Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC

I'll research this case across the PTAB docket, parallel district court litigation, and the parties' backgrounds.

Good foundation. Let me verify the parties' backgrounds, the parallel litigation, and the PTAB outcomes.

Now let me pin down the '188 patent's technical content, the PTAB institution, and the litigation campaign timeline.

Case Overview & Background

Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) — with parallel IPR2025-00562 (PTAB)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a Delaware LLC whose principal place of business is listed in its complaint as 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon — the same Bend address associated with founder/inventor John J. Giobbi in state corporate filings. Proxense describes itself as founded in 2001 (its own 2016 outreach letters say "established in 2005") and says that from roughly 2004–2012 it "developed and commercialized fundamental technologies related to electronic identification, electronic commerce, access control and location tracking" (Microsoft complaint ¶34; complaint ¶2). It no longer appears to operate a product business; third-party trackers classify it as an NPE (small company) and Apple as a large operating company (Unified Patents portal). A notable artifact: a July 25, 2016 letter from Proxense's counsel (Patent Law Works LLP, Salt Lake City) to Tim Cook offering to sell the entire Proxense portfolio, stating Proxense "has never engaged in any patent enforcement litigation" and had granted no licenses, while expressly flagging the '188 and '905 patents as relevant to Apple Watch, Apple Pay and Touch ID, and serving §287 notice (complaint Ex. 1-39). No public record of a completed portfolio sale appears in the sources reviewed; Proxense remains the named assignee and plaintiff. Apple Inc. is the California-based device/services company; its Austin, Texas campus (complaint cites ~7,000 employees and a $1B campus) is central to the venue fight.

The accused technology. Apple moved to transfer to N.D. Cal.; Judge Alan D. Albright denied the motion on February 7, 2025, holding the case "would not be clearly more convenient to try in the Northern District of California" (Law360 case page; RPX analysis). Proxense's infringement contentions accuse (1) Apple's "Universal Passwordless Architecture" — the Apple OS, Safari, and Apple Security Platform — and (2) Apple Pay / Apple Wallet and devices preloaded with it: i.e., Apple's biometric/passkey-style passwordless authentication stack and its mobile-wallet payment flow (Preliminary Infringement Contentions, No. 6:24-cv-00143). The complaint pleads willful infringement grounded on the 2016 notice letter and Apple's citation of a related family member in a May 2016 IDS.

The patents and the '188 at issue in the IPR. The district court case asserts six patents: '730 (8,352,730), '954 (8,886,954), '905 (9,298,905), '042 (8,646,042), '188 (9,049,188, claims 1, 3, 4, 7), and '989 (10,698,989). These split into two families. The Giobbi "biometric PDK authentication" family ('730/'954/'905/'989, priority to Dec. 2004/Feb. 2005) covers verifying a user during authentication of an integrated device that stores biometric data and a device ID in tamper-proof storage and wirelessly sends codes to an authentication agent. The "hybrid device" family ('042/'188/'700/'289/'960/'378, all continuations of a Dec. 5, 2008 application claiming a "Reverse Prox" provisional of Dec. 6, 2007, naming David L. Brown, Jupiter, FL) covers a single device containing both a Personal Digital Key (PDK) and a Receiver-Decoder Circuit (RDC) coupled by a signal line — e.g., a phone that is simultaneously a digital key and a digital lock, enabling an application, function or service. U.S. 9,049,188 B1 issued June 2, 2015 from App. No. 14/171,705, Art Unit 2438. In IPR2025-00562 (filed Feb. 7, 2025; Tech Center 2400, Art Unit 2438), Apple challenges all of claims 1–20 on three grounds: (1) claims 1–20 obvious over Giobbi '157 in view of Giobbi '139 and Dua (U.S. 9,042,819); (2) claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–18 over Broadcom EP 1,536,306 A1; and (3) claims 8, 16, 19–20 over Broadcom in view of Giobbi '157 (petition summary). Apple's expert is Dr. Andrew Wolfe; a Petitioner Reply and supplemental Wolfe declaration (EX-1013) were filed March 23, 2026, alongside district-court claim construction orders and Proxense's infringement contentions from the Google, Microsoft, Samsung and Apple cases — confirming that construction of "hybrid device," "enabled," PDK and RDC is contested in both forums.

