Untitled case

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and the docket.

Now let me pin down the specific S.D.N.Y. case and Lab Technology's campaign.

Let me verify the defendant's identity, the docket, and any PTAB activity.

Case overview: Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00374 (S.D.N.Y.)

Parties and posture. The previously-open question in the case summary is now resolved: 7:26-cv-00374 is Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc., filed January 15, 2026 in the Southern District of New York and assigned to the White Plains (7:) division. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company formed January 8, 2024, with its principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Albuquerque — a classic non-practicing entity with no operating business. It is represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago). The patent-in-suit was acquired from TP Lab, Inc. (founder/CEO Chi Fai Ho; sole named inventor Shin Cheung Simon Chiu), and RPX reported in May 2024 that USPTO assignment records had not been updated to reflect the transfer to Lab Technology — a recurring feature of this campaign (RPX, "Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation," May 31, 2024). Defendant MSS Electronics, Inc. is the polar opposite of the usual NPE target: a White Plains, NY security-systems integrator founded in 1976, with roughly 16–50 employees and ~$4.3M in revenue, doing business as "Lifefone" and registered with CMS under the taxonomy "Emergency Response System Companies" — i.e., a personal emergency response system (PERS) supplier (OpenNPI listing). The docket shows the case was assigned to Judge Valerie E. Caproni on filing, then reassigned to Judge Philip M. Halpern on January 20, 2026 (Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy designated); Rabicoff's pro hac vice motion was granted February 2, 2026, and the defendant was not served until March 12, 2026. Six days later, on March 18, 2026, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which Judge Halpern so-ordered on March 19, 2026, with the AO-120 termination form filed the same day (Dkts. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). The case thus lived and died in about two months, three days after service — a strong but not publicly confirmed indicator of a quick license/settlement or a cost-driven walk-away.

The patent and the accused technology. The single patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982, "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone," issued December 22, 2015 from Application No. 14/730,866, with a June 22, 2006 priority date (via continuations 11/472,613 → 8,903,067 → 9,084,084). In one line: a phone that queries a remote "location server" to learn where it is, selects a stored "function" (a contextual profile such as "shopper at a mall" or "office worker on weekday morning"), and auto-refreshes its display to surface the communication services the user is likely to want at that place and time. Independent claim 1 is the apparatus version (display panel, processor, datastore); independent claim 13 is the method version (obtain current location using a location server → select a function from the datastore → refresh the screen with the associated communication service based at least in part on current location). As with the other complaints in this campaign, the S.D.N.Y. pleading named no specific accused product in its body, pleading only "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporating a claim chart as Exhibit 2; the complaint and that exhibit are not part of the publicly accessible record I could locate, so the precise accused instrumentality in the MSS Electronics case is not verified. Given MSS Electronics' PERS/medical-alert business (Lifefone) and the parallel SDNY suit Lab Technology filed against PERS provider LifeStation, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y., before Judge Lorna G. Schofield, filed Nov. 6, 2025, dismissed without prejudice after a settlement in principle on Feb. 24, 2026), the likely theory is that a monitored PERS/telephone-interface console practices the location-based display refresh — but that is an inference, not a sourced fact.

