Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al. (2:26-cv-00011), was filed on January 6, 2026, in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Avant Location Technologies LLC, appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), given its history of asserting patents related to location technologies against major operating companies like Apple and Samsung. The defendant, ADT Inc., is a well-known operating company that provides security, smart home, and alarm systems. While "et al." may include related ADT entities, ADT Inc. is the primary target of the lawsuit. The accused products and services are likely ADT's smart home security systems and related offerings that incorporate location-based functionalities. This aligns with Avant Location Technologies' past assertions involving "location services" technologies.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032. This patent broadly relates to location services technologies, which are integral to modern connected devices and smart home systems for tracking, monitoring, and automation. The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly environment. The case is presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a judge with extensive experience in patent litigation.

This litigation is notable as it represents a common pattern of NPEs asserting patents against established operating companies in strategic venues. The "location services" technology at the heart of the patent is critical to the functionality of many smart home and IoT devices, potentially making the outcome of this case impactful for the broader industry. Given the plaintiff's prior litigation history, it is highly probable that ADT may challenge the validity of Patent 9,622,032 through Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), similar to how other defendants have challenged Avant Location Technologies' asserted patents in the past.

This case, Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al. (2:26-cv-00011), was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on January 6, 2026. It is currently active.

Here's a chronological overview of key legal developments, drawing from publicly available information:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed its complaint against ADT Inc. et al. on January 6, 2026, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032. As of the current date (May 27, 2026), the specific details of ADT's answer and any counterclaims are not readily available in the summarized search results.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• There are no specific rulings on motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment readily available in the provided search results as of May 27, 2026. The case is still in its early stages.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: While no motion to stay specifically for this case (2:26-cv-00011) has been found in the provided search results, it is highly probable that ADT will file such a motion given the plaintiff's history and ADT's success in prior IPRs. For instance, in a separate case, Apple filed a motion to stay an Avant Location Technologies case (7:25-cv-00445-ADA) pending IPRs of the asserted patents, including the '032 patent, with a decision from the PTAB expected by March 2027. ADT has also successfully leveraged IPRs against other patent holders in the past; for example, in October 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision invalidating claims of a patent asserted against ADT by Vivint, Inc.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman) is currently scheduled for August 24, 2027. This indicates the case is progressing towards defining the terms of the patent claims at issue.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance are detailed in the provided search results as of May 27, 2026. Given the scheduled Markman hearing in August 2027, discovery would be ongoing or in its initial phases.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is still active and in pre-trial stages, so no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active. There is no indication of settlement, dismissal, or judgment yet.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPRs against US Patent No. 9,622,032: U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 is one of the patents that Apple Inc. has challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, specifically IPR2025-01257. This IPR was filed around three weeks before a related case (Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., 7:25-cv-00445-ADA) was filed in the Western District of Texas. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is expected to decide these IPRs by March 2027. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the current litigation against ADT, as a finding of invalidity would likely lead to a stay or dismissal of the claims related to the '032 patent in this case.

It is difficult to definitively identify the complete counsel of record for Avant Location Technologies LLC in Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al. (2:26-cv-00011) without direct access to the docket for this specific, active case. However, based on Avant Location Technologies LLC's history of patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and common practices for NPEs, we can infer likely counsel and identify attorneys who have represented Avant in similar prior cases.

Attorneys who have previously represented Avant Location Technologies LLC in patent litigation include:

• S. Calvin Capshaw
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP (Gladewater, TX).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Capshaw's practice primarily involves commercial litigation, patent litigation, and federal court litigation, with significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas. He is AV® Peer Review Rated.
• Jonathan K. Waldrop
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (Silicon Valley, CA, and potentially other offices).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Waldrop chairs Kasowitz's Intellectual Property group and is recognized as a leading attorney in technology cases. He has served as lead counsel for major tech companies like Google, Cox Communications, and YouTube, and has a history of achieving favorable jury verdicts in patent litigation. He also represents large patent assertion companies.
• Peter Lambrianakos
  • Role: Counsel, particularly in PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (Rye, New York).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lambrianakos has represented Avant Location Technologies LLC as lead counsel in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as in IPR2025-01257 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030.
• Vincent J. Rubino, III
  • Role: Counsel, particularly in PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (Rye, New York).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubino has also represented Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings alongside Mr. Lambrianakos.

It's important to note that while Ryan Lawrence was named General Counsel for "Avant," this refers to Avant, LLC, a financial technology company, not Avant Location Technologies LLC, the plaintiff in this patent case.

Without the specific docket for 2:26-cv-00011, it is not possible to confirm if additional local counsel or "of counsel" attorneys have made appearances yet. In Eastern District of Texas cases, it is common for plaintiffs to engage local counsel in addition to their primary litigation teams.

Counsel representing the defendant, ADT Inc. (and ADT LLC), in Avant Location Technologies LLC v. ADT Inc. et al. (2:26-cv-00011) are likely a combination of lead counsel from a national patent litigation firm and local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on available information, the following attorneys and firms appear to be involved:

• James Glenn

  • Role: Likely local counsel or co-counsel.
  • Firm: Cabello Hall Zinda, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: James Glenn is an experienced intellectual property litigator, admitted to practice in all U.S. District Courts in Texas, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has litigated over 70 cases and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) in federal district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His practice focuses on intellectual property utilization through litigation, licensing, and contract negotiation. While an earlier search snippet mentioned a "Julian Glenn," James Glenn's extensive patent litigation background and admission to the Eastern District of Texas make him a strong candidate for defense counsel in this matter.

• Keith R. Hummel

  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience Note: Keith Hummel is a partner at Cravath and is recognized for his expertise in business-critical patent disputes, particularly in the biotech industry, and handles both contentious and non-contentious patent matters. He was part of the Cravath team that successfully represented ADT in an appeal affirming a PTAB decision invalidating patent claims brought by Vivint, Inc.

• Sharonmoyee Goswami

  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience Note: Sharonmoyee Goswami is a partner at Cravath, praised by clients as "instrumental" in high-stakes patent litigation cases involving high-tech and biotech patents. She also argued before the PTAB and on appeal in the successful representation of ADT against Vivint, Inc.

It is important to note that a "Joint Motion to Dismiss" has been filed by the parties, indicating that the plaintiff's claims against ADT Inc. and ADT LLC have been resolved with prejudice. This suggests the litigation is concluding.