Why it matters. This is the tail end of a deliberate multi-front campaign in which Proxense has asserted overlapping biometric-authentication/hybrid-device families against Samsung (6:21-cv-00210-ADA, 2021), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319-ADA, 2023), Google (6:23-cv-00320-ADA, 2023), and Apple (2024) — covering Windows Hello-style passwordless login, Android/iOS biometrics, and mobile wallets — with the same claim terms construed repeatedly by the same Waco court. The PTAB side is equally sprawling: Google IPRs (IPR2024-00233, -00234, -00783, -00784), Microsoft IPRs (IPR2024-00405, -00407, -00775, -00846), Apple's IPRs (IPR2025-00074, -00075 joined to Google's '289 IPR, -00562 on the '188, and IPR2025-00600 on the '989, terminated July 1, 2025), plus ex parte reexaminations 90/015,052 ('730), 90/015,053 ('905) and 90/015,054 ('989). Apple's copy-and-join strategy and Proxense's §314(a)/Fintiv discretionary-denial arguments in the '289 proceedings have made this a test case for follow-on petitions. Law360 reported a June 18, 2025 PTAB decision finding claims of a Proxense biometric-verification patent obvious on Apple's challenge (Law360), but I could not confirm from the sources reviewed which IPR/patent that decision addressed.

Unresolved / not well sourced. I could not independently verify the exact institution date of IPR2025-00562 (the docket aggregator shows status "Trial Instituted"), the identity of the assigned APJs, the parties' PTAB and district-court counsel of record, the final written decision (which, on a 12-month clock from a mid-2025 institution, would fall in mid-to-late 2026 — after the last docket event I can date, the March 23, 2026 reply), or the trial date. Docket text suggests a claim construction hearing around April 14, 2025 and that Apple moved to stay the district case pending the IPR, but the aggregator snippet mixing "Theta IP, LLC" language makes the stay outcome unreliable; treat that as unconfirmed.

I'll research this case. Note upfront: IPR2025-00562 is a PTAB proceeding, not a district court litigation — so I'll cover the IPR track and the parallel district court case(s) involving the same patent.

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the parallel district court case and the PTAB proceedings.

Framing note (important)

The case number in the metadata — IPR2025-00562, Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC — is not a district court infringement action; it is an inter partes review at the PTAB challenging US 9,049,188 B1 ("Hybrid Device and Method"). The corresponding patent infringement litigation is the mirror-image captioned case Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Division, Judge Alan D. Albright). Below I chronological both tracks together, because the litigation and the IPR have materially driven each other. Where I could not verify a fact against a primary source, I flag it.

---

1. Pre-suit posture (2016–2023)

• 2016-07-25 — Proxense's then-counsel sent Apple CEO Tim Cook a letter offering to sell the entire Proxense portfolio, expressly identifying the '905 and '188 patents as "highly relevant to your Apple Watch, Apple Pay and Touch ID products," and purporting to give § 287(a) notice. This letter was filed as an exhibit to the later complaint (Case 6:24-cv-00143-ADA, Dkt. 1-39). It is the backbone of Proxense's notice/willfulness theory.
• Proxense then ran a serial campaign in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright: Samsung (6:21-cv-00210-ADA — settled on the eve of trial in 2023), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319-ADA), Google (6:23-cv-00320-ADA). Apple was a later add-on.

