Untitled case

Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT), the plaintiff, is a Texas-based intellectual property licensing firm specializing in digital video coding and communications technologies. ACT identifies itself as a global research and intellectual property licensing firm, with technology areas of expertise including video codecs, video streaming, video processing, video delivery, and media and entertainment. Reports from RPX and PatSnap Eureka indicate that ACT operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), asserting patents acquired from other entities. Apple Inc., the defendant, is a multinational technology company known for its consumer electronics, software, and online services, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and various operating systems and applications.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of US Patent 9042448, which is generally described as being related to video coding technology. While the exact accused products or services from Apple are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets for this specific case, in a related lawsuit against Google, ACT asserted patents against Google's AV1 codec implementations, 5G NR functionality in Pixel smartphones, and Google's Tensor processors, indicating an interest in video technology and mobile communication standards. Therefore, it is plausible that similar technologies within Apple's ecosystem, particularly those involving video processing or encoding within its devices or services, are the subject of the present infringement allegations.

The case, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 3:25-cv-02667, is currently active in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It was originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas (case number 2:24-cv-00687) and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Texas on October 1, 2025, via an order from District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District. The Northern District of Texas is known as a venue where a significant number of patent cases are filed. While a specific presiding judge for this case in the Northern District is not definitively identified in the provided snippets for 3:25-cv-02667, cases in this district are often handled by judges experienced in patent litigation. Judge Jorge A. Solis, for example, is a District Judge in the Northern District of Texas.

This case is notable due to Advanced Coding Technologies LLC's profile as a Patent Assertion Entity actively litigating patents in the digital video coding and communications domains. The transfer from the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically popular with patent plaintiffs, to the Northern District, highlights the ongoing strategic venue considerations in patent litigation. ACT has previously settled a high-stakes patent infringement case against Google LLC involving similar technology areas (video coding and 5G NR), which suggests a pattern of monetizing its intellectual property through litigation against major technology companies. The targeting of widely used technology such as video codecs and potentially mobile device functionalities underscores the significant industry impact that the outcome of such litigation could have.

This case, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 3:25-cv-02667, is an active patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit, originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas, concerns U.S. Patent 9,042,448, which relates to video coding technology.

Here's a chronological overview of its key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Original Filing in Eastern District of Texas (2024-07-22): Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT) initially filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This occurred under case number 2:24-cv-00572. A related case, 2:24-cv-00687, was also filed around this time.
• Consolidation of Cases (2024-09-04): On September 4, 2024, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap consolidated case 2:24-cv-00687 under lead case number 2:24-cv-00572.
• Extension of Time to Answer (2024-08-30): Apple Inc. was granted an unopposed first application for an extension of time to answer the complaint until October 12, 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Transfer Venue (2025-09-29): Apple Inc. filed a sealed motion to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
• Transfer to Northern District of Texas (2025-10-01): District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered the transfer of lead case No. 2:24-cv-00572 and member case No. 2:24-cv-00687 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The case was subsequently opened in the Northern District of Texas as 3:25-cv-02667 on October 1, 2025. A related case, 3:25-cv-02666, was also transferred at this time and reassigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging patents asserted by Advanced Coding Technologies LLC, including U.S. Patent 9,042,448.

• IPR on US Patent 9,042,448 (2025-07-11): Google LLC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,042,448, identified as IPR2025-01278. The petition was filed on July 11, 2025, and as of February 23, 2026, the status was "Not Instituted - Procedural".
• Other IPRs against ACT Patents (Ongoing): Other IPRs have been filed against ACT's patents by both Google LLC and Apple Inc. For instance, Apple Inc. filed IPR2025-01221 against US Patent 7,804,891, with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status as of December 3, 2025. Google LLC also filed IPR2025-01161 against the same patent, with a similar "Not Instituted - Procedural" status as of February 23, 2026. The outcomes of these PTAB proceedings could have a significant impact on the ongoing district court litigation, potentially leading to stays or influencing claim construction.

Present Posture

The case 3:25-cv-02667 is currently active in the Northern District of Texas. As of October 1, 2025, a new case note indicated that a filing fee had been paid and plaintiff was provided a Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). While some docket entries from related cases show reassignments to Judge Sam A. Lindsay in the Northern District of Texas, specific details on the presiding judge for 3:25-cv-02667 are not explicitly clear from the provided snippets beyond the initial assignment and the magistrate judge notice. There is no information available yet regarding claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. 3:25-cv-02667 Northern District of Texas plaintiff counsel", "Advanced Coding Technologies LLC counsel patent litigation", "Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC patent litigation", "Marc A. Fenster Russ August & Kabat patent litigation", "Michael R. McKuin McKuin Jones patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT), in the case 3:25-cv-02667 in the Northern District of Texas. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and a brief note on their experience. I will use web search with the case number, party names, and "plaintiff counsel" to find this information. I will also look for any related cases or public filings that might identify ACT's legal team.

