Untitled case

I'll research this case to provide an accurate overview.

Zendesk is the defendant. Let me dig into the patent, the entity, and counsel.

Let me verify the patent, the entities, and the dismissal terms.

Case Overview — Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Wis.)

Parties. The plaintiff, Lab Technology LLC, is a New Mexico entity with a stated principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Albuquerque, NM (per its parallel complaint in Lab Technology v. Lumen Technologies, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00172). Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies it as a non-practicing entity whose asserted patents are "acquired patents," and it has no apparent operating business (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/lab-technology-llc). It is represented in this and nearly all of its suits by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Dkt. 2, Notice of Appearance, Apr. 17, 2025). Lab Technology has run a broad, short-lived assertion campaign since mid-2024 against telecom/UCaaS and consumer-electronics targets — Anritsu and Quectel (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00411, -00415), Lyft, NVIDIA, LG Electronics USA (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00333, -00336, -00337), Cisco (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00338), Lumen (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00172), u-blox (N.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-00610), Mitel and Sangoma (S.D. Fla.), and Greenlight Financial (D. Del.). The defendant, Zendesk, Inc., is an operating company — the well-known San Francisco–based customer-service/CRM software vendor (help desk, messaging, and cloud contact-center tools), which was taken private in a Hellman & Friedman–led buyout that closed in 2022. Zendesk appeared through Neil Joseph McNabnay and Lance Wyatt (Dkt. 9, 10, 11, May 14, 2025); I could not verify their firm affiliation from the sources retrieved, so I flag that as unconfirmed.

Patent-in-suit and accused technology. The complaint (Dkt. 1, Apr. 17, 2025) asserts a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102, attaching the patent as Exhibit 1 and one claim chart as Exhibit 2. Per Lab Technology's own complaint language in the companion Lumen case, the '102 patent is titled "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes," issued July 9, 2013, from an application filed October 29, 2007 — i.e., claims directed to storing/using a mapping of a caller's voice (identity) across disparate telephony networks, with time attributes qualifying or aging that mapping (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69909727/1/1/lab-technology-llc-v-lumen-technologies-inc/). Notably, the '102 patent is not the emergency-caller-location patent (that is U.S. 8,503,973, which Lab Technology typically pairs with '102 in its E911-focused suits); the Zendesk case asserts only '102. The specific accused Zendesk product or feature is not confirmed from the docket entries I was able to retrieve — the complaint's claim chart was not in the public RECAP collection. Given the patent's subject matter (voice-identity mapping across phone networks) and Zendesk's product lineup, the likely target is Zendesk's cloud voice/contact-center telephony offering (e.g., Zendesk Talk), but that is inference, not a sourced fact, and should be verified against the complaint's Exhibit 2.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed April 17, 2025 in the Western District of Wisconsin, the case was randomly assigned to District Judge William M. Conley with Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor (docket assignment entry, Apr. 18, 2025). Zendesk answered and counterclaimed with a jury demand on May 14, 2025 (Dkt. 10), and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on May 27, 2025 (Dkt. 12); the case was closed the next day, May 28, 2025, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) — i.e., a self-executing stipulated dismissal requiring no court order (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/wisconsin/wiwdc/3:2025cv00303/54390). Total life: roughly six weeks. W.D. Wis. is an atypical venue for a New Mexico NPE suing a San Francisco software company; the district is not a traditional PAE forum, and I could not confirm what Zendesk facility or acts supported the venue allegations (the complaint text itself wasn't retrievable). Practically, the venue's significance here is mostly negative: it confirms the modern practice of scattering single-patent complaints across low-volume districts, and it shows the case never reached venue, claim construction, or § 101/§ 112 motion practice. What is notable about this case is the pattern, not any merits ruling. Lab Technology's campaign is characterized by near-immediate stipulated or voluntary dismissals — the Lyft case was voluntarily dismissed within about a week, the Sangoma case ended in a with-prejudice voluntary dismissal after 44 days, and the Lumen case was voluntarily dismissed in June 2025 — consistent with rapid pre-answer licensing/settlement or covenant-not-to-sue resolutions rather than adjudication (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/lab-technology-llc-v-sangoma-technologies-e911-patent-case-ends-in-swift-voluntary-dismissal-patsnap-eureka/). Whether the Zendesk dismissal was with or without prejudice, and whether a license was taken, is not disclosed in the docket text retrieved — that gap matters, because a with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-assertion of the '102 claims against Zendesk while a without-prejudice dismissal preserves Lab Technology's options. On the defensive side, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination on November 27, 2024 against Lab Technology's U.S. 8,498,388 (an audio-announcement patent asserted against Amazon and Google), showing organized deterrence interest in this portfolio, though I found no confirmed IPR or reexamination of the '102 patent (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2024/11/27/lab-technology-audio-announcement-patent-challenged). Industry context: Lab Technology's patents sit on functionality that is commercially unavoidable — emergency-caller location/E911 compliance (Kari's Law, RAY BAUM's Act) for the '973 patent, and telephony call-identity handling for '102 — which gives the campaign broad reach across UCaaS, VoIP, and contact-center vendors; a fast, quiet dismissal against a first-rate operating company like Zendesk is therefore best read as licensing behavior in a low-visibility NPE campaign rather than a test of the patent's validity.

