed in the Central District of California. The plaintiff, 1LSS Inc. (operating as MagBak), is a company that designs, manufactures, and distributes protective cases and magnetic mount holders for mobile devices like iPhones and iPads. They began as a Kickstarter project in 2013 and have since expanded their product catalog, including their "MagBak" line of magnetic accessories. 1LSS Inc. is identified as an operating company, actively developing and selling products. The defendant, Apple Inc., is a well-known technology giant.

The asserted patent in this case is US Patent 11,864,641, titled "Magnetically coupled wallet accessory for mobile device." This patent broadly describes a wallet designed for attachment to a mobile device, featuring specific arrangements of magnetic material that enable it to magnetically couple with and adopt a specific orientation on the device. 1LSS Inc. alleges that Apple's MagSafe-series wallets infringe this patent. The complaint also claims willful infringement, citing an alleged communication concerning the infringement that predates the lawsuit.

The case is proceeding in the Central District of California, with Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth and the Honorable Serena R. Murillo assigned. This venue is significant because California, particularly the Central and Northern Districts, frequently handles patent litigation, especially against major technology companies like Apple, which are headquartered or have significant operations in the state. The Central District is known for its judges' willingness to set relatively fast trial dates compared to some other patent hotspots, and for its higher rate of granting dispositive motions in favor of either party. This case is notable due to the ongoing pattern of patent infringement suits against Apple, often involving magnetic accessory technology such as MagSafe, and the plaintiff's assertion of willful infringement based on prior communication.A patent infringement lawsuit, 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08769, was initiated in the Central District of California. The plaintiff, 1LSS Inc., operates under the brand MagBak and specializes in designing, manufacturing, and distributing magnetic protective cases and mounts for mobile devices like iPhones and iPads. Starting as a Kickstarter project in 2013, 1LSS Inc. is an operating company actively involved in developing and selling its product line. The defendant is Apple Inc., the multinational technology corporation known for its consumer electronics and software.

The core of the litigation centers on US Patent 11,864,641, titled "Magnetically coupled wallet accessory for mobile device." This patent broadly covers a wallet designed to attach to a mobile device through specific arrangements of magnetic material, allowing for magnetic coupling and a defined orientation on the device. 1LSS Inc. asserts that Apple's MagSafe-series wallets infringe upon this patent. The complaint includes an allegation of willful infringement, stemming from an alleged communication regarding the patent infringement that reportedly occurred prior to the lawsuit's filing.

The procedural posture of the case places it within the Central District of California, with Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth and District Judge Serena R. Murillo presiding. This venue holds particular relevance as California's Central District is a prominent forum for patent litigation, frequently seeing cases against major tech entities like Apple, which have a substantial presence in the state. The Central District is characterized by its judges' propensity to schedule trials relatively quickly and its readiness to grant dispositive motions, which can significantly influence case outcomes. This lawsuit gains notoriety due to its focus on magnetic accessory technology, a segment where Apple's MagSafe products are prominent, and the plaintiff's claim of willful infringement, reflecting a broader trend of patent disputes involving technology giants.

Legal Developments and Outcome for 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2:24-cv-08769)

This patent infringement case, 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc., filed in the California Central District Court under case number 2:24-cv-08769, concerns U.S. Patent 11,864,641, which generally relates to magnetically coupled wallet accessories for mobile devices. The litigation is ongoing, with a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Summary of Key Legal Developments:

• 2024-10-11: Complaint Filed. Plaintiff 1LSS Inc. (operating as MagBak) initiated the lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 11,864,641. The complaint specifically targets Apple's MagSafe-series wallets and includes an allegation of willful infringement, asserting that Apple was aware of the alleged infringement as early as February 2024.
• 2025-07-24: Parallel PTAB IPR Filed. Defendant Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01180, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 11,864,641, the sole patent asserted in the district court litigation.
• 2025-08-21: Stipulated Protective Order Entered. Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth entered a stipulated protective order in the district court case. This order outlines the conditions for handling confidential and commercially sensitive information during discovery, indicating that discovery was either actively commencing or anticipated to begin shortly.
• 2026-01-16: PTAB IPR Instituted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted IPR2025-01180. This means the PTAB found that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of U.S. Patent 11,864,641 is unpatentable, and the review proceeds to the trial phase. The IPR is currently listed as "Pending - Instituted."
• 2026-04-06: Joint Status Report Filed. Apple Inc. filed a Joint Status Report with the district court. While the specific contents of the report are not publicly detailed in available summaries, the filing indicates that the parties are actively communicating with the court about the case's progression, likely including discussions regarding the impact of the instituted IPR on the district court proceedings.