2. Filing & initial pleadings (2024)

• 2024-03-18 — Proxense files 6:24-cv-00143-ADA against Apple, pleading willful infringement of six patents: 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 9,298,905; 8,646,042; 9,049,188; and 10,698,989. Accused products: Apple's "Universal Passwordless Architecture" (Apple OS, Safari, Apple Security Platform) and Apple Pay/Apple Wallet and devices preloaded with them. (Confirmed by Proxense's infringement contentions filed as an exhibit in related PTAB proceedings.)
• Initial contentions — Proxense served preliminary infringement contentions (the Apple-case set dated 2024-06-15 per Proxense's later PTAB filing); asserted claims included '188 claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and '042 claims 1, 6, plus '730, '954, '905 and '989 claims.
• Apple's answer and counterclaims (declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity) are not documented in the sources I could reach; I have no verified docket entry for them. Treat as unconfirmed.
• 2024-07-03 — Scheduling Order entered (Dkt. 38 per Apple's own claim-construction brief; note one docket index lists a Dkt. 38 dated 2024-09-26 — I could not reconcile these, so the scheduling-order date should be treated as approximate).

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

The 2025-02-07 date is a notable coincidence: the same day Albright denied transfer, Apple filed the IPR at issue here.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

This was the fourth time Judge Albright construed the same Proxense terms (after Samsung, Google, and Microsoft), so the briefing was largely a uniformity fight.

• 2024-11-05 — Apple's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 46), arguing "tamper proof format" = "a format that prevents any changes to the stored data," and that the '730 claim 8 "verification unit" limitation is § 112(6) means-plus-function with no disclosed algorithm.
• 2024-11-27 — Proxense's Responsive Brief (Dkt. 50), invoking Markman uniformity and the prior Albright constructions; arguing "tamper proof format" needs no construction and "verification unit" is definite.
• 2024-12-30 — Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 53). Agreed constructions included:
  • "hybrid device" = "a device comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK) and an integrated receiver-decoder circuit (RDC)" ('042, '289, and earlier '188 claims);
  • "PDK" = "an operably connected collection of elements including an antenna and a transceiver for communicating with a RDC and a controller and memory for storing information particular to a user";
  • "RDC" = "a component or collection of components, capable of wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data for processing";
  • "device ID code" = "a unique code identifying a device";
  • preambles of '042 claim 1 and '289 claim 1 are limiting.
  • Disputed terms remaining: "tamper proof format," "access message," and the '730 claim 8 "verification unit" limitation.
• Claim construction hearing — docket-sheet excerpts reference 2025-04-14 (with a related 2025-05-27 entry ~43 days later); I could not verify a Markman hearing date or a claim construction order in the Apple case from a primary source. By contrast, the Google ('320) claim construction order issued 2024-01-23 and the Microsoft ('319) order 2024-05-24 — both later cited by Apple as IPR exhibits (Exs. 1014–1015 in IPR2025-00562).

Note the strategic arc: Apple ultimately got more traction on these terms at the PTAB than in Texas, and its IPR exhibits are largely Proxense's own district-court claim-construction papers from the Apple, Google, Microsoft and Samsung cases.

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-06-15 (Apple) / 2024-07-24 (Microsoft) — Proxense's infringement contentions. These became IPR exhibits (e.g., Ex. 1018/1021/1022 in IPR2025-00562) and the basis for Proxense's argument that the constructions it advanced in the IPRs were consistent with its district-court positions.
• Apple served its claim-construction disclosures (terms including "hybrid device," PDK, RDC, and § 112(f) for "verification unit") on the district court.
• The stay froze fact discovery and expert discovery before the dispositive-motion deadline; no trial-stage discovery occurred.

6. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. There was no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion in 6:24-cv-00143-ADA. The case was stayed pending PTAB and then narrowed by Proxense's own dismissals (below).

7. Dismissals, settlement, and present posture

• 2025-01-13 — Proxense v. Google (6:23-cv-00320) dismissed by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all Proxense claims with prejudice and Google's defenses/counterclaims without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees — i.e., Google took a license. (ip fray confirmed the dismissal language and counsel.) Proxense had previously licensed Samsung (2023).
• Early 2025 (order filed on a Wednesday; likely ~2025-02-05) — Judge Albright granted Proxense's request to dismiss the '905 and '188 patents from the Apple case with prejudice. Reported by Law360 ("Proxense's Biometric Tech Suit Against Apple Sheds Two Patents"). This is the single most consequential litigation event for the IPR: Apple's petition then argued Fintiv did not apply because no parallel district court proceeding on the '188 remained.
• 2024-08-22 onward — Apple filed a family of IPRs against the asserted Proxense patents, including IPR2024-01334 (filed 2024-08-22, '954 patent) and IPR2024-01399; the '188 challenge came later as IPR2025-00562.
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-26) — The district court action remains stayed and actively pending as to the surviving patents ('730, '954, '042, '989 and possibly '289), with no trial date reported. The '188 and '905 are out of the case by dismissal with prejudice.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