Sourcing caveats (not verified): (1) the accused Zendesk product(s) named in Exhibit 2; (2) whether the stipulated dismissal was with or without prejudice and any settlement/license terms; (3) defense counsel's law firm; (4) the '102 patent's original assignee and inventor chain beyond "acquired patent" per Stanford; and (5) whether any PTAB proceeding has targeted the '102 patent specifically. Each of these should be confirmed against PACER (Dkts. 1, 1-2, 12) and the USPTO PTAB/reexam dockets before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with broad searches on the case number and parties.

Key facts identified. Now let me dig into the patent, the dismissal, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me investigate the patent itself, the Zendesk counterclaims, and any IPR activity.

Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Wis.) — Litigation Chronology and Outcome

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, single-defendant patent case that terminated by stipulated dismissal roughly six weeks after filing. It never reached answer-stage scheduling, Markman, discovery, or trial, and I found no PTAB proceeding against the asserted patent. The case is a data point in a much broader, rapidly-dismissed assertion campaign by Lab Technology LLC.

---

1. Parties, patent, and forum

Source: Justia Dockets — Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc.; Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

The patent. U.S. 8,483,102 (application 11/926,390), titled "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes." It is the sole patent asserted in this case, and it appears to be the flagship of Lab Technology's telephony portfolio, having also been asserted against AT&T (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00412) and Zoom (D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711). Source: PatSnap case summary, Lab Technology v. AT&T (secondary/AI-generated summary — treat with caution); UniCourt docket excerpt, D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711 (Exhibit 1 = the '102 patent).

---

2. Chronology of docket events

Filing and initial pleadings

2025-04-17 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Complaint for patent infringement against Zendesk, Inc., with a § 271 cause of action, filed with Exhibit 1 (U.S. 8,483,102) and Exhibit 2 (claim chart for the '102 patent). Notice of Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff filed the same day (Dkt. 2). The Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure filed that day was docketed in error and later disregarded ("To be refiled on this court's form," Dkt. 3).

2025-04-18 — Administrative events. Summons issued as to Zendesk (Dkt. 6); Report on Filing of Patent Action transmitted to the USPTO (Dkt. 7); case randomly assigned to Judge Conley and Magistrate Judge Boor; the court's standard Judge-Conley attachments (NORTC and corporate disclosure form) issued for service.

2025-04-30 — Plaintiff's corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 8). Lab Technology filed its Rule 7.1 statement — consistent with the NPE database's description of it as an entity holding acquired patents with no parent/affiliate disclosure of operating assets. In later Lab Technology filings (e.g., D. Del. 1:26-cv-01120) the disclosure states "No Parents or Affiliates Listed."

Answer and counterclaims

2025-05-14 — Zendesk's responsive pleading (Dkt. 10). Defendant filed an ANSWER with Jury Demand and a COUNTERCLAIM against Lab Technology LLC. On the same date Zendesk filed its Notice of Appearance (Dkt. 9, Neil J. McNabnay) and its Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 11).

Strategic significance: the counterclaim is the key event that closed Lab Technology's unilateral exit window. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order only before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Once Zendesk answered on 2025-05-14, Lab Technology could no longer dismiss unilaterally and had to obtain Zendesk's agreement or a court order. The public docket does not reproduce the text of the counterclaim; based on Fish & Richardson's standard practice in parallel Lab Technology matters, it would ordinarily seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and/or invalidity of the '102 patent. I could not verify the specific counterclaim counts from a primary source — the docket entry is descriptive only. (Flagged as unconfirmed.)

