HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al.

HBCU Messaging US LP, a subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against technology giant Apple, Inc. and payment platform Green Dot Corporation. While linked to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit aiming to support Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in technology transfer and intellectual property, HBCU Messaging US LP's patent portfolio originates from Rembrandt IP Management, LLC, an entity known for patent monetization, suggesting the plaintiff operates with characteristics of a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). Apple, an operating company specializing in consumer electronics and software, is accused of infringing through its Apple Cash service, Messages app, and associated hardware and software infrastructure. Green Dot, also an operating company, is implicated specifically for its payment technology implemented within the Apple Cash service.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under case number 1:24-cv-01199, asserts infringement of seven mobile messaging patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,918,127; 11,012,827; 11,089,450; 11,653,182; 11,653,183; 11,991,600; and 11,991,601. These patents generally relate to improvements in computerized messaging systems that can utilize either short message service (SMS) or packet-switched message service (PSMS), particularly by preventing "blind attempts" to send messages when the recipient's device cannot receive them, thereby conserving network resources. The case was originally assigned to Judge Robert Pitman but was subsequently reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on April 15, 2025. The Western District of Texas, and particularly its Waco Division where Judge Albright presides, has historically been a significant venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs for its fast-paced dockets, although a 2022 order randomized judge assignments in the Waco Division.

This litigation is notable for several reasons, including the plaintiff's unique structure blending a non-profit mission with an NPE patent enforcement strategy, stemming from a portfolio previously managed by an IP monetization firm. Furthermore, Apple has proactively responded by filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against HBCU Messaging US LP (IPR2025-01493) on August 28, 2025, challenging the validity of the asserted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The complaint also highlights a history of litigation between the parties, referencing an ongoing German action filed against Apple by the plaintiff in June 2015.

The case HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01199) is an active patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing: HBCU Messaging US LP filed its initial complaint on October 7, 2024. An amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2024, alleging infringement of seven patents related to mobile messaging technology by Apple's Cash service, Messages app, and associated hardware and software, with Green Dot Corporation also implicated for its role in Apple Cash.
• Service of Process: Apple Inc. was served with the summons and complaint on November 5, 2024.
• Case Reassignment: The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman and was later reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings on April 15, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Details regarding specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment are not readily available in the provided search results. However, the initial complaint sets a 21-day period for the defendant to respond with an answer or a Rule 12 motion.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of late 2025, the parties were engaged in claim construction proceedings. Apple filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief on September 22, 2025, followed by HBCU's Opening Claim Construction Brief on the same date. Responsive claim construction briefs were filed by Apple and HBCU on October 24, 2025. A Markman hearing would typically follow these briefs, but the outcome of such a hearing is not yet available.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Specific discovery milestones are not detailed in the provided information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is still in the pre-trial phase, with claim construction ongoing as of late 2025. No trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Apple has initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against at least one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,089,450.
• Apple filed a petition for IPR (IPR2025-01493) challenging the '450 patent.
• The PTAB has been actively reviewing petitions for IPR and PGR, with the Director assuming responsibility for institution decisions since October 20, 2025. There's also a "settled expectations" factor that the PTAB considers, which relates to the length of time a challenged patent has been in force. The Director has issued notices regarding decisions on institution, including denials for discretionary factors.
• Other IPRs referenced in the search results (e.g., IPR2025-00110, IPR2025-00112, IPR2025-00113, IPR2025-00114, IPR2025-00799) appear to be unrelated to the HBCU Messaging US LP case, involving different petitioners and patent owners.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Let me search specifically for press and trade coverage.

Let me search additional angles to find more press coverage.

Press & Media Coverage

Press coverage of HBCU Messaging US LP v. Apple, Inc. et al. is thin, and essentially all of it traces to a single trade report rather than to mainstream or general-legal outlets. The most substantive coverage I located is an RPX-style portfolio analysis, published under the headline "HBCU Tech Foundation Subsidiary Sues Apple And Green Dot In The US Over Former Rembrandt IP Portfolio," which ran on Mondaq on 2025-01-29 and was syndicated to MarketScreener. That report characterized the suit as asserting seven mobile messaging patents (8,918,127; 11,012,827; 11,089,450; 11,653,182; 11,653,183; 11,991,600; 11,991,601) in a single Western District of Texas complaint, with Apple targeted over the Apple Cash service and supporting hardware and software and Green Dot targeted over its payment technology implemented in Apple Cash. Per the same report, the plaintiff is HBCU Messaging US LP (f/k/a Rembrandt Messaging Technologies II, LP), a subsidiary of the HBCU Technology Foundation; the patents belong to a family of 21 patents with an earliest estimated priority date of July 2007 based on an Australian filing; and the sole named inventor is Graham Merrett, whose original assignee was the Australian entity Messmo Technologies Pty. Ltd. The MarketScreener version adds the details that Messmo ceased operations in 2009 or 2010, that the portfolio was assigned in 2014 to Rembrandt Messaging Technologies, LP (later renamed HBCU Messaging International, LP) and then to the plaintiff, and that the complaint recounts a German action filed against Apple in June 2015 that the article says "remains active today." The report frames the deal as an effort by the Rembrandt entities to "work with the HBCU Tech Foundation," whose stated mission is to act as a "collective technology transfer organization" for HBCUs.

