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.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

I found strong plaintiff-side data. Let me verify current counsel in the N.D. Tex. case specifically and check for additional appearances.

Let me pull the specific docket entries and confirm the current plaintiff appearances in the N.D. Tex. case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02667 (N.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: ACT is represented by a three-firm team — Fabricant LLP (New York/Rye, NY and Short Hills, NJ) as lead/primary patent counsel, with McKool Smith P.C. (Marshall, TX) and Davis Firm PC (Longview, TX) serving as Texas counsel. The notices of appearance carried over from the Eastern District transfer docket five Fabricant attorneys (Dkts. 4–8, filed Aug. 20, 2024, transferred Oct. 1, 2025), and Davis Firm's Rudolph "Rudy" Fink IV filed a fresh Notice of Attorney Appearance in the Northern District on October 1, 2025 (Dkt. 15).

---

1. Lead / primary counsel — Fabricant LLP

All five appeared via Notice of Attorney Appearance on Aug. 20, 2024 in the Eastern District (2:24-cv-00687), carried into N.D. Tex. as Dkts. 4–8 on Oct. 1, 2025. The firm's address of record is 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, NY 10580 (an earlier NYC office at 230 Park Avenue also appears in older ACT dockets).

Supporting citation: the Oct. 1, 2025 signature block on the transferred N.D. Tex. filings (captioned in both 3:25-cv-02666-L and 3:25-cv-02667-L-BW) expressly carries the heading "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ADVANCED CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC" and lists Fabricant, Lambrianakos, and Rubino under Fabricant LLP. (PTAB exhibit copy of the Oct. 1, 2025 filing)

---

2. Texas counsel

Supporting citations: Justia docket, N.D. Tex. 3:25-cv-02667 (Dkt. 15; Dkts. 4–8 transferred appearances); Oct. 1, 2025 ACT signature block (McKool Smith and Davis Firm entries).

---

3. Possible additional counsel (not confirmed in 3:25-cv-02667)

• Justin Kurt Truelove — Truelove Law Firm, Marshall, TX. Listed as plaintiff-side counsel in the related E.D. Tex. lead case, ACT v. Apple, 2:24-cv-00572 (now N.D. Tex. 3:25-cv-02666). I did not find a notice of appearance by him in 3:25-cv-02667, so treat this as unconfirmed for this docket. (CourtListener parties list, 2:24-cv-00572)

---

4. No in-house counsel identified

No ACT in-house or corporate counsel appears in the sources reviewed. ACT's public filings list only outside counsel; the PTAB powers of attorney identify the real party-in-interest as "Advanced Coding Technologies LLC" without naming an in-house attorney.

---

5. Caveats, gaps, and discrepancies to flag

1. Pro hac vice status in N.D. Tex. is not confirmed. Fabricant, Lambrianakos, Rubino, Mercadante and Pymento are New York-barred (Pymento in New Jersey). Pro hac vice admissions were granted to all five by the Western District of Texas in the parallel ACT v. Apple case, No. 7:25-cv-00446 (text orders, Oct. 8, 2025), but I could not confirm equivalent N.D. Tex. admissions in 3:25-cv-02667 from the sources available. The E.D. Tex. pro hac vice admissions do not automatically carry over on transfer — new motions are typically required. If you need certainty here, check the N.D. Tex. docket for PHV motions/orders filed after Oct. 1, 2025.
2. Contradiction with the earlier "Defendant representatives" section (referenced, not repeated): that section assumed Ropes & Gray / WilmerHale / Gillam & Smith as Apple's team. That is correct for the lead E.D. Tex. case (2:24-cv-00572, now 3:25-cv-02666), but Apple's filings in the companion matter have also featured Covington & Burling (see Apple's Notice of Supplemental Authority, Oct. 6, 2025, E.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-…, citing the Advanced Coding transfer orders). Apple's roster for the '448 case specifically should be verified separately.
3. Case-mapping nuance. The metadata lists only U.S. Patent 9,042,448, and the Justia docket for 3:25-cv-02667 shows the complaint was filed by Lambrianakos on Aug. 20, 2024 — i.e., this appears to be the transferred member case 2:24-cv-00687, while the July 22, 2024 complaint (asserting the '025, '303 and '995 patents) was 2:24-cv-00572. The earlier "Key legal developments" section's dates for 2:24-cv-00687 should be read with that in mind; I'd verify the '448 mapping against the docket if it matters.
4. Judge assignment. Justia reports Judge Sam A. Lindsay presiding with Magistrate Judge Brian McKay referred in 3:25-cv-02667 — consistent with the "3:25-cv-02667-L-BW" suffix appearing in ACT's own Oct. 1, 2025 caption. This slightly corrects the earlier section's statement that the N.D. Tex. presiding judge was "not definitively identified." (The "-BW" suffix's exact magistrate attribution is not something I could confirm from the sources retrieved.)
5. Sealed filings. Apple's venue/transfer motions in the E.D. Tex. matter were filed under seal (see E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00572, Order granting Dkt. 36 motion to seal, Oct. 22, 2024). Nothing reviewed suggests the plaintiff's appearances are sealed, however — the appearances above are public docket entries.

Bottom line for citation purposes: for 3:25-cv-02667, the cleanest citable records of plaintiff's counsel are (a) N.D. Tex. Dkts. 4–8 (Fabricant LLP attorneys) and Dkt. 15 (Rudy Fink IV / Davis Firm), and (b) the Oct. 1, 2025 ACT signature block identifying Fabricant LLP, McKool Smith and Davis Firm as "Attorneys for Plaintiff Advanced Coding Technologies LLC."

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.