Untitled case

I'll research this case across docket, patent, and news sources.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case and the patent's litigation history.

The case is Lab Technology LLC v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), No. 6:24-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.). Let me verify and gather details.

I have the complete docket for this case. Now let me check for parallel PTAB proceedings and the broader campaign.

I'll research this case to identify plaintiff's counsel. Let me start with several parallel searches.

I found the case: Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:24-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.). Let me dig into counsel.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Threshold correction to the case metadata. The case is not actually "unresolved" as an open matter. Case No. 6:24-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.) is Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, assigned to District Judge Leon Schydlower, filed June 21, 2024. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 7, June 28, 2024), and Judge Schydlower entered an Order Dismissing Case (Doc. 8, July 1, 2024), with the AO-120 report sent to the USPTO the same day (Doc. 9). The case was therefore terminated roughly ten days after filing, before Microsoft answered or appeared. RPX records it as "Closed: 07/01/2024." (Note also that the docket in this district is 6:24-cv-00331-JDK; an unrelated prisoner-medical-care case in the E.D. Tex./Tyler Division shares the number 6:24-cv-00331-JDK, so search results for "6:24-cv-00331" can conflate the two — the patent case is the W.D. Tex. one.)

Plaintiff's counsel appearing on the docket

Observations on the makeup of counsel:

• No separate lead counsel and no local counsel of record. Rabicoff signed every substantive filing himself. There is no Naman Howell, Haley & Olson, Dunnam & Dunnam, or other Waco-based local counsel on the docket — a point worth noting given that Waco practitioners routinely serve as local counsel in W.D. Tex. patent cases. No pro hac vice motion appears on the docket either.
• No in-house counsel appears; Lab Technology LLC is a patent-assertion entity, and the docket shows only the one outside attorney.
• Defendant's counsel: none identified — the case closed before Microsoft appeared, so there is no defense-side counsel of record to report.

Relevant experience (with sourcing caveats)

Isaac Rabicoff is a Chicago-based patent attorney who is publicly known as a high-volume filer of patent infringement complaints on behalf of small patent-holding entities, frequently appearing as the sole attorney of record — a pattern consistent with what the docket shows here. I was unable to confirm his firm name/address or a detailed case history through the searches available in this session, so I am flagging that expressly rather than asserting it as confirmed. If you need his bar admissions, office address, and a verified list of appearances for the '973 family cases, the reliable path is a PACER/attorney-query on the W.D. Tex. docket, plus a check of the related '973 suits.

Related '973-family litigation (context for counsel identification)

Per Unified Patents' Patroll prior-art contest page for US 8,503,973 B1 ("Caller Location for Emergency Services"), the patent (owned by Lab Technology, LLC) "has been asserted against Samsung, Verizon, and Stryker." Those are separate matters from this Microsoft case, and I have not verified who counseled Lab Technology in them — if you want the complete picture of plaintiff-side counsel across the assertion campaign, those dockets (and any Local Patent Rule 3-1/3-2 contentions) would need to be pulled individually.

Bottom line

The only counsel of record representing the plaintiff in 6:24-cv-00331 is Isaac Rabicoff, appearing as sole/lead counsel for Lab Technology LLC for the ten-day life of the case. Any additional attorneys (local counsel, of-counsel) do not exist on this docket — the filings are single-signed. Because the case was voluntarily dismissed, there are no sealed filings or counsel who "hadn't appeared yet" to worry about; the record is simply very thin.

Sources: Patexia Lawsuits docket for Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (services.patexia.com, listing Docs. 1–9); Justia Dockets, Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 6:2024cv00331 (dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2024cv00331/1172792804); RPX Insight litigation page (6:24-cv-00331, W.D. Tex., Judge Schydlower, filed 06/21/2024, closed 07/01/2024); Unified Patents Patroll contest for US 8,503,973 B1.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Found the case. Let me dig deeper into the docket and the defendant's representation.

The docket appears to end with dismissal before any defense appearance. Let me verify via CourtListener/RECAP and check the related filings.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendant in this case — because no attorney ever appeared for Microsoft Corporation. This case (Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:24-cv-00331, W.D. Tex.) was filed on June 21, 2024 and voluntarily dismissed ten days later, on June 28, 2024 (order of dismissal July 1, 2024), before any defense appearance, answer, motion, or extension of time was filed. I searched the public docket aggregators (Justia Dockets, RPX Insight, Docket Alarm, Patexia) and the full docket sheet contains only nine entries, all attributable to the plaintiff or the clerk. I cannot name defense counsel without inventing them, so I will not.

First: this fills the gap flagged in the earlier section

The prior summary noted the case number was listed on the Google Patents family litigation page for the '973 family but that the defendant, filing date, and outcome were not resolved. They are now confirmed:

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the case metadata in this prompt lists the status as "unresolved." The public docket contradicts that — the case was closed on July 1, 2024 and is terminated. The metadata should be updated to "closed/voluntarily dismissed."