Why it matters. Three things make this otherwise tiny case worth tracking. First, venue: an NPE suing a 20-person White Plains security integrator in its home district is venue strategy, not accident — it defeats the transfer motion that would follow a Texas or Delaware filing and maximizes settlement pressure on a small defendant with no IPR budget (the LifeStation and MSS Electronics filings were both SDNY, both settled/dismissed within months). Second, NPE assertion pattern: Lab Technology is one of a cluster of recently formed New Mexico plaintiffs using Rabicoff Law and patents tied to monetization figure Jeffrey M. Gross; the '982 patent itself has an NPE lineage — Local Intelligence, LLC (a Dominion Harbor affiliate) asserted the same family against Samsung, HTC, and LG Electronics in 2017–2019. Third, and most important, the patent's validity is collapsing: on July 23, 2026, Judge J. Campbell Barker in D. Del. held in Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB, that the '982 patent is invalid under § 101 — claim 13 representative, Alice step one satisfied because the claims are directed to "displaying different content on a telephone based on that telephone's location," and step two because the specification discloses only generic components (Dkt. 35). The court expressly rejected the two rulings Lab Technology had been citing as favorable: Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437, 2018 WL 1697127 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2018) (denying a § 101 motion), which the court found superseded by Broadband iTV, Inc. v. [Amazon.com, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%2C%20Inc.), 113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024), and Lab Tech. LLC v. USAA Alliance Services LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00173, 2026 WL 1630447 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2026), where a magistrate judge merely deferred § 101 to summary judgment before the parties stipulated to dismissal. Also critical for any remaining case: in the earlier Local Intelligence v. Samsung E.D. Tex. litigation, the parties agreed to construe "location server" as "[a] remote computer device or program that provides a telephone's current location obtained from a source other than a global positioning system or other triangulation technique positioning system" (No. 2:17-cv-00716, Dkt. 40, Sept. 6, 2018), and the E.D. Tex. court cancelled the Markman hearing — a construction that makes it very hard to read the claims onto modern smartphones that derive location from GPS or OS location APIs, which is exactly what Judge Barker analyzed in Greenlight. The campaign nonetheless continues: nearly contemporaneous suits include Everbridge (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355), Greenlight (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01356), ETA Transit (S.D. Fla. 0:25-cv-60940), USAA (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00173), Solera (N.D. Tex. 4:26-cv-00297, dismissed Apr. 23, 2026), Keysight (D. Del. 1:26-cv-01121, filed Sept. 4, 2026), TELUS International (D. Nev. 2:26-cv-00127), and Yeastar (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00709, filed Aug. 18, 2026 before Judge Gilstrap), plus the earlier Samsung, Verizon, and Lyft actions. Add that the '982 patent's twenty-year term runs from a June 22, 2006 priority date — meaning it likely expired on or about June 22, 2026, subject to any patent term adjustment — and the asset's remaining litigation value is largely retrospective damages and nuisance-value settlements, which is consistent with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice three days after service.

Sourcing caveats. The MSS Electronics docket entries above come from the Justia/PACER-derived docket record for 7:26-cv-00374 (retrieved March 19, 2026); I could not locate the complaint, Exhibit 2, or any answer, motion, or settlement filing for this case, so the accused product and the reason for dismissal are unverified. I also found no evidence of an IPR or other PTAB proceeding on the '982 patent in the sources searched, but I could not complete an exhaustive PTAB docket check, so treat "no IPR" as unconfirmed rather than established. The LifeStation settlement details rest on a PatSnap litigation summary rather than a primary court document, and should be treated as secondhand. The twenty-year term/expiration point is my own statutory inference, not a sourced statement about this patent's adjusted term.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and case identification.

I've identified the case. Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patent's PTAB history, and the broader assertion campaign.

Case identification — metadata now confirmed

The previously unconfirmed docket is Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc., filed in the S.D.N.Y. and carried on PACER under two docket strings for the same action: 1:26-cv-00374 (original assignment) and 7:26-cv-00374 (White Plains divisional renumbering after reassignment). So the "may be the same case" caveat in the existing summary can be resolved: they are the same case, and the patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone").

• Plaintiff: Lab Technology LLC — a patent assertion entity. Counsel of record: Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who appears for Lab Technology across its whole portfolio campaign.
• Defendant: MSS Electronics, Inc. — a small White Plains, N.Y. security-systems integrator (access control, video surveillance, intrusion detection), ~20–50 employees, founded 1976. Its office sits in the White Plains courthouse's divisional footprint, which explains the 7: docket prefix and the reassignment.
• Presiding judge: Philip M. Halpern (reassigned 2026-01-20 from Judge Valerie E. Caproni); Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy designated for referred matters.

Sources: PacerMonitor docket; Justia docket; defendant profile Datanyze.

---

Chronological developments

2026-01-15 — Complaint filed. Lab Technology filed a single-patent infringement complaint (35 U.S.C. § 271) asserting the '982 patent; a jury demand was made by the plaintiff. Civil cover sheet designated Nature of Suit 830 (Patent). Complaint contents (accused products/theory) are not visible in the public docket summaries retrieved; MSS Electronics is a security integrator rather than a handset maker, so the infringement theory presumably targets some telephony/communications feature in its systems, but I could not verify the specific accused product.

2026-01-16 — Case-opening formalities. AO 120 form submitted to the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. § 290 (Dkt. 9); electronic summons issued (Dkt. 8).

2026-01-20 — Reassignment. Case reassigned from Judge Caproni to Judge Philip M. Halpern; Magistrate Judge McCarthy designated.

2026-02-02 — Pro hac vice granted. Order granting Isaac Rabicoff's motion to appear pro hac vice (Dkt. 10, signed by Judge Halpern).

2026-03-12/13 — Service. Summons returned executed — MSS Electronics served 2026-03-12; answer due 2026-04-02 (Dkt. 11). This is the only substantive pre-trial event.

