Untitled case

Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. The Home Depot, Inc.: A Patent Dispute in the Eastern District of Texas

This active patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:25-cv-00081, was filed on January 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff is Valtrus Innovations Limited, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that asserts patents previously owned by HP Enterprise (HPE). The defendant is The Home Depot, Inc., a major home improvement retailer. Valtrus, along with related entities like Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI), is actively litigating a portfolio of acquired patents, with KPI often acting as the beneficiary of a trust through which these patents are held and asserted. The suit alleges infringement of at least patent U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332, among others, and is part of a broader campaign by Valtrus and KPI targeting various companies.

The accused products or services in the litigation against Home Depot involve a "wide array of products" which, in the context of Valtrus's broader patent assertion campaign (often alongside KPI), have included technologies ranging from Apache Kafka Streams and Apache Cassandra to smartphones and tablets that support Google Maps, based on former HPE patents. U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332, titled "Method and system for managing communication between application programs," generally relates to a system and method designed to facilitate communication and data exchange between different software applications, particularly in a network environment. The procedural posture of the case in the Eastern District of Texas is significant due to the court's historical reputation as a "rocket docket" for patent cases, known for its expedited schedules and plaintiff-friendly local rules. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 limited venue options by restricting where a domestic corporation could be sued for patent infringement to its state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business, plaintiffs (especially NPEs) have developed strategies to navigate these restrictions, sometimes by suing foreign affiliates or relying on interpretations of what constitutes a "regular and established place of business."

The case is notable as part of an ongoing assertion campaign by Valtrus Innovations and its related entity, Key Patent Innovations, against various industry players using a portfolio of acquired patents. This campaign has faced challenges regarding standing and venue, with motions to dismiss and transfer being filed and adjudicated, some even reaching the Federal Circuit via mandamus petitions. The structure of Valtrus holding patents in trust for KPI has also come under scrutiny. While specific IPR linkage for patent 7,640,332 in this case is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the broader context of NPE assertions in the Eastern District of Texas often involves concurrent PTAB challenges. One related entity, Valtrus, has been the subject of an IPR petition concerning a different patent in its portfolio (IPR2026-00060 filed by FedEx against Valtrus Innovations Ltd.), indicating that PTAB challenges are a common defensive strategy against these types of assertions.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement case of Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. The Home Depot, Inc. (2:25-cv-00081) in the Eastern District of Texas has seen several initial legal developments since its filing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-01-27): Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. filed a complaint for patent infringement against The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332 and other patents.
• Appearance of Counsel (2025-01-27): Attorneys Alfred Ross Fabricant, Vincent J Rubino, III, and Peter Lambrianakos entered appearances on behalf of Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
• Disclosure Statement (2025-01-27): Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. filed a Rule 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement, identifying Key Patent Innovations Ltd. as a corporate parent for Valtrus Innovations Ltd., and New PP Licensing LLC as a corporate parent for Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
• Summons Issued (2025-01-28): Summons were issued for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and The Home Depot, Inc., with service confirmed on January 29, 2025.
• Extension of Time to Answer (2025-02-06): The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. filed an unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint.
• Answer Due (2025-04-07): The agreed-upon new answer date for both defendants was set for April 7, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• While the case is active, specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss for improper venue or to stay pending IPR are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results for this particular case (2:25-cv-00081) beyond general references to such motions in broader Valtrus/KPI campaigns. However, it is noted that Valtrus, in a related case, previously argued against motions for intradistrict transfer and for reconsideration of a denied motion to dismiss challenging standing, indicating an active litigation strategy around these issues. A mandamus petition to the Federal Circuit regarding an intradistrict transfer was also mentioned in a related context.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332, one of the patents asserted in this litigation, was the subject of an IPR petition, IPR2026-00039, filed by FedEx Office & Print Services Inc. and FedEx Corp. against Valtrus Innovations Ltd. The petition was filed on October 9, 2025, but was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on February 10, 2026. This indicates an attempt by a third party to challenge the validity of the patent, which was ultimately unsuccessful on procedural grounds. Another IPR, IPR2026-00060, against a different Valtrus patent (8,370,416) also filed by FedEx, was similarly "Not Instituted - Procedural". Google LLC also filed an IPR against Valtrus Innovations, IPR2026-00262, concerning patent 7057509, which is currently pending.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• As of the current date (2026-05-28), the case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. While some sources indicate the case was "closed on 03/12/2026", more recent docket information suggests otherwise. Other cases with the same case number (2:25-cv-00081) but in different courts (e.g., District of Maine, Eastern District of Washington, Northern District of Mississippi, and others) have been dismissed or closed. These are distinct from the Valtrus Innovations v. Home Depot patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas case specifically shows docket activity up to at least April 7, 2025, with an answer due from Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. No final judgment, settlement, or appeal has been reported for Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. The Home Depot, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.

