Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Tex. 3:25-cv-02642)

This patent infringement litigation, though voluntarily dismissed in the Northern District of Texas, represents a segment of a broader campaign by Avant Location Technologies LLC (Avant) against Apple Inc., primarily centered on technology related to monitoring mobile station presence. Avant Location Technologies LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC, indicating its business model likely revolves around asserting patent rights rather than producing goods or services. Conversely, Apple Inc. is a global operating company renowned for its consumer electronics, software, and online services, including iconic products like the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. The accused products in this campaign are Apple devices that implement the "Find My" feature, which allows users to locate lost devices.

The primary patent at issue in this campaign, U.S. Patent 8,738,040, generally relates to methods for monitoring the presence of a mobile station. Avant had initially filed a complaint against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00757-JRG) asserting this and six other patents. This initial Eastern District case was subsequently transferred, and Avant then refiled a case against Apple (3:25-cv-02642-X) in the Northern District of Texas. However, Avant voluntarily dismissed the Northern District of Texas case without prejudice on October 1, 2025. Within hours of this dismissal, Avant filed a new complaint asserting the same seven patents against Apple in the Western District of Texas (7:25-cv-00445-ADA), where the litigation is currently active. The specific judge for the dismissed Northern District of Texas case (3:25-cv-02642-X) could not be definitively identified through web search.

This litigation is notable due to Avant's strategy of repeatedly filing and refiling in different Texas districts, a common tactic employed by NPEs in the wake of the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, which significantly altered patent venue rules. While the Eastern District of Texas was historically a major hub for patent litigation, TC Heartland limited venue primarily to where a defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business. This led to a shift in filings, with the Northern and Western Districts of Texas seeing increased patent litigation activity, particularly from NPEs. Apple has also responded to Avant's assertions by filing petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the patentability of all asserted claims, including those of U.S. Patent 8,738,040. These IPR proceedings are potentially case-dispositive and are expected to be decided before any trial in the Western District of Texas case. This interplay between district court litigation and parallel PTAB IPRs is a significant aspect of contemporary patent disputes.

I'll research this case and its related proceedings to build the chronological development timeline.

Let me dig into the specifics of the N.D. Tex. docket, the W.D. Tex. refiling, and the PTAB proceedings.

Key development found: the PTAB appears to have denied institution on the '040 patent IPR. Let me verify these outcomes and check the current posture of the W.D. Tex. case.

I've gathered substantial sourced detail. Note: I exhausted my search budget before I could individually verify every 2026 development, so I flag below exactly what is confirmed versus inferred.

---

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Avant Location Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc.

Framing note

The case identified in the metadata — 3:25-cv-02642 (N.D. Tex.) — is not a stand‑alone action; it is the transferred remnant of Avant's original suit. It lived on the N.D. Tex. docket for roughly one day, was voluntarily dismissed, and the real dispute moved to W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA and the PTAB. The chronology below therefore treats 3:25-cv-02642 as one event in a longer chain, which is the only way the "outcome" makes sense.

---

I. Filing & initial pleadings

2024-09-13 — E.D. Tex. complaint (pre-history, lead case 2:24-cv-00757-JRG).
Avant Location Technologies LLC sued Apple Inc. in the Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap), asserting seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,040; 10,009,720; 9,042,910; 8,934,922; 9,119,030; 9,485,621; and 9,622,032. All are claimed members of one family, directed to "monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area." The accused instrumentalities are Apple products implementing Find My (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple Watch, Mac, AirPods, AirTag, Apple Pencil, Vision Pro). (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 12–28.)

2024-10-23 — Consolidation. The court consolidated the Apple case with the related ecobee action (2:24-cv-00354-JRG), with 2:24-cv-00757 designated lead case for all pretrial issues. (Dkt. 12.) The ecobee case is important later — it supplies the earlier trial date that drives the PTAB's discretionary analysis.

2024-12-02 — Docket Control Order (Dkt. 36). Set (among other dates) P.R. 4-5(a) opening claim-construction briefs for 2025-10-03 and a Markman hearing for 2025-11-14, with jury selection 2026-05-18. None of these claim-construction deadlines were ever reached — the case was transferred first. Fact discovery was likewise only at an early stage.

Apple's answer/counterclaims: I did not find a record of Apple's answer being filed in E.D. Tex. before transfer (Apple was on an extended answer deadline; Dkt. 11 granted an extension to 2024-11-23). Treat "answer + counterclaims" as not confirmed for the E.D. Tex. stage.

---

II. Pre-trial motions of substance (the dispositive thread)

Motion to dismiss / transfer (venue). Apple moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer to N.D. Cal. under § 1404(a) (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 33); Avant opposed (Dkt. 59). The court heard argument 2025-08-28 (Dkt. 87).

