Apple Inc. v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

This case, Apple Inc. v. Avant Location Technologies LLC (IPR2025-01261), is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where Apple Inc. challenged the patentability of U.S. Patent 9,042,910. The petitioner, Apple Inc., is a well-known operating company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, software, and online services. The patent owner, Avant Location Technologies LLC, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC, engaged in asserting patent rights rather than developing or selling products. The IPR was filed by Apple as a countermeasure to patent infringement lawsuits brought by Avant Location Technologies.

The challenged patent, U.S. Patent 9,042,910, broadly relates to methods for monitoring the presence of a mobile station or a system for providing "presence related services" to a designated "special area" through a linked mobile station. Avant Location Technologies LLC has asserted this and other related patents against Apple in at least two district court cases: first in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00757, filed September 13, 2024), and subsequently in the Western District of Texas (7:25-cv-00445, filed October 1, 2025). The accused products or services in the underlying infringement litigation are likely Apple devices and functionalities related to location tracking or "presence-related services."

The procedural posture of IPR2025-01261 is significant, as the PTAB issued a "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision, meaning Apple's petition was denied institution for procedural reasons rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge. An institution decision was expected by March 2026, and the "Not Instituted" status indicates that the PTAB declined to proceed with the review. This outcome is generally non-appealable and is considered a win for the patent owner, Avant Location Technologies, as it prevents Apple from challenging the patent's validity in this PTAB forum. The case is notable due to the ongoing assertion campaign by an NPE against a major technology company like Apple, and the specific "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome, which can occur for various reasons, including statutory bars or discretionary denials by the Board, and often signals a strategic victory for the patent owner at the PTAB stage.

The primary litigation involving Avant Location Technologies LLC and Apple Inc. includes two district court cases: Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00757-JRG, filed in the Eastern District of Texas on September 13, 2024, and Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00445-ADA, filed in the Western District of Texas on October 1, 2025.

Eastern District of Texas Case (2:24-cv-00757-JRG)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on September 13, 2024, asserting infringement of seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910. The complaint accused Apple products using the "Find My" feature for locating lost devices of infringing the asserted patents. Ecobee Technologies ULC d/b/a Ecobee was also named as a defendant in this case, and related cases were consolidated for pretrial issues under this lead case.
• Extension of Time to Answer: Apple Inc. was granted an unopposed extension of time to answer the complaint, extending the deadline to November 23, 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss or Transfer: Apple filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. An extension of time for briefing on this motion was granted, with Apple's reply due by January 10, 2025, and Avant's sur-reply due by January 27, 2025.
• Discovery Hotline Hearing: A discovery hotline telephonic hearing was conducted on April 2, 2025, concerning the plaintiff's review of the defendant's source code and compliance with the court's Protective Order. The discussion centered on whether a reviewer could temporarily disable internet, network, and port accessibility on a personal computer for note-taking, or if a permanently disabled computer was required.
• Voluntary Dismissal: Avant voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit against Apple, which had been pending for over a year, after the case was transferred from Avant's preferred judicial district.

Western District of Texas Case (7:25-cv-00445-ADA)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Avant Location Technologies LLC sued Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas on October 1, 2025, asserting infringement of the same seven patents previously asserted in the Eastern District of Texas case.
• Amended Complaint: An amended complaint was filed on November 14, 2025, addressing allegations related to indirect infringement and willfulness.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Apple filed a motion to stay this case pending resolution of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patents. Apple argued that a stay would simplify the case, as its IPR petitions challenged all asserted claims of all seven patents and could be case-dispositive. Institution decisions for these IPRs were expected by March 2026, with final written decisions anticipated by March 2027, well before any potential trial in the district court. Apple also moved to dismiss allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the '720 patent family (one of the asserted patents) in the district court litigation, arguing a lack of factual support.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR Filings: On September 11, 2025, Apple Inc. filed multiple IPR petitions challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of the patents in suit, including IPR2025-01261 for U.S. Patent 9,042,910. These petitions presented strong prior art grounds based on obviousness.
• Sotera Plus Stipulation: In each IPR, Apple filed a "Notice of Sotera Plus Stipulation," agreeing that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue in the related district court litigation any system art prior art theory that corresponded to prior art presented to the Board. Such stipulations are highly relevant but not dispositive in discretionary denial decisions at the PTAB.
• PTAB Procedural Changes: The landscape for IPRs underwent significant changes in 2025. On March 26, 2025, the USPTO announced a bifurcated approach for institution decisions, where the Director would first decide on discretionary denial before a PTAB panel addressed the merits. Effective October 20, 2025, the Director of the USPTO, rather than the PTAB, took personal control over all IPR and PGR institution decisions, evaluating discretionary, merits, and non-discretionary considerations simultaneously.
• Outcome - Not Instituted - Procedural: IPR2025-01261, along with several other IPRs filed by Apple against Avant Location Technologies, resulted in a "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision. This means the PTAB declined to institute the review for procedural reasons, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge, and it represents a win for Avant Location Technologies. This type of denial often occurs due to statutory bars or discretionary denials by the Board.

Apple Inc. is represented by in-house counsel and external counsel from Haynes and Boone, LLP in its PTAB IPR proceedings, including IPR2025-01261.

In-house Counsel for Apple Inc.

• Iain Cunningham
  • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Firm: Apple Inc., Cupertino, California
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and is directly engaged in formulating and driving strategy for Apple's IP litigation matters.

Apple also has other IP litigation counsel within its legal team who are involved in managing complex intellectual property disputes globally.

External Counsel for Apple Inc.

• Scott T. Jarratt
  • Role: Attorney for Apple Inc.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Apple Inc. in several IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC.
• Adam C. Fowles
  • Role: Attorney for Apple Inc.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Apple Inc. in several IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC.
• Jonathan R. Bowser
  • Role: Attorney for Apple Inc.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Apple Inc. in several IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC.
• Dan Smith
  • Role: Attorney for Apple Inc.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Apple Inc. in several IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC.
• Matthew Beck
  • Role: Attorney for Apple Inc.
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Apple Inc. in several IPRs against Avant Location Technologies LLC.

These attorneys from Haynes and Boone, LLP were served as counsel of record for Apple Inc. in IPR2025-01257, which is one of the parallel IPRs filed by Apple against Avant Location Technologies LLC and involves the same patent owner and petitioner as IPR2025-01261. Therefore, it is highly likely they are also representing Apple in IPR2025-01261.

Avant Location Technologies LLC is represented by attorneys from Fabricant LLP in the IPR proceedings before the PTAB, including IPR2025-01261. They are also represented by local counsel in the ongoing district court litigations against Apple.

Counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC (PTAB IPR2025-01261)

• Peter Lambrianakos
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings against Apple Inc..
• Vincent J. Rubino, III
  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings..
• Julian G. Pymento
  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings and involved in email correspondence regarding the underlying district court litigation..
• Jacob Ostling
  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience: Counsel of record for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings..

Counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC (District Court Litigations)

Based on appearances in the Eastern District of Texas case (2:24-cv-00757-JRG), the following attorneys have appeared for Avant Location Technologies LLC:

• Ty William Wilson
  • Role: Attorney for Avant Location Technologies LLC
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but appearance was filed)
  • Experience: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Eastern District of Texas case..
• Rudolph Fink, IV
  • Role: Attorney for Avant Location Technologies LLC
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but appearance was filed)
  • Experience: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Eastern District of Texas case..
• William Ellsworth Davis, III
  • Role: Attorney for Avant Location Technologies LLC
  • Firm: (Firm not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but appearance was filed)
  • Experience: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Eastern District of Texas case..