Untitled case

This is an active patent infringement lawsuit filed by Smart Speaker LLC against Amazon.com Services LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Smart Speaker LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) given its name, the nature of its patent holdings, and the fact that its asserted patents, including US 12,401,721 B1, were originally assigned to "May Patents Ltd". The defendant, Amazon.com Services LLC, is a major operating technology company that stands accused of infringing the asserted patents with its Amazon Echo products, which are described as AC-powered appliances with power connectors housed in a single enclosure.

The litigation involves several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,401,721 B1, along with US 11,128,710 B2, US 11,190,590 B2, US 12,010,174 B2, US 12,316,706 B2, and US 12,401,720 B1. All these patents share the general title "System and method for server based control" and are classified under Computer Networks (Art Unit 2450). The case was filed on July 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its expeditious trial dockets and experienced patent judges, making it a favored forum for patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, despite prior Supreme Court decisions like TC Heartland that aimed to restrict venue shopping.

This case is notable due to the plaintiff's apparent nature as a PAE asserting patents against a significant technology company like Amazon, targeting widely used consumer products such as the Echo devices. The procedural posture includes active motions, such as Amazon's motion to dismiss parts of the complaint, and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Amazon.com Services LLC has filed IPRs against Smart Speaker LLC, including IPR2026-00148 (filed November 21, 2025), IPR2026-00276, and IPR2026-00280 (filed March 23, 2026), targeting some of the asserted patents, such as US 12,401,720 B1. These IPRs indicate a multi-front legal battle over the validity of the patents in addition to the ongoing infringement dispute in district court.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Smart Speaker LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00707
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: US 12,401,721, US 11,128,710 B2, US 11,190,590 B2, US 12,010,174 B2, US 12,316,706 B2, and US 12,401,720 B1.

This is an active patent infringement lawsuit filed by Smart Speaker LLC against Amazon.com Services LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The case is currently in its pre-trial phase, with key scheduling orders in place and a Markman hearing set for late 2026.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • 2025-07-11: Smart Speaker LLC initiated the litigation by filing a patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com Services LLC.
  • 2025-10-06: Smart Speaker LLC filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, asserting multiple patents, including US Patent No. 12,401,721.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
  • Amazon.com Services LLC filed a "MOTION to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim."
  • 2025-10-10: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Amazon's motion to dismiss as moot.
• Discovery Milestones:
  • 2025-09-30: A Scheduling Conference/Case Management Conference was held.
  • 2025-10-14: Amazon.com Services LLC filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Discovery Order.
  • 2025-12-04: Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted a motion for an extension of time related to e-discovery.
  • 2025-12-10: Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed an Order Regarding E-Discovery.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
  • 2026-12-14: A Markman/Claim Construction Hearing is scheduled to take place before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Trial Events & Post-Trial Motions:
  • 2027-05-03: A Pretrial Conference is scheduled.
  • 2027-06-07: Jury Selection is scheduled to commence.
• Final Disposition or Present Posture: The case remains active with scheduled future proceedings. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached to date.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

While the litigation is ongoing, several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Amazon.com Services LLC against Smart Speaker LLC concerning other patents asserted in the district court case. An attorney for Smart Speaker LLC is actively involved in "related IPR proceedings."

• IPR2026-00146: Filed by Amazon.com Services LLC against Smart Speaker LLC on 2025-11-21, challenging US Patent No. 12,316,706 B2, one of the patents asserted in the district court case. Institution of this IPR was granted on 2026-05-06.
• IPR2026-00148: Filed by Amazon.com Services LLC against Smart Speaker LLC on 2025-11-21. The specific patent challenged in this IPR was not explicitly identified in the available search results.
• IPR2026-00276 and IPR2026-00280: Both filed on 2026-03-23 by Amazon.com Services LLC against Smart Speaker LLC, challenging US Patent No. 12,401,720 B1, another patent involved in the district court litigation.

As of the current date, no PTAB IPR or PGR proceeding specifically challenging US Patent No. 12,401,721 has been identified through the conducted searches.

