Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

Avant Location Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ADT Inc. and ADT LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under case number 2:26-cv-00011. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a judge known for his significant patent docket. The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, is likely a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), as its name suggests a focus on patent licensing or enforcement rather than product development. The defendants, ADT Inc. and ADT LLC, are well-known operating companies in the home and business security industry, providing security alarm monitoring, installation, and smart home services. While the specific accused products, services, or technology were not explicitly detailed in the initial search results, given ADT's business, it is highly probable that the alleged infringement relates to location-based services or tracking functionalities within their security systems or related offerings.

The asserted patent in this litigation is U.S. Patent 9,485,621. A one-line technical sketch of the '621 patent indicates it generally relates to systems and methods for location technologies. The procedural posture of the case is that it was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, due to its reputation for moving cases quickly to trial and its patent-specialized judges. Judge Rodney Gilstrap, specifically, is a prominent figure in patent litigation, known for presiding over a high volume of patent cases.

Notably, this case has already reached a resolution. Avant Location Technologies LLC and ADT Inc. and ADT LLC filed a joint motion to dismiss, indicating that the parties have settled the plaintiff's claims. The case was dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. This swift resolution, occurring relatively early in the case's lifecycle (filed in January 2026, dismissed by May 2026), suggests either a quick settlement or an early determination by the plaintiff to discontinue the suit, which can be a common pattern in NPE-initiated litigations targeting multiple defendants or seeking early settlements. The rapid conclusion means the case will not proceed to significant discovery or trial, thus limiting its broader industry impact beyond the immediate parties.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00011, in the Eastern District of Texas, involving U.S. Patent 9,485,621, was filed on January 6, 2026.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):
  • Complaint Filed: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed its complaint against ADT Inc. and ADT LLC on January 6, 2026.
  • Extension to Answer: On January 6, 2026, ADT LLC and ADT Inc. filed an unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint. The summons was originally served on January 9, 2026, and the new agreed-upon answer date was March 3, 2026.
• Settlement & Dismissal:
  • The case reached a swift resolution, with the parties filing a joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and each party was to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. This indicates a settlement was reached between Avant Location Technologies LLC and ADT Inc. and ADT LLC. This final disposition occurred relatively early in the case's lifecycle, between its filing in January 2026 and May 2026.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  • While specific IPR proceedings directly initiated by ADT Inc. or ADT LLC against U.S. Patent 9,485,621 in this case were not found, there is a record of an IPR (IPR2025-01257) filed by Apple Inc. against Avant Location Technologies LLC for related patents (U.S. Patent 9,485,621, U.S. Patent 8,829,720 and U.S. Patent 8,970,040), with a Director Discretionary Decision to Deny on December 17, 2025. This IPR was ongoing prior to the filing and swift resolution of the Avant v. ADT case, but its direct effect on the settlement terms of Avant v. ADT is not explicitly stated in the available information.

The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, was represented by several attorneys in this case:

• Alfred R. Fabricant - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP (Managing Partner)
  • Location: New York, NY (firm's main office, though specific office for Fabricant not detailed in available search results for this case).
  • Experience: Over 35 years of first-chair trial experience in patent, copyright, trademark, and unfair competition matters. He is recognized as one of the nation's most active and successful patent litigators. He has litigated cases in major patent venues, including the Eastern District of Texas, and has appeared in many inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. He has successfully represented both patent owners and defendants in high-stakes patent litigation, securing multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and judgments of non-infringement. Fabricant has experience with cases involving a wide range of technologies, including automotive, semiconductor, payments, robotics, LED lighting and displays, smartphone handsets, and medical devices. He also frequently handles cases financed by litigation funders.

• Jonathan K. Waldrop - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (Chair of Intellectual Property Group)
  • Location: Silicon Valley, CA (based there as of 2016).
  • Experience: Represents industry-leading companies in patent and trademark litigation, with a focus on interactive web technologies, telecommunications, cable technology, and medical devices. He has acted as lead trial counsel in numerous cases and has a history of achieving favorable jury verdicts for clients such as Google, LG, ASUS, Uber, and Adobe. He was named an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer" by The National Law Journal and has been recognized as a top intellectual property lawyer and plaintiff lawyer in California. His representation of Fintiv against Apple led to the creation of the "Fintiv Rule" in patent litigation.

• D. Scot Shrader - Counsel

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP (Partner)
  • Location: Seoul, South Korea (as of 2026, though he has practiced extensively in the US).
  • Experience: Over 30 years of experience in complex high-stakes disputes, particularly cross-border intellectual property disputes and cases with complex technical issues. He has handled cases from inception through trial and appeals in U.S. district courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Shrader is a registered U.S. patent attorney and has been recognized for his expertise in patent infringement litigation and ITC investigations.

These attorneys were associated with Avant Location Technologies LLC in the patent infringement case against ADT Inc. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00011.

The defendants, ADT Inc. and ADT LLC, were represented by the following counsel:

• Jonathan D. Baker - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Dickinson Wright PLLC (Member)
  • Location: Silicon Valley (California)
  • Experience: Over 25 years of experience litigating intellectual property cases, including serving as lead counsel in trials before the U.S. International Trade Commission and district courts, appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has experience with diverse technologies such as computer hardware and software, wireless communications, and semiconductors. He was recognized as a 2025 Top Intellectual Property Lawyer by the Daily Journal.
• Alon Tamari - Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP (Partner)
  • Location: Austin, TX.
  • Experience: Specializes in patent disputes, representing manufacturing and high-tech clients in various U.S. Federal Districts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has litigated numerous cases and conducted licensing negotiations relating to standard essential patents (SEPs).
• Robert E. Wensley - Counsel
  • Firm: Wiley Rein LLP (Partner)
  • Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, prosecution, and strategic counseling on IP licensing. He has a 30-year record of successful outcomes for clients in various industries and considerable experience representing accused infringers in high-stakes patent disputes. He has also assisted with over 30 IPR proceedings involving telecommunications hardware and software, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical formulations.
• Jonathan R. Davies - Of Counsel (Likely in-house or assisting in-house counsel, given experience profile)
  • Firm: ADT Inc. (Chief IP Counsel)
  • Location: Boca Raton, FL (ADT Headquarters).
  • Experience: Over 20 years as a specialist IP lawyer with experience in top law firms, as in-house counsel at a global corporation, and in commercial patent monetization. He has managed high-value patent litigations in the US, Europe, and Australia, and has experience with international licensing, IP sales, and acquisitions.
• Joseph B. Shelton - In-house Counsel (likely providing technical and product support)
  • Firm: ADT Inc. (Assistant General Counsel, Product & Innovation)
  • Location: Boca Raton, FL (ADT Headquarters).
  • Experience: This role at ADT involves acting as the primary legal strategist and trusted advisor supporting ADT's transformation into a technology-driven platform company. His responsibilities include coordinating and assisting in representation in non-patent product and innovation-related legal disputes and providing technical and product-specific support for patent litigation.

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss, indicating a settlement had been reached. Therefore, no further appearances or sealed filings regarding counsel are expected.