Untitled case

I'll verify the case facts before drafting, since the metadata (Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP; PTAB IPR2026-00107) and the prior sections (HBCU Messaging v. Apple/Green Dot in WDTX) need reconciliation.

Good — the metadata appears to be mislabeled. Let me verify the PTAB outcomes, the district court docket specifics, and Apple's actual counsel.

Case overview and background

Party structure. The real-party alignment here is the reverse of what the case metadata implies. The patent owner and plaintiff is HBCU Messaging US LP, formerly Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP — the U.S. holding entity for a mobile-messaging patent family originally owned by Australian startup Messmo Technologies Pty. Ltd. (sole named inventor Graham Merrett; earliest priority July 2007). Messmo assigned the portfolio in 2014 to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies, LP (later renamed HBCU Messaging International, LP), which was controlled by IP-monetization firm Rembrandt IP Management, LLC; the U.S. assets sit in the plaintiff. HBCU Messaging US is jointly owned by HBCU Tech Holding I and II, LLC, each a wholly owned subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation, a 501(c)(3) formed by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) — i.e., an NPE/PAE housed inside a nonprofit HBCU technology-transfer vehicle. The defendant is Apple Inc., the operating company. Green Dot Corporation (a bank holding/payment-platform company headquartered in Austin) was originally a co-defendant, accused of supplying the payment technology behind Apple Cash, but Judge Albright granted Green Dot's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed it by order dated September 24, 2025. (Mondaq/RPX summary of complaint; Green Dot dismissal order)

Accused technology and patents. HBCU asserts seven patents (U.S. Nos. 8,918,127; 11,012,827; 11,089,450; 11,653,182; 11,653,183; 11,991,600; 11,991,601) drawn from a 21-patent family, all claiming a messaging system that selects between circuit-switched SMS and a packet-switched messaging service (PSMS) based on whether the recipient is a subscriber. The accused functionality is Apple's Messages/iMessage "blue bubble vs. green bubble" routing — the iPhone querying Apple's Identity Service (IDS) servers over Wi‑Fi to check iMessage registration before choosing IP or SMS transmission — together with Apple Cash money transfers inside Messages (which is where Green Dot came in, under the "third party provider" claims of the '827 and '600 patents), across iPhone, iPad, Mac, Watch and supporting server infrastructure. The patent at issue in IPR2026‑00107, U.S. 11,991,601 ("Wireless messaging method and server," granted May 21, 2024), is the server-side member of the family: it emphasizes mapping a destination phone number to an alternate identifier at a server, determining recipient subscriber/active status, and propagating routing decisions across a sender's multiple devices before the message is sent over the packet-switched WLAN bearer or as SMS. Apple's petition challenged claims 1–30 on obviousness grounds built on Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal and Quon. (HBCU opening claim construction brief, Dkt. 61; IPR2026-00107 petition materials)

Posture and why it matters. The district case is HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01199-ADA, W.D. Tex., Austin Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright (filed October 2024; reassigned to Albright in April 2025). Venue is the point of the exercise: Apple's self-described second-largest U.S. campus (~6,000 employees) and Green Dot's principal office are both in Austin, and Albright's docket is the country's highest-volume patent venue. Claim construction is complete — Markman hearing January 23, 2026; Claim Construction Order entered January 28, 2026 (Dkt. 74) — with the court adopting plain and ordinary meaning for "bearer" and "third party provider" but expressly deferring the four "wherein … when" limitations to summary judgment, which preserves HBCU's "coincidental co-occurrence" infringement theory while leaving Apple a validity/scope defense later. On the PTAB side, Apple filed seven IPRs on August 29, 2025 covering all seven asserted patents (IPR2025‑01486, ‑01488, ‑01493 and IPR2026‑00104, ‑00105, ‑00107, ‑00109), with the '601 petition filed October 31, 2025 (inside the § 315(b) bar). All were denied institution: the Director's February 18, 2026 omnibus Notice of Decisions on Institution (Paper 15, before Under Secretary/Director John A. Squires) denied IPR2025‑01486, ‑01488 and ‑01493, and the later-filed petitions including IPR2026‑00107 were likewise denied, with the Board explaining that maintaining them "is not an efficient use of Office resources … because intrinsically similar issues, where the involved patents are in the same family, will be addressed by the district court," and invoking Revvo Technologies v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies (precedential, Nov. 3, 2025) and Apple's inconsistent district-court-versus-PTAB claim construction positions. Apple has since filed requests for Director Review of the ‑01486, ‑01488 and ‑01493 denials (March 2026). Why it matters: (1) it is a live test of the post-Revvo centralized-discretion regime effectively closing the PTAB as an escape hatch for a seven-patent, same-family NPE campaign; (2) the 2007 priority date means the family expires around 2027–2028, compressing the damages window and raising the stakes on the pending schedule; and (3) the HBCU Technology Foundation ownership structure is an unusual NPE-adjacent vehicle that has drawn commentator attention. (Director's Feb. 18, 2026 Notice; claim construction order as Ex. 1116; RPX docket, IPR2025‑01486)

