Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01199), is active in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, HBCU Messaging US LP, is a subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation and operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), asserting patents formerly part of the Rembrandt IP portfolio. The defendants are Apple Inc., a major technology company, and Green Dot Corp., a payment technology provider. HBCU Messaging US LP accuses Apple of infringing through its Apple Cash service, supporting hardware (such as iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks), and software like the Apple Messages app and related infrastructure. Green Dot is targeted due to its involvement in the implementation of its payment technology within the Apple Cash service.

The litigation involves seven U.S. patents, including the specified U.S. Patent No. 8,918,127, along with 11,012,827; 11,089,450; 11,653,182; 11,653,183; 11,991,600; and 11,991,601. These patents generally relate to a "messaging system that can utilize either a short message service ('SMS') or packet switched message service ('PSMS')". The case is being heard in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas by Judge Alan D. Albright, to whom it was reassigned after initially being assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. This venue is notable for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's history of managing patent cases with fast-track scheduling and a perceived reluctance to grant early stays or dismissals under Section 101, making it an attractive forum for patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs. A Markman (claim construction) hearing was held on January 23, 2026, with a Claim Construction Order issued on January 28, 2026, indicating that the case has progressed significantly through initial phases.

The case is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies the trend of NPEs asserting patent portfolios—in this instance, patents tracing back to Rembrandt IP, which had previously asserted European counterparts against Apple in Germany. The involvement of Apple's widely used Messages app and Apple Cash service implies significant market implications within mobile communication and digital payment sectors. Furthermore, the case is linked to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), specifically IPR2025-01493 and IPR2026-00105, which are often used by defendants to challenge patent validity. The procedural posture in the Western District of Texas under Judge Albright, known for his active management of patent dockets, adds another layer of significance to the litigation's trajectory.

The patent infringement litigation, HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01199, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,918,127, among others.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2024-10-07 – Complaint Filed: HBCU Messaging US LP (formerly Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP), a subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation, filed a complaint accusing Apple Inc. and Green Dot Corporation of infringing seven mobile messaging patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,918,127. The accused products and services include Apple's Messages App, Apple Cash, and supporting hardware and software.
• 2024-11-05 – Service of Summons on Apple Inc.: Apple Inc. was served with the summons and complaint.
• 2025-01-29 – Public Reporting of Lawsuit Details: News outlets reported on the specifics of the lawsuit, including the asserted patents and the accused instrumentalities, noting the plaintiff's history with similar litigation against Apple in Germany.
• 2025-04-15 – Case Reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright: The case was reassigned from Judge Robert Pitman to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.
• 2025-10-24 – Defendant Apple Inc.'s Responsive Claim Construction Brief Filed: Apple Inc. submitted its responsive brief concerning claim construction, arguing against HBCU Messaging's proposed constructions. This brief also indicates the existence of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01493, initiated by Apple against HBCU.
• 2026-01-23 – Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing: A Markman hearing was held to determine the construction of disputed claim terms across the asserted patents.
• 2026-01-28 – Claim Construction Order Issued: Following the Markman hearing, the Court issued its final constructions for the disputed terms. For the term "bearer" in the '127 patent (and others), the Court adopted the plain and ordinary meaning, rejecting HBCU Messaging's initial detailed proposal and Apple's initial communication channel/protocol proposal. It also addressed terms like "cellular core network".

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01493: Defendant Apple Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01493, against HBCU, which is mentioned in court filings as early as October 2025. The specific patent(s) challenged in this IPR were not explicitly detailed in the district court filings found, but given the context, it is highly likely to involve at least one of the patents asserted in the litigation, possibly 8,918,127. The status and outcome of this IPR were not available in the provided search results.

Current Posture:
The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Following the claim construction order, the litigation would typically proceed to discovery, summary judgment motions, and potentially trial. It is unclear from the available information if Green Dot Corporation remains a defendant in the case, as recent court filings primarily mention Apple Inc. as the sole defendant.

Plaintiff HBCU Messaging US LP is represented by counsel from Devlin Law Firm LLC and The Shore Firm LLP. The following attorneys are of record:

• Timothy Devlin

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Mr. Devlin is the Managing Partner of Devlin Law Firm LLC and is recognized as a premier technology litigator. He has acted as lead counsel in over 200 patent infringement cases and has wide-ranging experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various technology areas, including network and cellular communications and consumer electronics. He has been identified among Intellectual Asset Management's "Top-250" patent litigators worldwide since 2011.

• Neil A. Benchell

  • Role: Back-up Counsel (appears Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Mr. Benchell is associated with Devlin Law Firm LLC and is listed as back-up counsel. His involvement suggests a supporting role in the patent litigation.

• Michael W. Shore

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Shore is a partner at The Shore Firm and focuses on intellectual property commercialization, including patent litigation. He is noted for being undefeated in jury trials over his 35-year career, with verdicts and judgments valued at over $250 million in the last three years in Texas and Delaware federal district courts, and over $2 billion recovered for clients. He is also a "Texas Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property Litigation.

• Zachary Della Porta

  • Role: Counsel (Texas Bar No. 24134899)
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Della Porta is associated with The Shore Firm LLP. His presence at a Texas-based firm, along with Michael Shore, indicates a role in the litigation, potentially serving as local counsel given the venue in the Western District of Texas.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendants, Apple Inc. and Green Dot Corp., in HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01199):

Counsel for Defendants Apple Inc. and Green Dot Corp.:

• Brian Christopher Nash

  • Role: Lead Counsel (filed motions to appear pro hac vice for other attorneys)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Likely one of Morrison & Foerster's larger litigation hubs, such as San Francisco or Washington D.C., as pro hac vice motions suggest they are not local to the Western District of Texas.
  • Experience Note: Represents technology companies in complex patent litigation.

• Richard S.J. Hung

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Likely one of Morrison & Foerster's larger litigation hubs.
  • Experience Note: Known for patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector.

• Nima I. Kiaei

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Likely one of Morrison & Foerster's larger litigation hubs.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent and trade secret disputes.

• Ryan J. Malloy

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Likely one of Morrison & Foerster's larger litigation hubs.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation for technology companies.

• Nishi A. Tavernier

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Likely one of Morrison & Foerster's larger litigation hubs.
  • Experience Note: Engaged in patent litigation, particularly for clients in the technology and telecommunications sectors.

• Michael W. Shore

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas (consistent with local counsel in the Western District of Texas).
  • Experience Note: The Shore Firm is known for patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.

• Zachary Della Porta

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Practices patent litigation, often serving as local counsel in Texas federal courts.

These attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP have appeared pro hac vice, indicating they are not based in the Western District of Texas and are likely lead counsel for the defendants. The attorneys from The Shore Firm LLP are acting as local counsel, which is a common practice in the Western District of Texas.