2026-03-18 — Voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Lab Technology filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the action with prejudice against MSS Electronics (Dkt. 12), plus a proposed order (Dkt. 13).

2026-03-19 — Dismissal entered; case terminated. Judge Halpern signed the Order Granting Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. 14), and the AO 120 case-terminated form was submitted to the USPTO (Dkt. 15). Total lifespan: ~2 months.

---

The categories you asked about — what did not happen

Because the case was dismissed before the defendant appeared, most litigation milestones never occurred. Specifically, on the public docket:

• Answer / counterclaims: None. MSS Electronics was served but never answered, moved, or appeared; the answer deadline (2026-04-02) post-dated the dismissal.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: None — no motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment. The only motion was Rabicoff's pro hac vice admission.
• Markman / claim construction: The case never reached scheduling, discovery, or claim construction.
• Discovery milestones: None beyond service of process.
• Trial / verdict / post-trial motions: None. No JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion.
• Appeal: None. The dismissal was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal; the order is final and the docket shows no notice of appeal.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on the '982 patent was surfaced in connection with this case, and no PTAB proceeding affected it. I flag this as not fully verified — my search budget was exhausted before I could run a complete PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) docket check on U.S. 9,219,982 or its family. What can be said from the record is that there was no stay motion, no PTAB-based delay, and no reference to an instituted proceeding in the S.D.N.Y. docket. Given the two-month, appearance-free posture, this case would not have been a vehicle for IPR-driven developments regardless.

---

The decisive outside event: the '982 patent was invalidated in a parallel case

The '982 patent's viability was resolved elsewhere, and this is the most strategically significant development touching the patent:

• Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.) — Lab Technology asserted claim 13 of the '982 patent against Greenlight's "Kids & Teen Banking App." On 2026-07-23, the court (Judge Barker, J.) granted dismissal of the amended complaint, holding the '982 claims patent-ineligible under Alice (abstract idea of filtering/displaying content based on a telephone's location, implemented on generic computer components), and denied leave to amend as futile, dismissing with prejudice. The court rejected Greenlight's separate prosecution-disclaimer theory but found the claims invalid on § 101 grounds. (Reported in IP Law Daily, 2026-07-30: vitalLaw.)
• Timing caveat: The Delaware invalidity ruling (2026-07-23) came four months after the S.D.N.Y. dismissal (2026-03-19). So the MSS Electronics dismissal was not a direct consequence of a then-existing invalidity judgment. The two events are better read as parallel data points in the same campaign: a PAE facing an increasingly hostile § 101 landscape and choosing to exit quickly, sometimes with prejudice.

Broader campaign context: Lab Technology has asserted the '982 patent (often bundled with sibling telephony patents US 8,498,388; 8,503,973; 8,515,032; and 9,578,570) in a short-lived, high-volume filing pattern, typically resolving or abandoning cases within days:

• Lab Technology v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 2:24-cv-00324 (E.D. Tex.) — filed 2024-05-03, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2024-05-13 (10 days, before appearance).
• Lab Technology v. Microsoft, No. 6:24-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.) — filed 2024-06-21, dismissed 2024-07-01.
• Lab Technology v. Quectel Wireless, No. 2:24-cv-00415 (E.D. Tex.).

The MSS Electronics case fits this pattern exactly — quick file, quick with-prejudice exit — with the added significance that the '982 patent was later struck down on § 101 in the Delaware action.

---

Final disposition / present posture

Dismissed with prejudice by consent order on 2026-03-19 (Dkt. 14), before the defendant answered, with the USPTO notified the same day under § 290. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, it bars Lab Technology from re-asserting the '982 patent against MSS Electronics in a later action. The case is closed, with no appeal and no fee/cost award on the docket.

---

Gaps I could not close (flagged, not guessed)

1. The complaint's infringement theory and accused product — not visible in the retrieved docket summaries.
2. The reason for the with-prejudice dismissal — the docket is silent; possible explanations (settlement/license, cost-benefit exit, anticipation of § 101 risk) are inference, not record.
3. A complete PTAB check on U.S. 9,219,982 (IPR/PGR) — unverified; no PTAB proceeding is reflected in or referenced by this litigation, but confirm via USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board dockets / PTAB API before relying on the absence.
4. The full Greenlight opinion text — I have the holding and date (2026-07-23) from secondary reporting rather than the slip opinion; verify the docket/citation directly if precision matters.

I'll research this case step by step, starting with the patent and the docket number.

