Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00951, is actively proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is WeCrevention, Inc., an IP-focused subsidiary of Etron Technology, classifying it as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendant is Apple, Inc., a prominent operating company in the technology sector. WeCrevention alleges that Apple is infringing its patent through the provision of "products that include LPDDR5 DRAM since September of 2019".

The sole patent at issue, as provided, is U.S. Patent No. 12,154,652. A technical sketch of this patent reveals it is titled "Crystalline forms of N-(4-(4-(cyclopropoxymethyl)piperazine-1-carbonyl)phenyl)quinoline-8-sulfonamide" and generally describes pharmaceutical compositions and methods for treating conditions associated with pyruvate kinase. It is important to note that the subject matter of this patent, related to chemical compounds for pharmaceutical use, does not appear to directly align with the accused LPDDR5 DRAM technology, which suggests either an unusual patent assertion strategy or a potential discrepancy in the provided patent information.

The procedural posture places this case in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized as a significant patent litigation hub. The district is known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation, experienced judges in patent matters, and fast-paced dockets, which often attract patent assertion entities. Indeed, the Eastern District of Texas was the top district for overall patent litigation and NPE litigation in the first quarter of 2026. The case is notable for its involvement of an NPE asserting a patent against a major technology operating company like Apple, targeting widely used LPDDR5 DRAM technology, and its filing in a jurisdiction known to be favorable to patent plaintiffs.

This patent infringement litigation, Wecrevention Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00951, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge James R. Gilstrap.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and current posture based on publicly available information:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-09-16): Wecrevention Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas around September 16, 2025. Public records also indicate a connection with Uber Technologies Inc. for case 2:25-cv-00951, dated September 18, 2025, suggesting Uber might be an additional defendant or involved in a related proceeding. Specific details regarding Apple's answer or any counterclaims are not yet publicly available in the general search results.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: As of May 29, 2026, publicly accessible information does not detail any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Given the filing date in September 2025, the case is likely still in its relatively early stages.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: There are no publicly reported claim construction (Markman) orders or schedules for this case at this time. Such proceedings typically occur further into the litigation lifecycle.

• Discovery Milestones: No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported for this case.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: Due to the recent filing date, the case has not yet reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case remains active, and there is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), the USPTO's portal for AIA trial proceedings, for U.S. Patent 12154652, did not yield any publicly listed or instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the time of this report. This suggests that no such administrative challenges on the asserted patent have been publicly instituted, or if filed, their status is not yet publicly visible via general search.

The case number 2:25-cv-00951 appears to be associated with multiple different cases across various U.S. District Courts, which can happen with newly filed cases before they are consolidated or unique identifiers are firmly established. Based on the provided search results, there are active cases with this number in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Western District of Washington, the District of New Jersey, the District of Oregon, the District of Utah, and the District of Maryland. None of these consistently indicate a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas concerning patent 12154652.

To provide accurate information about counsel, it is crucial to confirm the specific case that matches the provided court, case number, and patent. Without this clarification, identifying the correct counsel of record for the specific patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas is not possible from the provided information.

If you can confirm additional details about the case, such as the full case name or the exact filing date in the Eastern District of Texas, I can attempt to locate the relevant docket and counsel information.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in WeCrevention, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00951, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas:

Defendant: Apple, Inc.

As of the latest available information, the specific counsel of record for Apple in this case is not fully detailed in the provided search snippets. While the case details confirm Apple Inc. as the defendant, the appearances of counsel for Apple are not explicitly listed in these results. Therefore, a complete list of attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and specific patent litigation experience for this particular case cannot be provided without further docket access.

Generally, Apple Inc. is a frequent defendant in patent litigation and typically retains prominent intellectual property defense firms. Without direct access to the docket entries for counsel appearances in this specific case, further details would be speculative. If filings are sealed or specific appearances have not yet been made public, that information would not be available through general web searches.