Untitled case

Case Overview and Background for Telcom Ventures LLC v. Apple Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 5:25-cv-05041, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Rita F. Lin. The case was initially filed in the Southern District of Florida as 1:24-cv-23837 in October 2024 by Telcom Ventures LLC against Apple Inc., and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California on June 13, 2025. The plaintiff, Telcom Ventures LLC, is a principal investment firm specializing in venture capital and private equity investments within the wireless communications industry, and in the context of this litigation, functions as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). The defendant, Apple Inc., is a well-known operating company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.

Telcom Ventures LLC initially accused Apple's Apple Pay features in its iPhones of infringing eight patents. The accused technology broadly relates to mobile payments via biometric authentication and near-field communication (NFC). Among the patents originally asserted was U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708, which generally relates to systems and methods for secure wireless transactions and communication. However, Telcom Ventures LLC has since dismissed claims related to U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708, along with three other patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,462,411, 11,770,756, and 12,028,793), with prejudice from the litigation. Four related patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,219,199, 10,674,432, 11,924,743, and 11,937,172, remain asserted in the lawsuit and are reportedly related to aspects of wireless communication and transaction processing.

The procedural posture of the case is currently stayed pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed by Apple Inc. targeting the asserted patents. Apple filed four IPR petitions in August 2025, challenging all patents then at issue. While two of these petitions were denied by the USPTO on November 20, 2025, the court granted Apple's motion to stay the litigation, citing the early stage of the case, the potential for issue simplification through IPR, and a lack of undue prejudice to Telcom Ventures LLC. The choice of the Northern District of California as a venue is common for patent cases against major technology companies like Apple, given the company's headquarters and significant operations within the district, and it is a popular forum for patent litigation. The case is notable for involving an NPE asserting patents related to prevalent mobile payment technologies against a major tech industry player, coupled with the strategic use of IPRs to challenge patent validity and stay the district court proceedings.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Telcom Ventures LLC v. Apple, Inc. (5:25-cv-05041)

This patent infringement case, Telcom Ventures LLC v. Apple, Inc., was originally filed in the Southern District of Florida and subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708, was ultimately dismissed from the litigation with prejudice, leading to the probable termination of related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Key Legal Developments

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Initial Complaint (Southern District of Florida): Telcom Ventures LLC initially filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. on October 4, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, case number 1:24-cv-23837-JEM. The complaint accused Apple of infringing eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708, through its Apple Pay service and iPhones.
• Case Transfer and Re-opening (Northern District of California): The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and re-opened on June 13, 2025, as case number 5:25-cv-05041-RFL. Judge Rita F. Lin was assigned to the case.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Dismissal of Patent '708 from Litigation: On September 23, 2025, Telcom Ventures LLC dismissed U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708 (along with three other related patents: 11,770,756, and 12,028,793) with prejudice from the ongoing litigation. This dismissal effectively removed the patent from contention in the district court case. Prior to this, a memorandum in opposition to Apple's motion to dismiss, pertaining to the Southern District of Florida case, was noted on December 11, 2024.

Claim Construction (Markman), Discovery, Trial, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Given the early dismissal of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708 from the litigation on September 23, 2025, the case did not proceed to substantive pre-trial motions concerning this patent, claim construction (Markman), significant discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions related to this specific patent.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• For U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708, the final disposition in the district court litigation is its dismissal with prejudice on September 23, 2025, meaning Telcom Ventures cannot assert this patent against Apple in this litigation again. The broader litigation may continue with other asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Filings by Apple: Apple Inc. filed several inter partes review (IPR) petitions against Telcom Ventures LLC's patents, including IPR2025-01233 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,832,708. The filing date for Apple's IPR petitions against Telcom Ventures patents was August 5, 2025, with a Notice of Filing Date Accorded on August 7, 2025, for at least one IPR.
• Motions to Dismiss IPRs: Following Telcom Ventures' dismissal of the '708 patent (and others) from the district court litigation, Apple filed motions to dismiss the corresponding IPR petitions, including IPR2025-01233, pre-institution. As of November 20, 2025, the Board had not yet rendered a decision on institution for IPR2025-01233, and Apple's motion to withdraw/dismiss was pending. While the ultimate outcome for IPR2025-01233 is not explicitly stated as "granted," it is highly probable it was dismissed pre-institution given the parallel litigation dismissal.
• Other IPR Outcomes: Separately, IPR2025-01234 (for U.S. Patent No. 10,219,199) and IPR2025-01235 (for U.S. Patent No. 10,674,432), also filed by Apple against Telcom Ventures, were "discretionarily denied" by the PTAB.
• Ex Parte Reexamination: Apple Inc. has also filed ex parte reexamination requests against other Telcom Ventures LLC patents (e.g., application numbers 90016293 and 90016294) on May 15, 2026, which are currently pending. However, it is not explicitly stated that these relate to the 9,832,708 patent.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Telcom Ventures LLC, in case 5:25-cv-05041. The information is based on docket entries and publicly available firm profiles. It is important to note that while some attorneys are explicitly linked to the defendant Apple, Inc., the representation for other listed attorneys is inferred to be for the plaintiff given their appearance on the docket without such a designation for the defendant.

Plaintiff: Telcom Ventures LLC

Jay Brian Shapiro

• Role: Lead Counsel (Inferred based on extensive experience)
• Firm: Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. (Miami, Florida) and Forman Shapiro & Rosenfeld LLP (Nicasio, California)
• Experience Note: Over 35 years of courtroom experience in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property litigation and pharmaceutical litigation, and selected to Super Lawyers for Antitrust Litigation, Business Litigation, and Intellectual Property Litigation from 2006-2026.