Flags on the metadata and prior sections

• Party-name contradiction. The case metadata lists "Defendant(s): Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP" and describes the matter as an IPR. Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP is the patent owner's former name — it is the plaintiff/patent owner, not a defendant. The petitioner in IPR2026‑00107 is Apple Inc. and the patent owner is HBCU Messaging US LP. I have used the verified alignment; the metadata should be corrected.
• Prior "Defendant representatives" section is unsupported. It names Robert Van Nest (Keker), Gibson Dunn lawyers and Vinson & Elkins lawyers for Apple/Green Dot. The January 23, 2026 Markman transcript identifies Apple's district-court counsel as Morrison & Foerster LLP — Brian Christopher Nash (Austin), Nima I. Kiaei and Ryan J. Malloy (Los Angeles), Nomin-Erdene Jagdagdorj (Washington, D.C.) — and Apple's PTAB counsel as Fish & Richardson (W. Karl Renner, Nicholas Stephens, David Holt, Charlene C. Thrower). Green Dot's counsel of record is not verified in the materials I reviewed. The prior section should be treated as unreliable and replaced.
• Minor date conflicts. The Green Dot dismissal order recites the complaint as filed "October 10, 2027" (obvious typo for 2024), while the prior summary says October 7, 2024; I could not confirm the exact filing date from a primary docket. The dismissal order's text says dismissal "with prejudice," while the exhibit title describes it as "without prejudice to replead following initial discovery" — that discrepancy needs a PACER check before being relied on. The precise docket vehicle and date for the '601 denial (a March 17, 2026 "Director Discretionary Decision" paper appears on the docket, following the February 18, 2026 omnibus notice) should also be confirmed in PATCTS.

The patent infringement litigation HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01199, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, has progressed through initial pleadings and claim construction. A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00107, targeting one of the asserted patents, concluded with a denial of institution.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

District Court Litigation (HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01199 WDTX)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • HBCU Messaging US LP filed its initial complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc. and Green Dot Corporation on October 7, 2024.
  • Summons and the complaint were served on Apple Inc. on November 5, 2024.
  • An amended complaint was filed on January 24, 2025.
• Judicial Assignment:
  • The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. On April 15, 2025, it was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Proceedings:
  • Both Apple and HBCU Messaging US LP filed their Opening Claim Construction Briefs on September 22, 2025.
  • Responsive Claim Construction Briefs from both parties were filed on October 24, 2025.
  • A Claim Construction Order was issued on January 28, 2026, by the court.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: Specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay related to this particular case were not explicitly detailed in the general search results beyond the standard docketing. The progression to claim construction indicates that any such preliminary motions were either denied, withdrawn, or resolved in a manner that allowed the case to proceed.
• Discovery Milestones: No specific strategic discovery milestones were highlighted in the available information.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: The case is still active and has not reached the trial phase, nor have any verdicts or post-trial motions been recorded.
• Final Disposition/Present Posture: The case remains active in the Western District of Texas, having completed the claim construction phase.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR2026-00107 against U.S. Patent No. 11,991,601:
  • An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00107, was filed challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,601.
  • Institution of IPR2026-00107 was denied by the PTAB Director on March 17, 2026, as previously stated in the case summary. This denial means the PTAB found that the petitioner failed to show a likelihood of unpatentability sufficient to proceed to a full review.
  • This outcome aligns with a broader trend observed since October 2025, where USPTO Director John Squires centralized the authority for IPR institution decisions, leading to a higher rate of discretionary denials based on various factors, including the existence of parallel district court litigation, differing claim construction positions, and a new emphasis on U.S. manufacturing footprint.
• Other IPRs: Notably, Apple also filed IPR2025-01493 against HBCU Messaging US LP, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,089,450 (a different patent than 11,991,601). This parallel IPR also saw the filing of claim construction briefs by both Apple (September 22, 2025) and HBCU (September 22, 2025), and responsive briefs (October 24, 2025), reflecting the ongoing interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges.

The plaintiff, HBCU Messaging US LP, in the patent infringement case HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01199 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is represented by attorneys from Devlin Law Firm LLC and The Shore Firm LLP.

The identified counsel of record for HBCU Messaging US LP includes:

• Timothy Devlin
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Mr. Devlin is frequently involved in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies.
• Neil A. Benchell
  • Role: Counsel (identified as Backup Counsel in related IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Mr. Benchell's practice focuses on intellectual property and patent litigation.
• Michael W. Shore
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP, Austin, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Shore is a prominent patent litigator, particularly active in the Western District of Texas.
• Zachary Della Porta
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP, Austin, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Della Porta represents clients in patent litigation matters.