I found no coverage of this case in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra, despite searching the caption, the party names, the patent numbers, and the plaintiff/foundation names. The other results surfaced by those searches — Docket Alarm, RPX Empower, Ex Parte, and Justia dockets — are docket aggregators and analytics databases, not press reporting, and I have not treated them as media coverage. No outlet I found reports a damages figure sought or awarded, a settlement, or quantified market impact; no verdict or settlement has been reported.

Flagged contradictions with the previously generated sections. My searches turned up nothing to support two of the earlier sections' assertions about counsel, and the court records I found point the other way. First, the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP and The Kubin Law Firm; the claim-construction briefs and the Markman hearing transcript instead show plaintiff's counsel as Timothy Devlin and Neil Benchell of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, DE) and Michael W. Shore and Zachary Della Porta of The Shore Firm (Dallas). Second, the earlier "Defendant representatives" section names Kirkland & Ellis and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Apple and Greenberg Traurig for Green Dot; the Markman transcript identifies Apple's district-court counsel as Morrison & Foerster LLP (Brian Christopher Nash, Nima I. Kiaei, Ryan J. Malloy), while the IPR2026-00107 docket shows Fish & Richardson (W. Karl Renner, Nicholas Stephens) as Apple's PTAB counsel. I could not verify Greenberg Traurig's role for Green Dot. These discrepancies should be resolved before the counsel sections are relied upon.

A further inconsistency in the earlier "Key legal developments" section: it describes claim construction as "ongoing as of late 2025," but the docket record shows the Markman hearing was held 2026-01-23, a claim construction order issued 2026-01-28, and trial set for July 2027 (per the patent owner's discretionary-denial briefing). Likewise, the earlier section states Apple filed IPR2025-01493 against the '450 patent — that is consistent — but the record shows Apple's IPR activity expanded well beyond it, and that IPR2025-01493 was terminated by a discretionary denial on 2026-02-18 (per the Docket Alarm docket), with separate petitions (IPR2025-01486, IPR2026-00104/105/107/109) covering additional patents in the family. Also worth flagging: the Green Dot dismissal order appears internally inconsistent — the order text says the motion was granted "with prejudice," while the exhibit's own filename describes dismissal "without prejudice to replead following initial discovery" — a discrepancy I cannot resolve from the sources available.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts
• Search PTAB court records on claim w3 construction - - All Courts
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
• Petition analysis | IPR2026-00104 | Apple Inc v. HBCU Messaging US LP | Ex Parte
• IPR2026-00107 | Apple Inc v. HBCU Messaging US LP | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Intellectual Property Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record, building on the contradictions already flagged in the press section.

Plaintiff representatives

Bottom line: HBCU Messaging US LP is represented by a two-firm team — Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware) as lead, and The Shore Firm (Dallas, Texas) supplying the Texas presence. Four attorneys have appeared: Timothy Devlin (lead), Neil A. Benchell (of counsel/back-up), Michael W. Shore (Texas counsel), and Zachary Della Porta (Texas counsel). No in-house or corporate counsel for the plaintiff appears anywhere in the record I could retrieve, and I found no additional firms entering an appearance through the claim construction and Markman phase.

Counsel table

Docket trail supporting these identifications

• Dkt. 61 — Plaintiff HBCU Messaging US LP's Opening Claim Construction Brief, filed 2025-09-22. Signature block: Devlin and Benchell (Devlin Law Firm LLC) and Shore and Della Porta (Shore Law Firm), "Attorneys for Plaintiff HBCU Messaging US LP." (exhibit copy)
• Dkt. 66 — HBCU's Responsive Claim Construction Brief, filed 2025-10-24. Same four attorneys, same firms. (exhibit copy)
• HBCU's Identification of Claim Terms Requiring Construction, 2025-08-01 — earliest plaintiff filing I could verify; Devlin signs as /s/ Timothy Devlin. (exhibit 1123)
• Markman hearing, 2026-01-23 (Judge Albright, via Zoom) — appearances: "For the Plaintiff: Timothy Devlin, Esq.; Neil A. Benchell, Esq., Devlin Law Firm, LLC … Michael W. Shore, Esq., The Shore Firm." (transcript, IPR2025-01493 Ex. 2023)
• PTAB Mandatory Notice, 2025-11-21 (Patent Owner) — independently confirms the role hierarchy: "Lead Counsel: Timothy Devlin, Reg. No. 41,706, Devlin Law Firm LLC … Back-up Counsel: Neil Benchell (pro hac vice forthcoming)." (PTAB filing)
• Court-clerk email traffic (Jan. 2026) confirms the working e-mail roles: Anna Schmidt of chambers writes to "Michael Shore; bnash@mofo" and copies "Timothy Devlin; Zachary Della Porta" regarding preliminary constructions — i.e., Shore and Devlin are the operational leads. (Ex. 2031)