IPR2025-00562 (the metadata case) — Apple v. Proxense, '188 patent, claims 1–20:

• 2025-02-07 — Petition filed. Grounds: (1) claims 1–20 obvious over Giobbi '157 + Giobbi '139 + Dua; (2) claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–18 obvious over Broadcom EP 1,536,306 A1; (3) claims 8, 16, 19–20 obvious over Broadcom + Giobbi '157.
• Discretionary-denial defenses argued by Apple: General Plastic (the earlier Samsung IPR on the '188 was terminated before an FWD, and Apple was not a party); Fintiv (inapplicable — the '188 had been dismissed from the district court case); § 325(d) (the Giobbi/Dua/Broadcom art was never substantively before the examiner).
• Docket progression: Notice of accord filing date 2025-04-11; Patent Owner Preliminary Response; a Board order 2025-06-17; a Patent Owner notice 2025-07-11; a Board order 2025-10-02 after which the docket status reads "Trial Instituted"; Patent Owner Response 2025-12-29 (with a supplemental Wolfe declaration, Ex. 1013, and the district court claim-construction orders as Exs. 1014–1050+); Petitioner Reply 2026-03-23 (Paper 12). A statutory FWD would be due roughly 12 months from institution (≈ early October 2026, extendable to January 2027); no FWD has issued as of today.
• One secondary source (the AI-generated "Ex. 1001" case summary on ex parte's site) notes the Board previously construed "PDK" in an earlier '188 IPR as "a local memory for storing biometric information for authenticating a user, wherein the information is secured," contrasted with the district court's construction; treat that as low-confidence/secondary.

Other PTAB and PTO activity affecting the litigation:

• Microsoft IPRs against Proxense patents: IPR2024-00233 ('954 — terminated after Proxense's request for adverse judgment), IPR2024-00405 / -00407 / -00573, IPR2024-00775 ('730 — terminated after adverse judgment), IPR2024-00846 ('954 — pending). Microsoft's petitions are built on exhibits drawn from the Apple district court claim-construction record.
• Google IPR2024-00782 (v. Proxense) — also cites the Apple-case Joint Claim Construction Statement (Ex. 1053).
• Intel IPRs IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329 — institution denied on discretionary denial grounds (settled expectations; patents in force >9 years), under Acting Director Stewart's Dabico framework (a decision citing Dabico, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (June 18, 2025)); Proxense sought Director review in related briefing.
• Ex parte reexaminations: 90/015,052 ('730), 90/015,053 ('905), 90/015,054 ('989).
• Reported PTAB win for Apple in mid-2025: Law360's case page for Proxense v. Apple carries a 2025-06-18 item stating the PTAB "found that Apple proved that claims across a Proxense patent on biometric verification technology are invalid, holding that they were obvious." I could not verify which patent or IPR number this refers to (it is not the '188, which was only instituted in October 2025). Treat the patent identification as unconfirmed.

Effect on the litigation: the IPR track achieved what Apple's Texas defense was slow to deliver — a stay of the district court case, Proxense's withdrawal of the '905 and '188 with prejudice, and a structural shift of the merits fight to the Board, where Apple has also been able to leverage Proxense's own inconsistent claim-construction positions from the Samsung/Google/Microsoft/Apple cases.

