Untitled case

This patent infringement case, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, is active in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant is Apple Inc., a major operating company in the consumer electronics and software industry. Avant has asserted multiple patents against Apple, including U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030, U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910, and others from a related family. The allegedly infringing products are Apple's devices and services that incorporate its "Find My" functionality, which includes, but is not limited to, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple Watch, Mac, AirPods, AirTag, Apple Pencil, and Apple Vision Pro. U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 generally relates to systems and methods for verifying and tracking identification information, particularly using radio frequency identification (RFID) in secure systems.

The procedural posture of the case places it in the Midland/Odessa Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright, as indicated by the "-ADA" suffix in the case number. This venue has historically been a popular choice for patent plaintiffs, known for its fast-paced dockets and Judge Albright's prior practice of often retaining patent cases. However, the Western District of Texas implemented district-wide random assignment for cases filed in Waco in 2022, altering some of the previous predictability of judge assignment. Notably, this specific lawsuit was re-filed in the Western District of Texas on October 1, 2025, after an earlier, similar action against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas was dismissed.

The case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting current trends in patent litigation. It involves a prominent NPE asserting a portfolio of patents against a major technology company, Apple, focusing on a widely used feature ("Find My"). Apple has actively engaged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for several of the asserted patents, including the '910 and '030 patents. Apple has moved to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of these IPRs, arguing that a PTAB decision could simplify or even resolve the district court case. This interplay between district court litigation and parallel PTAB challenges is a common and significant aspect of modern patent disputes, especially when large operating companies are targeted by NPEs.

Key legal developments and the current posture of Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, focusing on US Patent No. 9,119,030, are detailed below in chronological order.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• September 13, 2024: Avant Location Technologies LLC (Avant) initially filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:24-cv-00757-JRG. This earlier complaint asserted infringement of seven patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,119,030 and 9,042,910.
• October 1, 2025: Avant voluntarily dismissed the Eastern District of Texas action and re-filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, as Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA.
• November 14, 2025: Avant filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 19) in the newly filed Western District of Texas case. The asserted patents remained the same as in the original EDTX filing.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• September 11, 2025: Apple filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of the patents, including IPR2025-01256 for U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 and IPR2025-01261 for U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910.
• November 17, 2025: Avant, as the Patent Owner, filed a "Request for Discretionary Denial of Institution" for IPR2025-01261 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910). Avant argued for denial based on factors such as the parallel district court litigation, the substantial similarity of claims, the proximity of a trial date in a related "Ecobee Litigation" (scheduled for May 18, 2026), and the significant investment already made in the district court proceedings.
• December 8, 2025: Apple filed a motion to stay the district court litigation (7:25-cv-00445-ADA) in the Western District of Texas, pending the resolution of its IPR petitions before the PTAB. Apple's motion highlighted its "Sotera stipulation" where it agreed not to re-litigate invalidity grounds raised in instituted IPRs. Apple also filed a concurrent motion to dismiss related to Avant's indirect infringement and willfulness claims. The outcome of the motion to stay is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a Markman hearing was scheduled for December 4, 2025, in the parallel Avant Location Techs. LLC v. Ecobee Techs. ULC d/b/a ecobee (E.D. Tex.) litigation, the specific Markman outcome for the Apple case in the Western District of Texas has not been reached or publicly reported, likely due to the pending motion to stay and the status of the IPRs.

Discovery Milestones:

• Prior to the dismissal and re-filing, in the Eastern District of Texas litigation (which was joined with the Ecobee case), both parties had already exchanged infringement contentions (including source code) and invalidity contentions. Upon re-filing in the Western District of Texas, the parties agreed to retain their previously exchanged confidential discovery, indicating substantial early-stage discovery had occurred.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Early 2026 (expected by March 2026): The PTAB issued institution decisions for the IPRs. IPR2025-01261, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910, was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This outcome reflects a trend in late 2025 where USPTO Director John Squires began personally overseeing IPR institution decisions, often resulting in discretionary denials.
• January 14, 2026: For IPR2025-01256, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030, USPTO records show an "Email Notification" and "Change in Power of Attorney" transaction, but an explicit institution decision outcome (granted or denied) is not provided in the available information. A final written decision for instituted IPRs was projected by March 17, 2027.

Current Posture:

• As of May 25, 2026, the district court case, 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, remains active in the Western District of Texas. No trial events, verdicts, or final judgments have been reported. The outcome of Apple's December 2025 motion to stay the litigation is not explicitly available in the provided search results. The non-institution of at least one related IPR (IPR2025-01261) may influence the court's decision on the motion to stay.

The counsel of record representing Avant Location Technologies LLC in Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, primarily identified through related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerning the same patents, are from Fabricant LLP.

The following attorneys from Fabricant LLP have represented Avant Location Technologies LLC (referred to as Patent Owner in PTAB filings) in IPR proceedings involving patents also asserted in the district court case, with one attorney explicitly linked to the Western District of Texas litigation:

• Peter Lambrianakos

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for Patent Owner in IPRs).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York (411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, New York 10580).
  • Experience: Represents patent owners in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III

  • Role: Counsel (for Patent Owner in IPRs).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York (411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, New York 10580).
  • Experience: Involved in patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings.

• Julian G. Pymento

  • Role: Counsel (for Patent Owner in IPRs, and explicitly for Patent Owner in WDTX Apple Litigation).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York (411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, New York 10580).
  • Experience: Represents Avant Location Technologies LLC in both Eastern District of Texas and Western District of Texas patent litigation against Apple.

• Jacob Ostling

  • Role: Counsel (for Patent Owner in IPRs).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York (411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South, Rye, New York 10580).
  • Experience: Involved in patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings.

While these attorneys are identified through PTAB filings, Julian G. Pymento is explicitly mentioned as counsel for the Patent Owner in the "WDTX Apple Litigation" (Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA), indicating his direct involvement in the district court case. Details regarding potential local counsel in the Western District of Texas or other attorneys directly appearing on the district court docket are not explicitly available in the provided search results.

Counsel representing Apple Inc. in Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, include a team from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, with local counsel from Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP.

The identified counsel of record for the defendant are:

From Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP:

• Joseph J. Mueller
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner, Co-Chair of WilmerHale's firm-wide Trial Practice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Recognized as a top national trial lawyer for intellectual property cases, with extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies.
• Andrew J. Danford
  • Role: Counsel (Partner, pro hac vice pending)
  • Firm & Office Location: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property disputes for life sciences and technology companies, including significant experience in patent litigation involving smartphones, microprocessors, and telecommunications networks. Notably, he played a leading role in overturning a $506 million infringement judgment against Apple.
• Jason H. Liss
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property matters across agency, trial, and appellate levels, handling patent disputes in areas such as semiconductors, computer networking, wireless communications, and pharmaceuticals, including experience with IPRs and Federal Circuit appeals.
• Mark D. Selwyn
  • Role: Counsel (Partner, pro hac vice pending)
  • Firm & Office Location: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: A leading attorney for high-profile and emerging technology companies in complex patent litigation matters.

From Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (Local Counsel):

• Steve Wingard
  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience Note: Texas State Bar No. 00788694.
• Stephen L. Burbank
  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience Note: Texas Bar No. 24109672.
• Robert P. Earle
  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office Location: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience Note: Texas Bar No. 24124566.