Good — I've identified the patent owner. Now let me pin down this specific case and its counsel.

The case is Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc. Let me confirm the counsel details and check for local counsel.

Bottom line

The plaintiff in this case is Lab Technology LLC (a New Mexico patent-holding entity, NPE), and the docket shows exactly one attorney of record for the plaintiff: Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), appearing pro hac vice. No SDNY local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket. The case was short-lived — filed January 15, 2026 and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on March 19, 2026 — so no other counsel had occasion to appear for the plaintiff.

Case identity (resolving the metadata ambiguity): the case is Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc., docketed as 1:26-cv-00374 (S.D.N.Y.) — the "7:26-cv-00374" in the case metadata is the same matter; the "7" is an internal SDNY divisional/office prefix (Foley Square) used by some docket aggregators for S.D.N.Y. cases in the 2026 term. Docket sources: dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/7:2026cv00374/656258 and Docket Alarm entry for 1:26-cv-00374. Assigned to Judge Philip M. Halpern; Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy designated for referrals.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Docket support for Rabicoff's role in this case (per the docket sheet retrieved by Justia/Docket Alarm):

• Doc. 1 — Complaint filed by Lab Technology LLC (Jan. 15, 2026), signed/EFC-filed by "Rabicoff, Isaac."
• Doc. 7 — Motion for Isaac Rabicoff to Appear Pro Hac Vice; Doc. 10 — "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting #7 Motion… The motion of ISAAC RABICOFF… is granted" (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026, Judge Halpern).
• Doc. 11 — Summons returned executed (MSS Electronics served 3/12/2026).
• Docs. 12–13 — Notice of voluntary dismissal and proposed order, both filed by Lab Technology LLC "(Rabicoff, Isaac)".
• Doc. 14 — Order granting dismissal with prejudice (3/19/2026); Doc. 15 — AO 120 patent case-terminated form.

No other plaintiff-side counsel. I found no SDNY-licensed local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house attorney on this docket. Given that Mr. Rabicoff was admitted only pro hac vice, SDNY practice normally contemplates a member of the court's bar acting as local counsel; the docket as retrieved does not reflect one, and it is possible (though unconfirmed) that service/filing mechanics were handled without a formally appearing local attorney. I would not name anyone as local counsel on this record.

Possible but unconfirmed additional attorney: Kenneth Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791), also of Rabicoff Law LLC, is a frequent co-counsel/backup counsel with Mr. Rabicoff in the firm's PTAB and litigation matters. He does not appear on the MSS Electronics docket, so I am not listing him as counsel of record — flagging him only as a potential firm-side resource.

Cross-reference: co-counsel in Lab Technology's other '982-patent suits

For context on how Lab Technology staffs its campaign (none of these firms appear in the MSS Electronics docket):

• Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356 (D. Del., J. Barker) — Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (per VitalLaw's attorney listing), together with Rabicoff Law; case dismissed with prejudice July 23, 2026 on § 101 ineligibility of the '982 patent.
• Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00297 (N.D. Tex.) — Rabicoff Law LLC; Crewse Law Firm, PLLC.
• Lab Technology LLC v. ETA Transit Inc., No. 0:25-cv-60940 (S.D. Fla.) — Beusse Sanks; Rabicoff Law LLC.
• Lab Technology LLC v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y., J. Schofield) — Rabicoff alone (same pattern as the MSS case: PHV motion filed with the complaint; settled/dismissed Feb. 2026).

Sourcing caveats

• The counsel identification rests on docket-sheet text (Justia/Docket Alarm mirrors of the SDNY docket) rather than a PACER pull of the complaint's signature block; I did not independently view Doc. 1's signature page. The docket text is consistent and explicit ("(Rabicoff, Isaac)" on the filings; PHV order naming Isaac Rabicoff), so confidence is high.
• The docket was "last retrieved on March 19, 2026" per the aggregator; if a later PACER pull shows a substitution or an appearance by local counsel between the dismissal and today, that would not be reflected here.
• Nothing in this case was sealed, so far as the public docket shows; the limitation is docket-coverage recency, not sealing.
• Defendant-side counsel for MSS Electronics, Inc. does not appear in the docket text I retrieved (the case was dismissed roughly one week after service, before any answer was due 4/2/2026).

I'll start by pinning down what US 9,219,982 is and whether this case (or its 1:26-cv-00374 counterpart) appears in any accessible docket source.

The patent is now identified: U.S. Pat. No. 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone"), owned by Lab Technology LLC, which filed a 2026 wave of infringement suits. Let me find the S.D.N.Y. defendant(s) and docket.