---

Confidence / gap disclosure

• Well sourced: the complaint's six patents, accused products and 2016 notice letter; the transfer denial (2025-02-07); the joint claim-construction statement and agreed constructions (2024-12-30); the '905/'188 dismissal with prejudice; the Google 2025-01-13 stipulated dismissal; the IPR2025-00562 grounds, petition date, and docket sequence through 2026-03-23; the Intel discretionary-denial decisions; the ex parte reexams.
• Not verified / do not quote as fact: Apple's answer and counterclaim docket entries; the exact date of the '905/'188 dismissal order; the exact date of the stay order; the exact Markman hearing date and whether a claim-construction order ever issued in the Apple case; the patent/IPR number behind the 2025-06-18 Law360 headline; and the PTAB's prior "PDK" construction in the earlier '188 IPR.

I'll research press coverage across multiple angles, starting with the specific roundup articles provided and then broadening out.

Excellent — I found what appears to be a Bloomberg Law report of a final written decision. Let me verify that and dig into the IPWatchdog roundups and other coverage.

Press and analyst coverage of Apple v. Proxense (IPR2025‑00562) and the parallel W.D. Tex. suit

Where the coverage lives (and where it doesn't). This dispute has been covered almost exclusively by the legal/patent trade press — there is no mainstream technology-press coverage (no Reuters, Ars Technica, The Verge, or general-business pickup) in anything I could find. The two outlets with dedicated docket milestones are Law360, whose case page for Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (6:24‑cv‑00143) tracks the litigation, and Bloomberg Law, which runs short IP‑law "Case" summaries. Specialty/analyst outlets — ip fray, RPX, and ID Tech Wire — have provided the deepest analysis. Notably, the IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" columns supplied in the research set do not cover this case: I verified that the January 25, 2024 roundup exists, but its Proxense-relevant content is nil — it is devoted to Torchlight's automotive-headlight IPRs, Yechezkal Spero patents, and PTAB institution statistics. I could not retrieve usable content for the other six roundups, and I found no evidence any of them discusses this IPR.

What the reporting says happened. Law360 recorded two events: on February 7, 2025, a Texas federal judge denied Apple's request to move the case to N.D. Cal., holding it "would not be clearly more convenient to try in the Northern District of California"; and on June 18, 2025, the PTAB "found that Apple proved that claims across a Proxense patent on biometric verification technology are invalid, holding that they were obvious." (That June 2025 decision is a Proxense patent, but not the '188 — the '188 IPR was only instituted later; the earlier case sections flag the same ambiguity and I likewise cannot tie the June 18, 2025 item to a specific IPR number.) Separately, Law360's report as indexed by Muck Rack says Proxense "received permission to drop two patents from its lawsuit against Apple" — the '905 and '188 — with prejudice, via an order filed in W.D. Tex. Most consequentially for this IPR, Bloomberg Law published a Sept. 21, 2026 item reporting that the PTAB held "challenged claims of Proxense LLC's patent that relates to a hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit for biometric authentication and wireless communication are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in an inter partes review by Apple Inc." That description maps squarely onto the '188 patent ("Hybrid Device and Method"), and the only Apple IPR on that patent is IPR2025‑00562 — so this appears to be the final written decision in the case at hand. Flagging the contradiction explicitly: the previously generated sections describe the proceeding as "pending" with "no FWD … as of today"; the Bloomberg Law item indicates an FWD issued in September 2026, which is chronologically consistent with a mid‑2025 institution but post-dates those earlier sections. I could not independently confirm the paper number or exact decision date from a primary PTAB source.