In the patent infringement case Smart Speaker LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, the plaintiff, Smart Speaker LLC, is represented by several law firms and attorneys.

Here is the identified counsel for the plaintiff:

Fabricant LLP (New York, NY)

• Vincent J. Rubino, III (Lead Counsel)
  • Experience: Vincent J. Rubino, III is listed as counsel for Smart Speaker LLC and was part of the legal team that secured a $5 million patent infringement verdict for Vocalife, LLC against Amazon, related to smart speaker technology.
• Ryan F. Oliver (Lead Counsel)
• Peter Lambrianakos (Lead Counsel)
• Clark Theodore Gordon (Lead Counsel)

Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX and Tyler, TX)

• Melissa R. Smith (Local Counsel / Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX)
  • Experience: Melissa R. Smith is a partner at Gillam & Smith and tries lawsuits in state and federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas for both plaintiffs and defendants. She has had verdicts listed in Verdict Search's Top Texas Verdicts for nine separate years and was inducted into the Texas Lawyer's Texas Verdicts Hall of Fame in 2013. She has served as local counsel for visiting lawyers in over three thousand patent cases and has been recognized as a "go-to" lawyer for numerous Fortune 500 companies in intellectual property. She has been named a Texas Superlawyer every year since 2008. The firm has significant experience in patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants.
• Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr. (Local Counsel / Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX)
  • Experience: Harry L. "Gil" Gillam, Jr. is a founding partner of Gillam & Smith and is experienced in intellectual property litigation, personal injury, and business litigation.

Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation (Tyler, TX)

• Michael E. Jones (Local Counsel / Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Minton (Tyler, TX)
  • Experience: Michael E. Jones tries lawsuits in state and federal courts, emphasizing intellectual property litigation. He has tried cases involving patent infringement and has successfully tried cases for both plaintiffs and defendants. His trial experience includes a $41 million dollar judgment for a plaintiff in a patent infringement case, reported in the Top Ten Texas Verdicts and Settlements for 2004. He has also been designated a "go to" lawyer for numerous Fortune 500 Companies in intellectual property litigation. He is also the founder of Jones IP Law. Potter Minton attorneys have handled hundreds of patent cases and tried dozens to verdict in the Eastern District of Texas.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

• While Ward, Smith & Hill has a strong presence in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and has been noted for securing large verdicts for plaintiffs, and frequently assists lawyers nationwide as local counsel, recent information indicates that as of October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith were ending their trial practices, with the remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry. The search results do not explicitly confirm their continued representation of Smart Speaker LLC in this specific case, but their firm was active at the time the case was filed.

Truelove Law Firm

• Justin Kurt Truelove (Counsel)

It's worth noting that Fabricant LLP was involved in a previous patent infringement case against Amazon (Vocalife, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.) concerning smart speaker technology, where they secured a $5 million verdict for the plaintiff.

Defendant Representatives in Smart Speaker LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC is represented by counsel, with at least one attorney having filed an appearance in the case.

• Matthew Robert Stephens
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Firm information not immediately available in search results, but typically associated with an appearance)
  • Office Location: (Location not immediately available in search results)
  • Note: Matthew Robert Stephens filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Amazon.com Services LLC on December 8, 2025.

Further attorneys representing Amazon.com Services LLC in this specific district court case were not explicitly identified in the provided search results beyond the appearance of Matthew Robert Stephens. However, it is common for large corporations like Amazon to be represented by a team of attorneys, including both in-house counsel and external law firms, often with local counsel for cases in specific districts.

Notably, Amazon.com Services LLC is also involved in parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against Smart Speaker LLC, specifically IPR2026-00145 and IPR2026-00148. While the specific attorneys representing Amazon in those PTAB proceedings are listed as "Attorneys for Amazon.com Services LLC," individual names are not detailed in the provided snippets. However, firms like Fenwick & West LLP have represented Amazon in other significant patent litigation cases, such as a recent Federal Circuit victory related to Prime Video. It is possible that attorneys from such firms are also involved in this district court case.