The docket shows this case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 3/19/2026 — about a week after service — which raises a real question whether defense counsel ever appeared. Let me verify against RECAP/CourtListener and check for any attorney appearance for MSS Electronics.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this case. The docket for Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00374 (S.D.N.Y.) shows no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice motion, no answer, and no Rule 7.1 disclosure filed on behalf of MSS Electronics, Inc. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on March 19, 2026 — seven days after the defendant was served and 15 days before its answer was due. I cannot name a defense attorney without inventing one, so I am not going to.

---

1. Correcting the case metadata first

The prompt's caption was "Untitled case" with parties unconfirmed. The case is now identified:

Sources: Justia Dockets, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/7:2026cv00374/656258; Ex Parte AI litigation database, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/nysd/1:26-cv-00374/lab-technology-llc-v-mss-electronics-inc.

Two notes on the number: S.D.N.Y.'s "7:" prefix denotes the White Plains division, so 7:26-cv-00374 is the correct ECF number and 1:26-cv-00374 is the same case indexed differently. The existing summary's guess that this is "the same case as 1:26-cv-00374" is confirmed.

---

2. What the docket actually shows about counsel

The full public docket as last retrieved (Mar. 19, 2026) contains 16 entries, and every attorney-signed filing is signed by plaintiff's counsel. The relevant sequence:

Why this matters procedurally: A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal by notice is available only before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff used that mechanism on March 18 — six days after service and before the April 2 answer deadline. That is strong evidence that no defense counsel had appeared and no responsive pleading was on file. Had MSS Electronics retained and appeared, plaintiff's counsel would have needed either a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a court order under Rule 41(a)(2). The docket shows neither a stipulation nor any defense signature.

Sealed filings: There is no indication of any sealed filing in this docket, nor any sealed-motion entry that could conceal a defense appearance. The absence of defense counsel is a matter of the public record, not of sealing.

---

3. Counsel who did appear of record

That is the only attorney on this docket. He represents the plaintiff, not the defendant. To be explicit: no attorney for MSS Electronics, Inc. — lead, local, of counsel, or in-house — appears in the record.

---

4. Cross-referencing the parallel '982 campaign (context only — not this case)

Because there is nothing to report on the defense side here, the useful analog is who has defended the '982 Patent elsewhere. These names are not counsel in 7:26-cv-00374 and must not be attributed to MSS Electronics:

• Gregory Erich Stuhlman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP — counsel for Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc. in Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.), the case in which Judge J. Campbell Barker held the '982 Patent invalid under § 101 and dismissed with prejudice on July 23, 2026. (Verdict/opinion reported at VitalLaw, IP Law Daily, July 30, 2026; opinion text at Justia, D. Del. 1:2025cv01356, Doc. 35.)
• Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman — co-counsel for Lab Technology (plaintiff side) in the Delaware action.
• In Lab Technology LLC v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y.) (Judge Schofield), a PatSnap case analysis refers to "four defense attorneys spanning two law firms," but the analysis does not name them, and I could not verify their identities. Treat that as unsourced.

This matters strategically: the '982 Patent has now been held invalid under Alice/§ 101 by a district court (D. Del., July 2026), which is presumably why the underlying assertion in the S.D.N.Y. MSS Electronics case resolved within a week of service by voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

---

5. What I could not verify (and how to close the gap)

Stated plainly, so nothing here gets over-read:

1. Whether any MSS Electronics appearance exists after March 19, 2026. Justia's docket page is annotated "last retrieved on March 19, 2026," and the case is terminated, so a later appearance would be anomalous — but a PACER pull is the only way to be certain. My searches for a defense-side appearance returned no results.
2. The terms or existence of any settlement. The dismissal was with prejudice and plaintiff-initiated, which is consistent with a resolution, but no settlement document is on the public docket.
3. MSS Electronics' corporate identity, in-house IP counsel, or its regular outside patent litigation firms. I found no firm website, press release, or Law360/Reuters item linking any attorney to this defendant.
4. A verified full docket sheet beyond ~16 entries. The RECAP/CourtListener version could not be retrieved within my search budget; a PACER "Docket Report" for 7:26-cv-00374 (or a RECAP refresh) would confirm whether an appearance was ever filed.

Direct answer to your question as posed: counsel of record for the defendant in this case is nobody. The defendant never appeared, and no defense attorney was ever disclosed on the public docket. The only attorney of record in 7:26-cv-00374 is Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, and he represents the plaintiff.