I'll research the plaintiff-side counsel for this case. Let me start with several searches.

Now let me verify the plaintiff's counsel details, including the local counsel and firm information.

Let me get the specific docket entries for the plaintiff's appearances and check for any additional counsel (e.g., pro hac vice or other Fabricant attorneys).

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Note on scope: the plaintiffs are two related Irish entities — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI") — and they are jointly represented by the same team in this case and across Valtrus/KPI's parallel E.D. Tex. campaigns (e.g., the NetApp action, 2:25-cv-00517, and the Lenovo action). The roster below reflects the appearances recorded on the docket of 2:25-cv-00081 together with the counsel signatures on the case filings.

---

Principal Counsel — Fabricant LLP / Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP

Valtrus's lead litigation team is a New York–based IP boutique, Fabricant LLP, which rebranded in March 2026 as Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP ("FRL") (Business Wire, 2026-03-10). All three name partners appear on the docket of this case. The firm has offices in Rye, NY; Short Hills, NJ; Washington, D.C.; and Irvine, CA, and is known for representing patent-holder/PAE plaintiffs on a litigation-finance model.

Vincent J. Rubino, III — Lead Counsel

• Firm / Office: Fabricant LLP (now FRL) — New York, NY (230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor West, New York, NY 10169).
• Docket role: Filed the original complaint on January 27, 2025 (Dkt. #1, COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., The Home Depot, Inc.) and the signature attorney on the plaintiff's extension motions (e.g., Dkt. #16). Entered a notice of appearance the same day.
• Experience note: Founding partner; per his firm bio he has been lead counsel in "hundreds" of patent disputes across E.D. Tex., ITC, PTAB and the Federal Circuit, was the youngest equity partner in Brown Rudnick's history, and is ranked among the country's most active plaintiff-side patent litigators (Patexia #3, 2025; IAM Strategy 300, 2024–2026). Representative matters include an audio-processing verdict against Amazon in E.D. Tex. and a mapping-patent campaign against the smartphone industry.

Alfred Ross Fabricant ("Fred" Fabricant) — Lead Counsel

• Firm / Office: Fabricant LLP (now FRL) — New York, NY.
• Docket role: Notice of attorney appearance on behalf of both plaintiffs (Dkt. #5 in this case; Unicourt lists him among the plaintiff attorneys).
• Experience note: Name partner of the firm; co-founded the boutique in 2020 after Brown Rudnick. Fabricant is a long-time E.D. Tex. patent plaintiffs' litigator, including prior NPE campaigns such as Ultravision Technologies and AGIS Software Development (both before Judge Gilstrap), and has been ranked in Patexia's Top 50 Most Active Patent Litigators (2023).

Peter Lambrianakos — Lead Counsel

• Firm / Office: Fabricant LLP (now FRL) — Rye, NY (411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, NY 10580).
• Docket role: Notice of attorney appearance on behalf of both plaintiffs; listed as a plaintiff attorney on the docket.
• Experience note: Trial lawyer and, as of March 2026, managing partner of FRL; ranked #12 most active patent litigator nationally by Patexia (2023) and noted by Docket Alarm as among the top U.S. attorneys in securing PTAB institution denials. He has appeared in 250+ IPRs/CBMs, covering semiconductors, smartphones, software, acoustics, and mobile payments.