2025-05-15 — Deficiency/administrative request. The court asked Zendesk to complete and file the court's form regarding disclosure of corporate affiliations and citizenship.

Termination

2025-05-27 — Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 12). Filed by Isaac Rabicoff (plaintiff's counsel), with a proposed order attached. The docket text designates it a "STIPULATION of Dismissal," which is the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) mechanism (a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared) rather than a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — consistent with the fact that Zendesk had already answered and counterclaimed.

2025-05-28 — Case closed. Docket entry: "Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), this case is closed without further order of the court." No separate merits ruling issued. Elapsed time from complaint to closure: 41 days.

Source for all docket entries: Justia Dockets (docket last retrieved 2025-05-28).

Terms of the dismissal — not confirmed. The publicly available docket text for Dkt. 12 does not reproduce the stipulation's operative language, so I cannot confirm whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, whether Zendesk's counterclaims were dismissed on different terms, or whether the stipulation contained a "each party bears its own costs and fees" clause. Given the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) route and the absence of any fee motion, a negotiated, no-fee, likely without-prejudice exit is the most probable reading — but this is inference, not a sourced fact.

---

3. Stages that never occurred

For completeness, the following categories in your request were not reached in this case, and I found no evidence of any of them:

• Pre-trial motions of substance: No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for preliminary injunction, and no summary judgment motion. The case ended before the Rule 26(f) conference, so no scheduling order, no protective order, and no infringement/invalidity contentions were ever due or filed.
• Claim construction (Markman): None. No joint claim construction statement, no Markman briefing, no claim construction order. The case terminated well before the point at which W.D. Wis. Local Patent Rules would have set a claim construction schedule.
• Discovery milestones: None. No written discovery, depositions, expert reports, or ESI disputes are reflected on the docket.
• Trial and post-trial motions: None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL or new trial motions, no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, no bill of costs.
• Appeal: None. A stipulated Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits and, on this record, generated no Federal Circuit appeal. As of 2026-09-13 I found no further Zendesk-related docket activity in W.D. Wis. No. 3:25-cv-00303.

---

4. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings on U.S. 8,483,102

No IPR or PGR petition against the '102 patent was found in my searches. No PTAB trial number (IPR2024-xxxxx / IPR2025-xxxxx) tied to U.S. 8,483,102 appears in the litigation databases, PTAB tracking sites, or secondary coverage I reviewed. Consequently:

• There was no PTAB proceeding whose schedule could have motivated a stay motion in this case, and none that shaped the (very short) litigation timeline.
• The absence of a PTAB challenge is itself notable: Lab Technology's dismissals came so quickly (weeks) in most venues that defendants had little practical opportunity to file, and little incentive to pay PTAB petition fees for, an IPR before the case evaporated.

Related but not on-point activity (different patent): Unified Patents ran a Patroll prior-art contest on Lab Technology's U.S. 8,498,388 B1 ("Audio Announcement Delivery"), prize $2,000, running 2024-06-06 to 2024-08-30, noting that patent had been asserted against Samsung, Verizon, Quectel Wireless, Ericsson, Anritsu, Stryker, Amazon, and Bose. That contest concerns the '388 patent, not the '102 patent, and I found no corresponding Unified action on the '102. Source: Unified Patents Patroll contest, US-8,498,388-B1.

Caveat: My PTAB searches were targeted rather than an exhaustive run of the USPTO Patent Trial Appeal Board API for every party name and patent number. The statement "no IPR/PGR on the '102 exists" should therefore be treated as no evidence found rather than as a verified negative; a definitive check would be a USPTO PTAB proceeding search restricted to patent 8,483,102 and to petitioner "Zendesk."

---

5. Campaign context (why this case looks the way it does)

The 41-day lifecycle here is not anomalous — it is Lab Technology's operating pattern. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists Lab Technology LLC as a non-practicing entity asserting acquired patents across a wide defendant set, with the '303 case being one of at least eight tracked filings:

• Lab Technology LLC v. Anritsu Corp., 2:24-cv-00411 (E.D. Tex.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co., 2:24-cv-00415 (E.D. Tex.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Lyft, Inc., 6:24-cv-00333 (W.D. Tex.) — filed 2024-06-21, closed 2024-06-28 (8 days)
• Lab Technology LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 6:24-cv-00337 (W.D. Tex.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 6:24-cv-00336 (W.D. Tex.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., 3:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Wis.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. u-blox America, Inc., 4:25-cv-00610 (N.D. Tex.)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Mitel Networks, Inc., 1:25-cv-22712 (S.D. Fla.)