Current Posture:

As of the current date (2026-05-23), the district court litigation is active. Given the recent institution of the IPR, it is highly probable that a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the PTAB review has been filed or is being contemplated. However, details regarding a specific motion to stay, its filing date, and any ruling on such a motion are not explicitly available in the public docket summaries. Similarly, there is no public information regarding Apple's answer to the complaint, any counterclaims, or any claim construction (Markman) proceedings having taken place. The case appears to be in an early pre-trial stage, with the PTAB IPR proceeding running in parallel and likely influencing the pace of the district court litigation.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff 1LSS Inc.

The plaintiff, 1LSS Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys from multiple firms.

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

• Stanley M. Gibson (Bar No. 162329)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Gibson has experience in patent and intellectual property litigation.
• Gregory S. Cordrey (Bar No. 190144)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Cordrey focuses on intellectual property litigation.

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC

• J.C. Rozendaal (pro hac vice)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Rozendaal is a recognized patent litigator.
• Anna G. Phillips (SBN 275070)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Phillips specializes in intellectual property and patent litigation.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Apple Inc. — 2:24-cv-08769

Important threshold correction. The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section of this case is wrong on a material point: it lists Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (J.C. Rozendaal, Anna G. Phillips) as plaintiff's lead counsel. The docket establishes the opposite. Dkt. 18 (filed 12/3/2024) adds Anna G. Phillips "as counsel of record for Apple Inc.," and the pro hac vice applications filed by Kenneth G. Parker at Dkts. 19, 20, 24 and 25 are all expressly "on behalf of Defendant Apple Inc." Plaintiff 1LSS's counsel of record is Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Stanley M. Gibson, Gregory S. Cordrey), as confirmed by the caption block on the complaint and the protective order (Dkt. 49). I recommend the plaintiff-counsel section be corrected before publication.

---

1. Local counsel (California)

Kenneth G. Parker — Local counsel / counsel of record; designated local counsel for all pro hac vice applicants

• Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP
• Office: California (Haynes Boone's California offices; the specific office is not stated in the docket text I reviewed — verify on the firm site)
• Docket basis: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (Form G-123), Dkt. 23, filed 12/5/2024 ("Adding Kenneth G. Parker as counsel of record for Apple Inc."); named as designating local counsel in the PHV orders at Dkts. 21, 26, 27.
• Note: Parker is a Haynes Boone patent litigator who is a frequent Apple outside-counsel appearance in California patent suits — e.g., he appears for Apple as counter-claimant in PatentBridge Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 5:26-cv-08066 (N.D. Cal.). (Firm bio not directly reviewed; experience note based on docket appearances.)

2. Lead / trial counsel — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC (Washington, D.C.)

Anna G. Phillips — Counsel of record; lead counsel

• Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• Docket basis: Dkt. 18 (12/3/2024), Notice of Appearance adding her as counsel of record for Apple Inc.
• Note: Sterne Kessler director in the firm's Trial & Appellate Group; appears in district court and PTAB matters. (Note: the earlier case section lists SBN 275070 for Phillips, a California bar number — worth re-verifying, since her appearance was entered without a PHV application, which suggests she is admitted in California.)

Paige E. Cloud — Counsel; PTAB/trial team

• Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• Docket basis: PHV application Dkt. 19, granted by Judge Percy Anderson at Dkt. 21 (12/4/2024), with Parker designated local counsel.
• Note: Sterne Kessler attorney whose practice centers on PTAB and district court patent disputes, including Apple matters.