Reaction and framing that goes beyond the record. The most substantive industry-reaction reporting is ip fray, which reported Proxense's director-review request arguing the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act by reaching results inconsistent with a parallel Central Reexamination Unit determination on the '730 patent — i.e., an intra-USPTO conflict ip fray characterizes as undermining "integrity and consistency." That same ip fray piece is the source for the identification of Apple's Duane Morris team (Philip W. Woo, D. Stuart Bartow, Monte T. Squire, Paul Belnap) and Proxense's David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners. A companion ip fray article frames the '730 reexam win as "a huge win for Proxense" and links it to the later Apple PTAB outcome, and it situates the whole fight against then‑Acting Director Morgan Stewart's shift of discretionary-denial authority to the Director — an editorial/analytical take, not a court finding. ID Tech Wire (which credits Law360) offers the most speculative commentary, asserting the June 2025 cancellation "removes a specific infringement risk that could have complicated Apple's long-rumoured under-display Face ID research," reporting that Apple declined to comment, and that Proxense counsel said it was "evaluating appellate options" — claims that go beyond the record and that I could not corroborate independently. RPX provided the closest legal analysis of the venue ruling, highlighting Judge Albright's skepticism toward Apple's witness list (he criticized "stacking the scale with as many potentially frivolous witnesses as is possible to venue shop").

What is conspicuously unreported. No outlet in

Sources

• Petition | IPR2025-00562 | Apple Inc v. Proxense LLC | Ex Parte
• 204. Proxense repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.205. LG induced direct infringement o...
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025-00562 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket
• VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
• Apple Inc. vs Proxense, LLC (2025) | US PTAB | Patent | Arctic Invent Case Law Database
• The '543 Patent issued November 5, 2019, less than six years before the expected discretionary denial decision date
• Proxense LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:24-cv-00143-ADA
• District Judge Alan D Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas W.D.Tex.
• U.S. District Court LIVE Western District of Texas (Waco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:24-cv-00143-ADA
• Defendant's Local Office Makes Witness Travel Less Inconvenient, Rules Judge Albright In Transfer Denial - ARTICLE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

I'll research this. First, an important framing point I'll verify: this is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court case, so "plaintiff" needs mapping onto the petitioner/patent-owner roles.

This is an important structural point: IPR2025-00562 is an inter partes review, not a district court infringement case. Let me pin down who is who and gather counsel details.

Threshold issue: this case has no "plaintiff"

The case in the metadata — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025-00562 — is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a patent infringement action. There is no plaintiff or defendant. The roles are:

There is a real infringement case between these two: Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24‑cv‑00143‑ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco, filed Mar. 18, 2024), where Proxense is the plaintiff. The two are co‑pending and share counsel teams. So I'll give you both, and flag sourcing quality for each.

---

A. If "plaintiff" = Apple (the party that filed IPR2025‑00562)

Petitioner's counsel — Duane Morris LLP

Secondary reporting identifies Apple's team in the Apple‑v‑Proxense IPR proceedings as:

• Philip W. Woo — lead PTAB counsel; Duane Morris (Washington, DC / Silicon Valley). Longtime PTAB and Federal Circuit patent practitioner; Duane Morris's PTAB practice lead — role/firm confirmed via ip fray reporting; not independently verified against the Rule 42.8 mandatory notices in IPR2025‑00562 itself.
• D. Stuart Bartow — Duane Morris (Atlanta / Washington, DC). Patent litigation and PTAB practice.
• Monte T. Squire — Duane Morris (Washington, DC). Registered patent attorney, PTAB/post‑grant focus.
• Paul Belnap — Duane Morris (Silicon Valley). Electronics/software patent litigation.

Source: ip fray, "USPTO divisions' clash over Apple patent invalidation decision…", which states: "Apple is being represented by a team at Duane Morris: Philip W. Woo, D. Stuart Bartow, Monte T. Squire, and Paul Belnap." (ipfray.com)

Caveat I want to be explicit about: I was not able to pull the actual Petitioner's Mandatory Notices / Power of Attorney from the IPR2025‑00562 docket to confirm the attorney of record line-by-line. The PTAB records behind that docket are on Patent Center/PTAB CTS and only partially indexed by the aggregators I could reach. Treat the Duane Morris attribution as well‑reported but not docket‑verified for this specific IPR number.

On appeal (separate proceeding, different firm): In Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 25‑2168 (Fed. Cir., filed Sept. 30, 2025) and the related Proxense v. Microsoft/Apple, No. 26‑1025, Apple's appellee counsel is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — Erika H. Arner, Daniel C. Tucker, and Taylor L. Stark (entries of appearance Oct. 14 and Oct. 28, 2025). Source: Justia dockets, 25‑2168. Note this is appellate counsel, not counsel of record in IPR2025‑00562.