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database — Lab Technology LLC; RPX Insight — Lab Technology v. Lyft.

Comparable fast exits are documented elsewhere in the campaign: Zoom (D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711, filed 2024-06-19, voluntary dismissal notice 2024-06-28, dismissal granted 2024-07-01 — 12 days) and AT&T (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00412, dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 2024-07-03, 29 days). The consistent structural feature is dismissal without prejudice, which preserves Lab Technology's right to refile against the same defendant and means no defendant obtains res judicata protection from these exits.

One countervailing data point on the portfolio's durability: in Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del. July 23, 2026), Judge Barker granted a Rule 12 motion and held U.S. 9,219,982 (a different Lab Technology telephony patent, directed to automatically refreshing a telephone display) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at Alice step one/step two, and dismissed with prejudice, denying leave to amend as futile. That is a § 101 ruling on a sibling patent, not the '102 patent, but it is relevant to the portfolio's overall validity risk profile and to how readily these Lab Technology patents may fall on eligibility grounds. Source: VitalLaw, IP Law Daily, 2026-07-30.

---

6. Final disposition and present posture

Final disposition (2025-05-28): Case closed by stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), without any judicial determination of infringement, validity, enforceability, or claim scope. No injunction, no damages, no fee award, no appeal.

Present posture (as of 2026-09-13): Closed / inactive. No refiling by Lab Technology against Zendesk in W.D. Wis. was found, and — because the dismissal appears to have been without prejudice — Lab Technology is not precluded from re-asserting the '102 patent against Zendesk. The practical consequence for Zendesk is that it obtained a cost-efficient exit (it appeared and answered within 27 days of filing, before any discovery expense) but no merits adjudication and no preclusion defense.

Assessment for further inquiry: The three open factual questions worth resolving from primary sources are (i) whether Dkt. 12 dismissed Zendesk's counterclaims and on what prejudice terms, (ii) whether a confidential license or standstill agreement accompanied the stipulation, and (iii) whether an IPR on the '102 was ever filed by any Lab Technology target. None of the three is answerable from the aggregated docket material I reviewed; each would require PACER pull of Dkt. 10 and 12 for the '303 case and a USPTO PTAB proceeding search on patent 8,483,102.

---

Sourcing note

Docket-event dates and entry numbers above come from the Justia Dockets mirror of the W.D. Wis. PACER docket for 3:25-cv-00303 (last retrieved 2025-05-28) and are reproduced without embellishment. Party/counsel identifications for Zendesk's Fish & Richardson team are corroborated by a parallel Zendesk patent matter (D. Del. 1:24-cv-01003, WebSock Global Strategies v. Zendesk), where the same two attorneys appear for Zendesk. I have expressly flagged as unconfirmed the counterclaim counts, the prejudice terms of the dismissal, and the negative PTAB finding, and I did not locate any court opinion, Law360, Reuters Legal, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O coverage of this specific docket — unsurprising for a 41-day case disposed of by stipulation.

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with several searches.

Defendant identified as Zendesk, Inc. Now let me research plaintiff's counsel.

Let me confirm the full docket and any additional counsel appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Case: Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Wis.)
Filed: April 17, 2025 · Closed: May 28, 2025 (voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), Dkt. 12)

Confirmed counsel of record

Docket support

• Dkt. 1 – Complaint for patent infringement against Zendesk, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 (Ex. 1 = the patent; Ex. 2 = claim chart), signed/filed by Rabicoff. (docket)
• Dkt. 2 – Notice of Appearance filed by Isaac Rabicoff for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC (Apr. 17, 2025). This is the only plaintiff-side appearance on the docket.
• Dkt. 8 – Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC (Apr. 30, 2025). (Also shows the entity has no parent and no 10% publicly held owner — consistent with Rabicoff's other Lab Technology filings, e.g., D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711.)
• Dkt. 12 – Stipulation of Dismissal, filed by Rabicoff (May 27, 2025); case closed May 28, 2025.