Based on the previous sections, the case was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00572, 2:24-cv-00687) to the Northern District of Texas. It's likely that the same plaintiff's counsel followed the case.

I will focus my search on identifying counsel specifically for Advanced Coding Technologies LLC in the mentioned case or closely related ones.Counsel representing the plaintiff, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT), in Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 3:25-cv-02667, includes a combination of national lead counsel known for high-stakes patent litigation and experienced local counsel in Texas.

Plaintiff Representatives

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Mr. Fenster is a first-chair trial lawyer and co-chair of the Litigation Department and chair of the Patent Litigation department at Russ August & Kabat, which he founded in 2003. He specializes in high-technology patent litigation and has secured significant jury verdicts for patent holders, including against Samsung and Google. He has been recognized as a top patent and intellectual property lawyer in the nation.

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Likely local counsel (formerly)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Ward, a founder of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, has a national reputation for successfully trying numerous complex patent cases to verdict against major technology companies like Apple, Samsung, and Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas. While he, along with Wesley Hill and Bruce Smith, was slated to end his trial practice effective October 1, 2024, the firm itself (now Miller Fair Henry) continues its strong patent litigation practice in Texas. Given the case transfer date of October 1, 2025, it is highly probable he or attorneys from his former firm were involved in the initial Eastern District of Texas filings as local counsel.

• Wesley Hill

  • Role: Likely local counsel (formerly)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas
  • Note: Mr. Hill was a partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, and recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation. Similar to Johnny Ward, his firm was known for high-stakes intellectual property trials in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Andrea Fair

  • Role: Likely local counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas
  • Note: Ms. Fair is a trial lawyer recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, having secured substantial jury verdicts in patent infringement cases. She is a named partner in the successor firm, Miller Fair Henry.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Likely local counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas
  • Note: Ms. Henry represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent litigation matters in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas and is a named partner in the successor firm, Miller Fair Henry.

• Joseph M. Mercadante

  • Role: Counsel (in PTAB proceedings, likely involved in district court as well)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Note: Mr. Mercadante has been identified as lead counsel for Advanced Coding Technologies LLC in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating his involvement in ACT's patent matters.

• Jennifer Leigh Truelove

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: McKool Smith PC
  • Note: Ms. Truelove is listed in connection with a related case (3:25-cv-02666) involving Advanced Coding Technologies LLC against Apple Inc., suggesting her involvement in ACT's litigation efforts. McKool Smith is a well-known patent litigation firm.

• Alfred Ross Fabricant

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP - NY
  • Note: Mr. Fabricant is listed in relation to Fabricant LLP in the docket information for a related case (3:25-cv-02666), indicating his firm's continued involvement with ACT's cases.

• Julian Glenn Pymento

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Note: Mr. Pymento is listed in relation to Fabricant LLP in the docket information for a related case (3:25-cv-02666), indicating his firm's continued involvement with ACT's cases.

• Peter Lambrianakos

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Note: Mr. Lambrianakos is listed in relation to Fabricant LLP in the docket information for a related case (3:25-cv-02666), indicating his firm's continued involvement with ACT's cases.

The defendant in this patent infringement case, 3:25-cv-02667 in the Texas Northern District Court, is Apple Inc.. The case, originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas as 2:24-cv-00687, was transferred to the Northern District of Texas and opened under the current case number on October 1, 2025.

Counsel of record representing Apple Inc. includes:

• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Role: Likely local counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, Texas
  • Note: Melissa Richards Smith is a highly experienced patent litigator frequently appearing as local counsel in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas, known for her work in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

Given that Apple Inc. is a major defendant in patent litigation and often employs multiple firms, other attorneys from a closely related case (Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., 3:25-cv-02666, also in the Texas Northern District Court) are also likely involved as lead counsel, including:

• Lance W. Shapiro

  • Role: Likely lead counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP
  • Note: Lance Shapiro is a partner in Ropes & Gray's IP litigation practice, focusing on patent litigation across various technology sectors, particularly for major technology companies.

• James R. Batchelder

  • Role: Likely lead counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP
  • Note: James Batchelder is a partner at Ropes & Gray, specializing in patent litigation for technology companies, often representing clients in federal courts and before the PTAB.

• Kevin J. Post

  • Role: Likely lead counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP (also listed with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in some records)
  • Note: Kevin Post has experience in patent litigation, representing clients in various technology-related disputes.

• Mark D. Selwyn

  • Role: Likely lead counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Note: Mark Selwyn is a highly regarded patent litigator at WilmerHale, known for representing leading technology companies in complex patent infringement cases, including numerous cases for Apple Inc.