In‑house: No Apple in‑house attorney has been identified on this IPR in any source I found.

---

B. If "plaintiff" = Proxense (plaintiff in the underlying infringement suit)

Proxense's counsel — Hecht Partners LLP (New York) — lead trial and IPR counsel in the Proxense enforcement campaign.

• David L. Hecht — lead / co‑lead counsel; Managing Partner and founder, Hecht Partners LLP, 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017; dhecht@hechtpartners.com; Reg. No. 61,618. Signed the W.D. Tex. scheduling order as "Co‑Lead Counsel" in Proxense v. Apple and has been lead counsel for Proxense in the parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2021‑01439 against Samsung, where he argued at the Nov. 29, 2022 oral hearing on the '188 patent). Trained EE and registered patent attorney; formerly Jones Day, Quinn Emanuel, and Steptoe; try‑lawyer on Apple v. Samsung and on the ITC team that won the first exclusion order against Apple; lead counsel for Corellium in its bet‑the‑company suit against Apple (won on summary judgment, then Apple dropped its remaining claims); co‑lead for Proxense in the Google and Samsung W.D. Tex. cases. Sources: Hecht Partners bio; IAM Strategy 300 profile.
• James A. Zak — back‑up counsel; Hecht Partners LLP, New York; Reg. No. 60,190. Listed with Hecht as Proxense's legal representatives in the IPR proceedings per the Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4) certification in Proxense's April 3, 2026 appellate opening brief; also backup counsel in IPR2021‑01439.
• Yi Wen Wu — Hecht Partners LLP, New York. Appears in the Proxense v. Apple (6:24‑cv‑00143) docket as Proxense-side counsel. Source: attorney docket aggregation (exparte attorney page).
• Maxim Price — Hecht Partners LLP, New York. Law360 firm‑attorney page lists him on Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (W.D. Tex., Mar. 18, 2024) and Proxense v. Microsoft. Source: Law360.
• Susman Godfrey LLP — co‑lead counsel alongside Hecht in the district court actions against Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and Apple (per Hecht's own firm bio). Specific Susman Godfrey attorney names on the Apple case are not confirmed in anything I retrieved — treat as firm‑level only.

Local counsel: I found no confirmed W.D. Tex. local counsel for Proxense in Proxense v. Apple. Hecht Partners is a New York firm and appears to have acted as the Texas‑appearing counsel; if local counsel exists, it isn't reflected in the sources I could reach. Not confirmed.

In‑house: Proxense is a small former operating company (Oregon); no in‑house counsel appears on any docket I found.

---

Sourcing summary and explicit gaps

I have not invented any names. The gaps are real gaps: I could not retrieve the sealed/unindexed Rule 42.8 mandatory notices for IPR2025‑00562, the PTAB's own filings index was not fully reachable, and no local or in‑house counsel appeared. If you need docket‑grade verification, the mandatory notices (Paper 3‑ish in the petition package) and the W.D. Tex. Docket Entry 1 (complaint signature block) are the two documents to pull directly.

One factual caution: Law360's case page for this dispute carries a June 18, 2025 item reporting a PTAB decision that "Apple proved that claims across a Proxense patent on biometric verification technology are invalid." I could not tie that decision to a specific IPR number, and it does not appear to be the final written decision in IPR2025‑00562 (which was still at the reply stage in March 2026 per the docket — Petitioner's Reply, Paper 12, filed 2026‑03‑23, with Exs. 1013–1050). I'm flagging it rather than asserting a connection.

I'll research counsel of record in both the IPR and the parallel district court case, since "defendant" is Apple in the W.D. Tex. infringement action but Proxense is the respondent/Patent Owner in the IPR.

Good initial pull. Now let me pin down the IPR-side counsel specifically and confirm the district court defense team.

Now let me pin down the IPR-side counsel (Petitioner Apple and Patent Owner Proxense) for IPR2025-00562 specifically.