---

Local Counsel — Truelove Law Firm, PLLC

Justin Kurt Truelove — Local Counsel

• Firm / Office: Truelove Law Firm, PLLC — Marshall, Texas (100 West Houston St., Marshall, TX 75670; the firm's address for service is listed at 207 N. Wellington / P.O. Box 1409, Marshall, TX 75671). Texas Bar No. 24013653.
• Docket role: Notice of attorney appearance "on behalf of All Plaintiffs," filed March 19, 2025 (Dkt. #15) — i.e., he was substituted/added as Marshall-based local counsel after the case was filed.
• Experience note: A go-to Marshall local counsel for patent plaintiffs; recent appearances include Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung (2:22-cv-00293), AGIS Software Development v. Acer (2:24-cv-00660), and the ServStor Technologies cases (2:24-cv-00204/-00205) — several of which also involved the Fabricant plaintiff-side team.

---

Notes, Verification, and Gaps

• No in-house counsel appears on the docket. Valtrus/KPI are shell-style foreign holders (registered office in Dublin, Ireland), and all appearances are outside counsel (Fabricant/FRL in this case; note that in other Valtrus matters — e.g., the CyrusOne/Vertiv and Google disputes — different firms appear, including Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Gillam & Smith LLP, but those are not appearances in 2:25-cv-00081).
• Possible additional Fabricant attorney: In the related NetApp case (2:25-cv-00517), a Ryan F. Oliver (Fabricant LLP) also appears. I could not confirm an appearance by Mr. Oliver in the Home Depot docket (2:25-cv-00081) within the search results available, so I do not list him as counsel of record here.
• Docket-entry precision caveat: The specific document numbers for Messrs. Rubino's and Lambrianakos's notices of appearance are not visible in the retrieved docket snippets (the visible plaintiff-side entries are Dkt. #1 complaint, #3 Rule 7.1 disclosure, #5 Fabricant appearance, #15 Truelove appearance, and #16 Rubino-signed motion). Their status as plaintiffs' counsel is, however, confirmed by Unicourt's "Plaintiff Attorneys" listing (Fabricant, Rubino, Lambrianakos, Truelove) and by parallel filings. Treat the individual appearance-document numbers for Rubino and Lambrianakos as unverified.
• Firm-name timing: Filings in this case predate the March 2026 "Fabricant LLP → Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP" rebrand, so current PACER entries will still show "Fabricant LLP"; both names refer to the same firm.
• Sources: Dockets.Justia docket for Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. The Home Depot, Inc. et al (2:25-cv-00081); Unicourt docket snapshot (last updated 2025-03-28) listing plaintiff attorneys; Fabricant/FRL firm bios (frlip.com) for Rubino, Lambrianakos, and Fabricant; Patexia 2023 Top 50 rankings; IAM Strategy 300 profile of Vincent Rubino; and the March 2026 Business Wire rebrand announcement. No sealed plaintiff filings affecting counsel identity were identified.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s)

The following attorneys have entered appearances on behalf of the defendants, The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., in Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. The Home Depot, Inc. (2:25-cv-00081):

• Michael J. McKeon

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. McKeon is a nationally recognized intellectual property and trial attorney with over 25 years of experience representing well-known companies in complex, high-stakes IP disputes in U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Jonathan E. Singer

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: San Diego, California
  • Experience: Mr. Singer is a renowned trial attorney with three decades of experience litigating for life sciences clients and has successfully handled complex pharmaceutical patent matters, including cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Wesley M. Musselman

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Mr. Musselman is a principal in Fish & Richardson's Dallas office, focusing on patent prosecution and litigation, and has experience representing clients in patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas and other federal courts.

• Jonathan Solomon

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Mr. Solomon's practice emphasizes client counseling, patent prosecution, and portfolio management across various fields, including computer software, cloud computing, and telecommunications, and he is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Fish & Richardson P.C. is a prominent intellectual property law firm with a top-ranked patent litigation practice known for representing Fortune 100 companies and handling more district court patent litigation cases than any other national IP law firm over the past five years.