The docket, in full (what the record shows)

1. 6/21/2024 — Dkt. 1: Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed by Lab Technology LLC (Exhibits 1–2, Civil Cover Sheet).
2. 6/21/2024 — Dkt. 2: Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Lab Technology LLC (plaintiff side only).
3. 6/21/2024 — Dkt. 3: Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (plaintiff).
4. 6/21/2024 — Dkt. 4: AO 120 patent form forwarded to USPTO.
5. 6/21/2024 — Dkt. 5: Request for issuance of summons.
6. 6/24/2024 — Dkt. 6: Summons issued as to Microsoft Corporation.
7. 6/28/2024 — Dkt. 7: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Lab Technology LLC, signed by Isaac Rabicoff.
8. 7/1/2024 — Dkt. 8: Order dismissing case, signed by Judge Schydlower.
9. 7/1/2024 — Dkt. 9: Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO.

No Dkt. 10 or later exists; the docket was last retrieved July 1, 2024 and shows no further activity.

What this means for the question asked

• No lead counsel, local counsel, of counsel, or in-house attorney for Microsoft is identifiable, because Microsoft never entered an appearance. There is no attorney to list, and no firm-website, Law360, or Reuters Legal announcement of defense counsel would exist for a case that died in week two.
• The four-day gap between summons issuance (June 24) and the notice of voluntary dismissal (June 28) makes it near-certain Microsoft was never served, which is consistent with the complete absence of any defense filing (no Rule 12 motion, no pro hac vice application, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, no standing-order-compliant appearance — all of which W.D. Tex. counsel typically file immediately).
• I found no sealed entries on the docket as reported by the aggregators, so there is no hidden sealed appearance to point to. That said, aggregator dockets can lag PACER by a few days; the last retrieval was July 1, 2024. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation, a direct PACER pull of the full docket for 6:24-cv-00331 is the only authoritative check — but the terminal July 1, 2024 dismissal order makes a later defense appearance legally meaningless.
• I decline to guess at Microsoft's likely counsel. Naming, say, a DLA Piper / Sidley / Fish & Richardson-type firm as "the firm that would have appeared" would be fabrication, not research. Absent a verified appearance in this case, there is nothing to report.

Useful context instead of a fabricated counsel list

Since there's no defense counsel to profile, the more actionable finding is the filing pattern, which affects how you should treat any "counsel" question here:

• The plaintiff's counsel is Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago) — a prolific pro se-style patent plaintiff's bar attorney who files complaints that list no local counsel and frequently dismiss voluntarily within days. Reporting on the parallel Cisco case (6:24-cv-00338) lists only Rabicoff as counsel and notes no defense appearance; reporting on Lab Technology v. Samsung (2:24-cv-00324, E.D. Tex.) states Samsung "had not entered an appearance by the time of dismissal."
• This reflects a coordinated multi-defendant assertion wave on US 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location," E911/emergency-caller-location technology) filed the same week: against Microsoft (6:24-cv-00331), Lyft (6:24-cv-00333), LG Electronics (6:24-cv-00336), NVIDIA (6:24-cv-00337), and Cisco (6:24-cv-00338) in W.D. Tex., plus Samsung (2:24-cv-00324, E.D. Tex.) and later Anritsu/Quectel (2:24-cv-00411/00415, E.D. Tex.).
• Note the RPX Insight page renders as "Patent-in-Suit 1 / 11 Days in Litigation"; the "11" is the days-in-litigation figure, not a patent count. One patent (US 8,503,973) was asserted here.

Caveats on sourcing

• Docket call numbers, dates, and the absence of defense entries are sourced to Justia Dockets, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, and Patexia for 6:24-cv-00331, which agree with each other and use consistent language ("Summons Issued as to Microsoft Corporation," "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal," "ORDER DISMISSING CASE").
• I was unable to complete follow-up searches to confirm the dismissal's terms (with vs. without prejudice) for this Microsoft case, or to check for any post-dismissal refiling against Microsoft. PatSnap's analysis of the sibling cases says the Samsung dismissal was expressly without prejudice; for the W.D. Tex. wave the prejudice term was not stated in the snippets I retrieved. Treat that as unconfirmed for 6:24-cv-00331 specifically.
• If Microsoft was later re-sued on the '973 patent, it would appear under a new case number; the next step would be to search Lab Technology's full docket footprint (the Stanford NPE litigation database lists it as a patent asserter with acquired patents) for any 2025 filing naming Microsoft.

Direct answer to the task, stated plainly: the defendant's counsel of record is none — Microsoft never appeared, no attorney has ever filed on its behalf in 6:24-cv-00331, and the case was dismissed before service/answer. Any list of "defense counsel" for this case would necessarily be invented, and I won't provide one.