John C. Rozendaal — Counsel (PHV initially denied)

• Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.
• Docket basis: PHV application Dkt. 20 (12/3/2024); DENIED without prejudice-style ruling at Dkt. 22 (12/4/2024) by Judge Percy Anderson. The order states only that the application is denied — the public text I reviewed does not give a reason (the refusal may relate to a residency/bar or fee/supporting-document defect; treat the reason as unverified). No later re-filed application was located in the docket material available to me, so confirm on PACER whether Rozendaal subsequently obtained PHV or is appearing only in the PTAB.
• Note: Rozendaal is one of Sterne Kessler's best-known patent litigators (formerly Finnegan), with extensive PTAB and Federal Circuit experience, including Apple-side IPR work. His PHV application listed Virginia and D.C. bars.

David Y. Wang — Counsel (associate)

• Firm: Sterne Kessler, Trial & Appellate Group, Washington, D.C. (confirmed on firm bio)
• Docket basis: PHV application Dkt. 25, granted at Dkt. 26 (12/6/2024), Parker as local counsel; good-standing certificates for New York and D.C.
• Note: Associate focused on IP disputes in district court and the PTAB across electronics and medical device matters; part of the Sterne Kessler team that won a $9.5M verdict for Mallinckrodt in Mallinckrodt Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics (D. Del.).

Christopher R. O'Brien — Counsel

• Firm: Not verified in the sources I could confirm. His PHV application (Dkt. 24, granted at Dkt. 27 on 12/6/2024, Parker as local counsel) was filed together with the Sterne Kessler applications and lists Virginia and D.C. good-standing certificates, which is consistent with Sterne Kessler (a D.C./Virginia-bar-heavy firm), but I did not confirm his firm affiliation — check the firm website or the signed PHV application before stating it.
• Note: Patent litigation experience not confirmed; no firm bio reviewed.

3. In-house counsel

No Apple in-house attorney has entered an appearance in this docket as reflected in the materials reviewed. If Apple's in-house IP counsel appears (e.g., for a discovery/settlement conference), it would show on a later G-123 notice.

---

Procedural notes that bear on counsel status

• Venue/judge discrepancy to flag: The earlier case sections name Judge Serena R. Murillo with Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. The docket reflects that the case was originally assigned to District Judge Percy Anderson with Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver (Dkt. 7), that Judge Rosenbluth entered the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 49, Aug. 2025), and that the case has since been reassigned to Judge Serena R. Murillo, with a further reassignment notice transferring discovery/post-judgment referral to Magistrate Judge Diana M. Kwok after Rosenbluth became unavailable. The PHV orders cited above were signed by Judge Anderson, not Murillo.
• Timing: Apple appeared through counsel in early December 2024 (Dkts. 18–27), i.e., roughly two months after the Oct. 11, 2024 filing — consistent with a summons/waiver sequence rather than a default posture.
• Parallel PTAB: Apple's IPR2025-01180 against the '641 patent was filed July 24, 2025 and instituted (per the PTAB docket) in January 2026. Sterne Kessler's presence here on Apple's behalf is consistent with that firm also handling the IPR petition, but I did not verify the IPR counsel of record in that proceeding — worth a separate check, since the same team typically handles both and a stay motion would rest on that overlap.
• Sealed/limited material: Nothing in the record reviewed indicates that Apple's counsel list is sealed; the appearances above are all public docket entries. However, later 2025–2026 filings (e.g., any motion to stay, answer, or counterclaims) were not retrievable in this session, so additional counsel (e.g., an added appellate or damages specialist) cannot be ruled out.

Sources: Justia docket for 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-08769 (C.D. Cal.) (Dkts. 7, 18–27); UniCourt docket entries quoting Dkts. 21–27; PACER Monitor case page (counsel list, reassignment notice); Sterne Kessler firm bio for David Y. Wang (sternekessler.com/professionals/david-y-wang); Dkt. 49 protective order (cases.justia.com); complaint text via RPX Insight (litigation_documents/15978254).