2025-09-29 — Transfer order (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 93). Judge Gilstrap granted the motion "as modified," holding that the Apple Shop locations inside Best Buy stores are physical "regular and established place of business[es]" in the district under In re Cray, but that they had not been shown to be places "of" Apple — so venue was improper. Rather than dismiss, the court held that "in the interest of justice" the case should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This is the event that generates case 3:25-cv-02642. Apple later filed this order as supplemental authority in a parallel dispute (Notice of Supplemental Authority, 2025-10-06, citing Avant Location Dkt. 93 and the companion Advanced Coding Techs. LLC v. Apple orders).

2025-09-30 — Docketing in N.D. Tex. The transferred action opened as Avant Location Tech LLC v. Apple Inc., 3:25-cv-02642 (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division). Date/timing caveat: the Ex Parte case page lists "Filed 09/30/25" but also shows a "Closed (09/29/25)" status — an internal inconsistency I cannot resolve from public sources. The user-supplied section states dismissal on 2025-10-01, which matches the parallel record and is the better date.

2025-10-01 — Voluntary dismissal of 3:25-cv-02642. Avant filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. This was part of a coordinated move: on the same day, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC dismissed its own just-transferred N.D. Tex. Apple cases (3:25-cv-02666-L; 3:25-cv-02667-L-BW) by identical notice. The pattern

The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, was represented by a team of attorneys in the voluntarily dismissed Northern District of Texas case (3:25-cv-02642). While comprehensive docket information for this specific dismissed case is not readily available through public web search, details from related Avant Location Technologies LLC litigation against Apple Inc., particularly the ongoing Western District of Texas case (7:25-cv-00445-ADA) and the initial Eastern District of Texas case (2:24-cv-00757-JRG), provide insight into their typical counsel.

Based on these related filings and general practices for patent assertion entities, the following attorneys are likely to have been involved, or are representative of the type of counsel Avant Location Technologies LLC retains:

• Michael F. Heim

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston, TX).
  • Note: Mr. Heim is a founding partner and managing director of Heim, Payne & Chorush, specializing exclusively in intellectual property litigation and antitrust lawsuits involving intellectual property. He has extensive experience representing plaintiffs in patent litigation across various technologies in federal district courts nationwide, including the Eastern District of Texas, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has been recognized as Houston's Lawyer of the Year for patent and intellectual property infringement trials.

• Scott W. Weatherford

  • Role: Local Counsel (likely, given his practice in Texas).
  • Firm: Jackson Walker (Austin, TX).
  • Note: Mr. Weatherford is an innovative trial attorney focusing on intellectual property, trade secret, and technology-related commercial disputes. He advocates for various clients in state and federal courts across Texas and has been admitted to practice before all Texas federal district courts.

• Christopher M. Joe

  • Role: Local Counsel (likely, given his practice in Dallas).
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC (Dallas, TX).
  • Note: Mr. Joe is a top-rated Intellectual Property Litigation attorney in Dallas, TX, and a founding partner of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, an intellectual property and commercial litigation boutique firm. His firm focuses on patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and unfair competition litigation.

• Nathaniel J. Palmer

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Reid Collins & Tsai LLP (Austin, TX).
  • Note: Mr. Palmer is a partner at Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, representing plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes, complex commercial litigation, and regularly appears in federal and state courts across the nation. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Texas, and has experience with cases involving a failed $1 billion contract with Apple Inc.

It is important to note that while the Northern District of Texas case was dismissed, these attorneys or attorneys with similar profiles at these firms frequently represent patent owners like Avant Location Technologies LLC in Texas district court litigation and related PTAB proceedings. For instance, Peter Lambrianakos of Fabricant LLP is listed as lead counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in related IPR proceedings challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030.

The case 3:25-cv-02642 in the Northern District of Texas was voluntarily dismissed by Avant Location Technologies LLC on October 1, 2025. While specific counsel information for this dismissed N.D. Texas case is not readily available through general web searches, Apple Inc. typically retains experienced legal teams for its patent litigation.

Based on publicly available information regarding Apple's patent litigation practices and general in-house counsel roles, the following types of counsel would likely be involved for Apple in such a case:

In-House Counsel (Apple Inc.)

• Role: Lead strategists, overseeing all aspects of the litigation, and often working closely with outside counsel.
• Notable individuals at Apple in IP Litigation roles:
  • Iain Cunningham: Senior Litigation Counsel at Apple, with experience in high-profile patent litigation.
  • Jeff Myers: Chief IP Counsel at Apple, also serving as Senior Director of the intellectual property & licensing team.
  • Other Principal Legal Counsel - IP Litigation: Apple actively recruits highly experienced patent litigators to drive litigation strategy and manage complex, high-stakes patent disputes.

Given the voluntary dismissal of the N.D. Texas case and the subsequent refiling in the W.D. Texas (7:25-cv-00445-ADA), it is probable that the same or a very similar team of attorneys, both in-house and external, would continue to represent Apple in the ongoing litigation. For the ongoing Western District of Texas case, court filings such as motions and certificates of service would typically list the specific attorneys of record.

Without direct access to the docket for 3:25-cv-02642 prior to its dismissal, identifying specific outside counsel who made an appearance is not possible through public web search. However, major technology companies like Apple frequently engage prominent intellectual property law firms for their litigation needs.