Explicit caveats

• No other plaintiff-side attorneys appear on the docket. There is no local-counsel appearance (e.g., a Wisconsin firm), no second notice of appearance, and no pro hac vice motion by any other lawyer for Lab Technology. Rabicoff appears to have handled the case single-handedly.
• The docket as retrieved reflects activity only through May 28, 2025; because the case was dismissed roughly six weeks after filing, there is little room for later appearances, but I cannot rule out sealed or post-retrieval filings. The complaint and exhibits do not appear to have been filed under seal.
• Rabicoff Law's current office address is not perfectly consistent across sources: a 2024 Lab Technology filing in D. Colo. lists 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Ste. 315, Chicago; older PTAB powers of attorney list 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, and a Harrison, NY address appears in one 2023 W.D. Tex. filing. Treat "Chicago, IL" as the firm's location, with the street address as of 2024 being the Ravenswood one.

For context (adverse side, not requested but useful)

Defendant Zendesk, Inc. was represented by Neil J. McNabnay (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 9) and Lance Wyatt (Answer/Counterclaim, Dkt. 10–11) — both associated with Fish & Richardson's Dallas office in other Zendesk patent matters. Zendesk answered and counterclaimed on May 14, 2025, but the parties stipulated to dismissal two weeks later, before any motion practice or scheduling order.

Bottom line: The only attorney representing the plaintiff is Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), acting as lead and sole counsel of record in this short-lived W.D. Wis. action.

I'll research this case to identify the defendant(s) and their counsel of record.

The defendant is Zendesk, Inc. Let me dig into the docket and counsel details.

Now let me confirm the full docket on CourtListener/RECAP and get firm/office details.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

The sole defendant in Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00303 (W.D. Wis.) is Zendesk, Inc. (the docket also lists Zendesk as counter-claimant). Two attorneys appeared for Zendesk, both from Fish & Richardson P.C.:

Docket grounding

• ECF No. 9 (May 14, 2025): "Notice of Appearance filed by Neil Joseph McNabnay for Defendant Zendesk, Inc."
• ECF No. 10 (May 14, 2025): "ANSWER with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Lab Technology LLC by Zendesk, Inc. (Wyatt, Lance)"
• ECF No. 11 (May 14, 2025): "Corporate Disclosure Statement by Counter Claimant Zendesk, Inc., Defendant Zendesk, Inc. (Wyatt, Lance)"
• ECF No. 12 (May 27, 2025): "STIPULATION of Dismissal" — filed by plaintiff's counsel (Rabicoff); case closed May 28, 2025 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) without further order.
• Source: Justia docket, Lab Technology LLC v. Zendesk, Inc., No. 3:2025cv00303 (W.D. Wis.), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/wisconsin/wiwdc/3:2025cv00303/54390 (docket last retrieved May 28, 2025; docket listing names Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. as Zendesk's representative).

Important caveats / gaps

• No local (Wisconsin) counsel of record appears in the docket snapshot I could retrieve. Both defense attorneys filed directly. W.D. Wis. practice would normally require pro hac vice admission for out-of-state counsel, but no PHV motion or order appears in the retrieved docket listing — the Justia snapshot omits attachment-level detail, so this is a gap rather than a confirmed absence. Fees were paid and papers accepted, so admissions were presumably handled administratively or off the visible docket.
• No in-house Zendesk attorney appeared on the docket.
• Because the case was voluntarily dismissed (stipulated) on May 27–28, 2025, these appearances are now historical; the filings were not sealed.
• I could not retrieve the full PACER docket sheet or the text of the Answer/Counterclaim to enumerate every attorney signature block. It is possible additional Fish & Richardson attorneys signed the Answer or counterclaim without separately filing notices of appearance.

Context on Zendesk's counsel relationship

Fish & Richardson appears to be Zendesk's regular patent-defense firm. In a 2024 Delaware case, Zendesk moved for pro hac vice admission of Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt (with Fish's Wilmington, DE attorney Jeremy Anderson as Delaware counsel), showing the same McNabnay–Wyatt pairing has represented Zendesk together before. (Ex Parte/patent-litigation party profile for Zendesk, Inc., citing D. Del. docket entries dated Sept. 27–30, 2024.)

Plaintiff's counsel (for contrast)

Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (ECF No. 2, Notice of Appearance, Apr. 17, 2025; ECF No. 12 Stipulation of Dismissal) — a high-volume patent-assertion boutique that also represented Lab Technology in Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems (W.D. Tex., No. 6:24-cv-00338, asserting a related Lab Technology patent, U.S. 8,503,973, also voluntarily dismissed).