Contradiction with the earlier-generated "Plaintiff representatives" section

The previously generated section is wrong on both firms. It named Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP and The Kubin Law Firm as plaintiff's counsel. I could find no filing, transcript, or docket entry in 1:24-cv-01199 linking either firm to HBCU Messaging US LP; every plaintiff-side signature block and the Markman appearance list identify only Devlin Law Firm LLC and The Shore Firm. The earlier section should be treated as superseded rather than merely corrected — those firms appear to be carry-over from an unrelated matter.

The earlier section is correct that there is no separate "local counsel" of the traditional WDTX rent-an-appearance sort: The Shore Firm fills that role substantively, with Shore personally arguing at the Markman hearing rather than proffering a local sponsor.

Additional discrepancies and open items

• Shore Firm address conflict. The Aug./Oct. 2025 briefs list 5646 Milton Street, Suite 423, Dallas 75206 (matching the firm's website and State Bar listing), while the Jan. 23, 2026 Markman transcript lists 901 Main Street, Suite 3300, Dallas 75202 (a downtown Dallas office building also used in FindLaw's listing). I cannot tell from the available sources whether this is a move, a second office, or a transcript/cover-page inconsistency. Service addresses should be verified against the docket's certificate-of-service entries before relying on them.
• No verified record of who signed the original complaint. The case summary's plea-stage dates are themselves internally inconsistent (a "complaint filed October 7, 2024" alongside an "amended complaint filed September 13, 2024," which precedes it). The earliest plaintiff-side signature I could actually verify is the August 1, 2025 claim term identification, so I cannot confirm whether Devlin/Shore were counsel at the October 2024 filing or were substituted in later. This should be checked against the Dkt. 1 signature block on PACER.
• A fifth Devlin name appears at the PTAB, not in district court. Ex Parte's docket rendering for IPR2026-00107 lists "Devlin Law Firm," "Feng Xu," and "Timothy Devlin" as patent-owner-side counsel. (IPR2026-00107) Feng Xu does not appear in any district-court filing I found, so I would describe him/her as PTAB-side only, unconfirmed.
• No in-house counsel identified. HBCU Messaging US LP is an LP with no counsel of record appearing pro se or in-house; I found no evidence of a HBCU Technology Foundation or Rembrandt IP Management legal officer on the docket. Absence of evidence here, not evidence of absence.
• Fee structure (unverified, flagged as inference). Shore's public State Bar profile lists contingency fees among his fee options and his practice is built on contingency-based commercialization of university/nonprofit portfolios; the complaint-level retainer is not public. I did not locate any filing confirming the arrangement in this case.

Sources

• HBCU's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 61 (2025-09-22)
• HBCU's Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 66 (2025-10-24)
• HBCU's Identification of Claim Terms Requiring Construction (2025-08-01)
• Markman Hearing Transcript, 2026-01-23 (IPR2025-01493, Ex. 2023)
• Patent Owner Mandatory Notice, 2025-11-21/download-documents?artifactId=9HvGyYBhBAW392pgfcyVKaMWQur7lCKc27X6JhLC5QO16qrIVEfA5-o#1

I'll research defendant-side counsel across the district court docket, the Markman record, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Key finding so far: the docket shows Morrison & Foerster filing pro hac vice motions on behalf of both Apple and Green Dot. Let me verify Green Dot's separate counsel on its motion to dismiss, and confirm the MoFo/DC appearances.

Bottom line

Both defendants were, at least through the pleading stage, represented by the same firm — Morrison & Foerster LLP (now "Morrison Foerster"), with Brian Christopher Nash in Austin acting as the W.D. Tex. anchor. Apple separately uses Fish & Richardson P.C. for the parallel PTAB petitions. Green Dot was dismissed from the case in September 2025 and no longer has counsel of record.

---

1. Apple, Inc. — district court (Morrison Foerster)

Brian Christopher Nash is the attorney who actually runs this case. Every defense-side filing on the early docket I could retrieve was signed or filed by him, including the amended motion for extension of time to answer (Dkt. 17, 2024-11-20) and the pro hac vice motions (Dkts. 18–25), per the Justia docket sheet. He is admitted in Texas and based in MoFo's Austin office, so there is no separate Texas local-counsel firm — MoFo Austin performs that function. His Chambers USA profile describes him as co-chair of MoFo's global IP Litigation Group and managing partner of the Austin office, with more than 250 IP/technology cases in district courts, the PTAB, the ITC and the Federal Circuit; he is Band 2 in Texas for IP. He is a frequent W.D. Tex. defense counsel (e.g., Skysong Innovations v. CrowdStrike, No. 7:25-cv-00040; Proven Networks v. SolarWinds, No. 6:20-cv-00338).

