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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["2:24-cv-08769 Apple Inc. counsel", "2:24-cv-08769 PACER", "1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc. counsel", "Gibson Dunn patent litigation Apple", "WilmerHale patent litigation Apple"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for Apple Inc. in case 2:24-cv-08769. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney. I will use the provided search queries to find this information from PACER, docket sheets, firm websites, and legal news outlets. I will explicitly state if information is not available or if counsel has not appeared yet.The provided search result is a "STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER" filed on August 21, 2025, in the case 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08769. This document clearly lists the attorneys for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Apple Inc.

Defendant's Counsel (Apple Inc.):

• J.C. Rozendaal

  • Role: Likely lead counsel (pro hac vice appearance, suggesting a specialized patent litigator from a firm known for IP).
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is a prominent intellectual property law firm, indicating significant experience in patent litigation.

• Anna G. Phillips

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: As part of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, she would have relevant patent litigation experience.

• Kenneth G. Parker

  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel due to California office and firm's general litigation focus, but also with patent expertise).
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP
  • Office Location: Costa Mesa, California
  • Note on experience: Haynes and Boone has a strong intellectual property practice.In the patent infringement case 1LSS Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-08769), the defendant, Apple Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys from Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC and Haynes and Boone, LLP.

The counsel of record for Apple Inc. includes:

• J.C. Rozendaal
  • Role: Counsel (appearing pro hac vice, indicating a specialized role, likely lead counsel from an out-of-state firm).
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C..
  • Note on relevant experience: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox is a well-regarded intellectual property law firm, suggesting extensive experience in patent litigation.
• Anna G. Phillips
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C..
  • Note on relevant experience: As an attorney with Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, she is involved in patent litigation matters.
• Kenneth G. Parker
  • Role: Counsel (likely serving as local counsel given the California office location).
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP.
  • Office Location: Costa Mesa, California.
  • Note on relevant experience: Haynes and Boone is known to have a robust intellectual property practice.