I'll research defendant-side counsel across both the district court case and the PTAB proceeding, since the case metadata (IPR2026-00107) and the district court docket (1:24-cv-01199) each have different "defendant" parties. Let me run parallel searches.

Good progress. Now let me pin down Green Dot's separate representation, verify the MoFo team, confirm the Fish & Richardson IPR team, and check an odd "Volpe Koenig" reference in the IPR2026-00107 notice.

Defendant‑side counsel of record

Threshold flag — a party‑alignment discrepancy you should resolve before relying on this section. The case metadata captions IPR2026‑00107 with "Defendant(s): Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP." Public records show IPR2026‑00107 is captioned Apple Inc. v. HBCU Messaging US LP, patent 11,991,601, petition filed October 31, 2025 (Ex Parte PTAB docket). HBCU Messaging US LP is the former Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP (Mondaq/patent litigation report), so "Rembrandt Messaging Technologies LP" in the metadata is best read as a legacy naming of the patent owner/respondent, not a true defendant. There is therefore no single "defendant" side across the two proceedings:

I address both defensive postures, plus the petitioner team (because practitioners tracking IPR2026‑00107 will need it).

---

1. District court defendants — Morrison & Foerster LLP (joint counsel for Apple and Green Dot)

All pro hac vice applications in the docket were filed by MoFo "on behalf of Apple, Inc., Green Dot Corporation," and Apple's claim construction papers are signed by the same team — i.e., one firm appears jointly for both defendants. No separate Green Dot‑only firm surfaced in any record I could retrieve.

Not found / not of record: no Apple Inc. or Green Dot in‑house attorney has entered an appearance in the docket entries reviewed; no separate Green Dot litigation firm (e.g., a Delaware or Austin boutique) appears. If Green Dot has separate counsel, it is not reflected in the retrieved docket through the Markman stage — treat that as an open question rather than a negative finding.

---

2. IPR2026‑00107 petitioner (Apple) — Fish & Richardson P.C.

Designations taken verbatim from the certificate of service on Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices served November 21, 2025 (PTAB petition document):

Service/e‑mail routing for the F&R team: IPR50095-0263IP1@fr.com.

---

3. IPR2026‑00107 respondent (HBCU / former Rembrandt Messaging II) — Devlin Law Firm LLC

The patent‑owner side is the same firm already identified in the "Plaintiff representatives" section for the district court case; for completeness in the PTAB posture:

• Timothy Devlin (Reg. No. 41,706) — Lead counsel, Devlin Law Firm LLC, 1526 Gilpin Ave., Wilmington, DE 19806.
• Neil A. Benchell — Backup counsel (pro hac vice forthcoming at the time of the Nov. 21, 2025 notice).
• Feng Xu — Devlin Law Firm, listed in the IPR2026‑00107 counsel table (Ex Parte party page).

Unresolved discrepancy worth flagging: the PTAB's Notice of Filing Date Accorded (Nov. 7, 2025) in IPR2026‑00107 carries a "FOR PATENT OWNER:" block reading VOLPE KOENIG, 30 South 17th Street, 18th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (notice text). That is inconsistent with HBCU's own Mandatory Notice naming Devlin as lead and backup counsel in the companion Apple IPRs. It may be a stale power‑of‑attorney / pre‑acquisition Rembrandt Messaging II address carried onto the notice, or a serving‑address artifact. I could not verify Volpe Koenig's role — do not treat it as counsel of record in IPR2026‑00107 without pulling the paper itself.

---

4. Corrections to the previously generated sections

• Plaintiff's local firm name/address: the filings say "Shore Law Firm" / "The Shore Firm," 5646 Milton Street, Suite 423, Dallas, TX 75206 (and, per the Markman transcript, 901 Main St., Ste. 3300, Dallas) — not Austin, as stated in the prior section. Docket signature blocks also list it as "SHORE LAW FIRM."
• Case number suffix: filings read 1:24‑cv‑01199‑ADA (Judge Albright) — consistent with the prior section's reassignment note; one PTAB exhibit renders it "‑DII," which appears to be an OCR/transcription error, not a second reassignment.
• Markman date: the prior section cites a January 28, 2026 Claim Construction Order; the record I retrieved confirms a Markman hearing held January 23, 2026 before Judge Albright in the Austin Division. The order date itself I could not independently confirm.

Sourcing caveats

Everything above is drawn from docket text (Justia docket for 1:24‑cv‑01199), reproduced court filings and PTAB exhibits (docketalarm, PTAB e‑filing system), and the Jan. 23, 2026 hearing transcript. I did not obtain a PACER docket sheet directly, and I was not able to run further verification searches on (i) Ms. Tavernier's firm, (ii) Volpe Koenig's appearance, or (iii) whether Green Dot retains separate counsel. Those three items should be confirmed against PACER before publication.