Counsel from Alston & Bird LLP (Inferred as Plaintiff's Counsel)

Alston & Bird LLP has a notable Intellectual Property Group and Technology & Telecommunications Litigation Team with expertise in patent litigation and intellectual property disputes. The firm has offices in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, California, making them suitable for representation in the Northern District of California.

• Katherine G. Rubschlager

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results, but likely San Francisco or Silicon Valley, CA, given court location and firm presence)
  • Experience Note: Alston & Bird's Technology & Telecommunications Litigation Team handles intellectual property disputes.

• Coral Del Mar Lopez

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

• Mary Isabelle Riolo

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

• Jacob W. Young

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

• Karlee N. Wroblewski

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

• Theodore Stevenson, III

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLC (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

• Kirk T. Bradley

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (Office location not specified in results)
  • Experience Note: Part of Alston & Bird's team with expertise in technology and telecommunications litigation, including intellectual property.

Note: Several attorneys from Desmarais LLP (e.g., Joze Faye Welsh) are explicitly noted as representing the defendant, Apple, Inc. Similarly, Lynnette Cortes Mhatre and Martin B. Goldberg from Lashgoldberg are also listed, but their client representation is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets. Without further explicit information, their role as plaintiff or defendant counsel cannot be definitively determined from the available search results.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant, Apple Inc., in Telcom Ventures LLC v. Apple, Inc. (5:25-cv-05041), based on available docket information and attorney profiles:

Desmarais LLP

• John M. Desmarais (Lead Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Founding partner, renowned trial lawyer with decades of experience in high-stakes IP litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants, including securing full defense verdicts for Apple, Cisco, and Google in patent disputes.
• Peter C. Magic (Lead Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Leads Desmarais LLP's California office, a patent trial lawyer representing plaintiffs and defendants in various industries including telecommunications and cellphone technology, securing noninfringement and invalidity judgments for defendants like Cisco Systems and Intel.
• Joze Faye Welsh (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing, though not explicitly stated for her in particular snippets).
  • Experience: Admitted pro hac vice representing Apple, Inc.. Specializes in intellectual property litigation.
• Cosmin Maier (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent infringement litigation, appeals, and inter partes review proceedings involving wireless communications, semiconductor fabrication, and computer architecture; recognized for trial experience and successful IPRs.
• Ido Sadeh (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing, though not explicitly stated for him in particular snippets).
  • Experience: Admitted pro hac vice representing Apple, Inc.. Specializes in intellectual property litigation.
• Asim Zaidi (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing).
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property and technology-related litigation in areas such as web development, telecommunications, and networking, including securing a complete non-infringement defense verdict for Cisco Systems.
• Lindsey E. Miller (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Trusted trial partner in high-stakes patent disputes for technology and life sciences companies, with experience in consumer electronics, software, and defending Intel in patent infringement actions.

Alston & Bird LLP

• Theodore Stevenson, III (Lead Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Preeminent patent trial lawyer with extensive federal trial experience (over 40 patent and technology cases), known for handling FRAND licensing disputes and defending major technology companies.
• Kirk T. Bradley (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC.
  • Experience: Partner in Intellectual Property Litigation Group focusing on complex technology disputes and patent appeals before the Federal Circuit, with experience in wireless communications and medical devices.
• Katherine G. Rubschlager (Counsel, Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, East Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience: Focuses on litigating and trying complex patent cases in federal courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission, with experience in telecommunications technology and consumer electronics.
• Mary Isabelle Riolo (Counsel, Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing, though not explicitly stated for her in particular snippets).
  • Experience: Admitted pro hac vice representing Apple, Inc.. Specializes in intellectual property litigation.
• Jacob W. Young (Counsel, Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing, though not explicitly stated for him in particular snippets).
  • Experience: Represents technology-driven companies in patent disputes across federal district courts, the PTAB, and ITC, with a focus on telecommunications and wireless technologies.
• Karlee N. Wroblewski (Counsel, Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX (likely, as per firm's main office and PacerMonitor listing, though not explicitly stated for her in particular snippets).
  • Experience: Admitted pro hac vice representing Apple, Inc.. Specializes in intellectual property litigation.

Additional Attorneys Mentioned (Roles and Representation Clarified)

• Lynnette Cortes Mhatre
  • Firm & Office: LashGoldberg LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
  • Role/Status: Listed on PacerMonitor as potentially associated with the case. However, her profile indicates a focus on complex commercial litigation, government enforcement actions, and healthcare sectors, not patent litigation. It is highly likely she serves as local counsel or her appearance was for administrative purposes.
• Martin B. Goldberg
  • Firm & Office: LashGoldberg LLP, Miami, FL.
  • Role/Status: Listed on PacerMonitor as potentially associated with the case. His profile indicates a focus on complex civil litigation, government enforcement, and healthcare industry disputes, not patent litigation. It is highly likely he serves as local counsel or his appearance was for administrative purposes.
• Coral Del Mar Lopez
  • Firm & Office: Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Miami, FL.
  • Role/Status: Although listed with Alston & Bird LLP in one PacerMonitor snippet (Snippet 1), other firm profiles and Super Lawyers listings identify her with Stearns Weaver Miller, focusing on commercial business litigation rather than intellectual property. It is likely she is not representing Apple in this patent case directly for substantive patent issues, or the initial listing was an error.
• Kevin J. Gu and Kyle Curry
  • Firm & Office: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (likely).
  • Role/Status: Listed on PacerMonitor as associated with Desmarais LLP. While PacerMonitor lists them with Desmarais LLP, there isn't explicit confirmation of a pro hac vice order for them representing Apple in this specific case in the provided snippets, unlike other Desmarais attorneys. Thus, their specific roles and confirmation of representation for Apple in this case remain unclear without further docket review.