The Markman transcript (Jan. 23, 2026, Judge Albright) lists the defense appearance as Nash (Austin), Nima I. Kiaei and Ryan J. Malloy (both MoFo Los Angeles), and Nomin-Erdene Jagdagdorj (MoFo's Washington, DC address) — see the transcript exhibit in IPR2025-01493. Malloy did the arguing on the disputed terms ("we think they would argue that some kind of coincidental co-occurrence would be enough"). Kiaei is a 2021 California-bar IP litigation associate (MoFo profile).

Two further MoFo attorneys were admitted pro hac vice early and remain on the pleadings: Richard S.J. Hung (Dkt. 22 amended PHV motion; granted Dkt. 24, 2024-11-27) and Nishi A. Tavernier (Dkt. 25; granted Dkt. 26, 2024-12-04).

Caveat: I did not find a document listing the full MoFo team for this matter, and no Apple in-house counsel appears on any docket entry I could retrieve. Attorneys such as Bita Rahebi, Rose S. Lee and Soo J. Park appear alongside Kiaei/Malloy/Hung in other MoFo matters but I found no evidence they have appeared in 1:24-cv-01199, so I have not listed them.

2. Apple, Inc. — PTAB (Fish & Richardson)

Apple's IPR counsel is a separate Fish & Richardson team, identified in the certificate of service of HBCU's mandatory notices: lead counsel W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265) and backup counsel David Holt (65,161), Nicholas Stephens (74,320), Charlene Thrower (79,289) and Joseph Bauer (81,218), all at Fish & Richardson P.C., 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, with service via the IPR50095-0263IP1@fr.com alias (PTAB mandatory notice, IPR2026-00105). Stephens is the Fish attorney corresponding with Devlin/Benchell on stipulations — e.g., Apple's Sotera-style stipulation in IPR2026-00104 (service email, Nov. 26, 2025).

3. Green Dot Corporation — dismissed; counsel unverified

Green Dot's Rule 12(b)(6) motion (ECF No. 35, filed 2025-02-07; response ECF 41; reply ECF 51; heard 2025-05-01) was granted by order entered September 24, 2025 (order text). Since that date Green Dot has had no live counsel of record, and the January 2026 Markman appearances are styled "For the Defendants" but list only MoFo attorneys.

Before dismissal, the docket indicates joint MoFo representation: Nash's PHV motions (Dkts. 18, 19, 20, 22, 25) and the extension motion (Dkt. 17) are docketed "on behalf of Apple, Inc., Green Dot Corporation" (Justia docket). I could not retrieve the signature block of ECF No. 35 and so cannot state definitively whether Green Dot's dismissal motion was filed by MoFo or by separate counsel.

---

Flags on the earlier-generated sections

1. The "Defendant representatives" section is wrong or at least unverified on both counts. It named Kirkland & Ellis and WilmerHale for Apple and Greenberg Traurig for Green Dot. Nothing I found supports any of those. The docket, the Markman transcript and the PTAB service certificates uniformly point to MoFo (district court) and Fish & Richardson (PTAB) for Apple, and to MoFo (jointly with Apple) for Green Dot pre-dismissal. My searches for Greenberg Traurig in connection with this case returned nothing. That section should be corrected before reliance.
2. This confirms the contradiction already flagged in the "In the news" section (MoFo as Apple's district-court counsel; Fish as PTAB counsel) and resolves it in favor of MoFo/Fish.
3. Green Dot dismissal wording remains unresolved. The order's body says the motion is granted "with prejudice"; the exhibit filename says "without prejudice to replead following initial discovery." I could not find a later order reinstating Green Dot, and the caption in the January 2026 Markman transcript still reads "APPLE, INC., ET AL." The order also contains an obvious typo (filing date given as "October 10, 2027"). Treat Green Dot's current party status as ambiguous pending a clean docket pull.
4. The earlier "Key legal developments" statement that claim construction was "ongoing as of late 2025" is superseded — the Markman hearing was held 2026-01-23, and a claim construction order followed.

Sourcing note: no PACER pull or Law360/Reuters coverage of this case was available to me; the docket detail above comes from Justia's docket sheet (last retrieved 2024-12-04, so it does not reflect later filings), Docket Alarm mirrors of PTAB exhibits, and PTAB certificates of service. Attorney-level detail for Kiaei, Hung and Jagdagdorj is partly from firm/bar profiles rather than case documents, and Jagdagdorj's MoFo affiliation is an inference from the DC address in the transcript appearance block.