In re Apple Inc.

Case overview — In re Apple Inc., No. 2020-112 (Fed. Cir.), arising from Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and what each side does. The real plaintiff below was Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, a patent-licensing entity that does not make or sell products. Apple's own stay papers described it as "a non-practicing entity that seeks only damages, not injunctive relief," and noted that "Rembrandt does not compete with Apple in the marketplace" (Apple Mot. to Stay Pending Mandamus, Rembrandt v. Apple, No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG). Rembrandt holds a two-patent family claiming priority to a December 5, 1997 provisional application and directed to wireless communication using multiple modulation types — the same portfolio it had earlier asserted against Samsung (No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG, also before Judge Gilstrap), winning a $15.7M jury verdict in February 2015 that the Federal Circuit largely affirmed in 2017 (No. 2016-1729). The defendant is Apple Inc., the Cupertino hardware/software company; the Federal Circuit caption's designation of Apple as "Petitioner" (and the metadata's listing of Apple as "plaintiff") reflects the appellate posture of Apple's mandamus petition, not the district-court alignment.

Accused technology and patents. Rembrandt accused the full lineup of "Apple Bluetooth EDR Products" — iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, AirPods and Apple Watches — that implement Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate, on the theory that an EDR packet's GFSK-modulated (Basic Rate) access code/header signaling an impending switch to a DPSK-modulated (EDR) payload reads on the claims (Compl. ¶¶ 28–37, Dkt. 1). Two patents were asserted, both sharing the same specification ("System and Method of Communication Using at Least Two Modulation Methods"): (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (issued Sept. 20, 2011; claims 2 and 59 asserted) — claims a transceiver that sends a first sequence in a first modulation method which indicates whether/that a second sequence will use a different modulation method (e.g., FSK-family vs. QAM-family), i.e., in-band signaling of a modulation change; and (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228 (issued June 4, 2013; claim 21 asserted) — claims a master/slave device transmitting a first message in a first modulation method and a second message whose header indicates an impending change to a second modulation method. Both patents expired December 4, 2018, before suit was filed, so the case was purely a past-damages case (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 34).

Procedural posture and why venue mattered. Rembrandt filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on January 24, 2019, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap — the judge who had presided over the Samsung case and had already construed these patents. Apple moved to transfer to the Northern District of California (Dkt. 30, June 2019) and separately moved to stay under the customer-suit exception (Dkt. 77, Nov. 1, 2019), pointing to Rembrandt's parallel C.D. Cal. suits against Broadcom (8:19-cv-708) and Qualcomm (8:19-cv-705), filed April 15, 2019, and offering to stipulate to be bound by the California outcomes for the ~95% of accused products using third-party chipsets. Judge Gilstrap denied relief in a late-2019 order (reported at 2019 WL 6344471; the order appears in the E.D. Tex. record as Dkt. 95). Two holdings drove the ruling: first, because Apple filed three IPR petitions days after moving to stay, the court found Apple had "embraced" rather than sought to avoid litigation burdens and lacked "clean hands" for equitable relief; second, Apple was not a "mere reseller" — it manufactures some of its own chipsets and, for the Broadcom/Qualcomm products, writes the integration software that is dispositive under "configured to"/"capable of" functional claims. Apple petitioned for mandamus on January 7–8, 2020 (Case 20-112, Doc. 2), and asked Judge Gilstrap to stay proceedings pending the petition. Before the Federal Circuit acted, the parties settled: they jointly moved to dismiss the Texas case with prejudice (Dkt. 181, Mar. 25, 2020), and filed a FRAP 42(b) stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the mandamus petition on March 26, 2020 (Case 20-112, Doc. 48).

Why the case is notable. (i) NPE/PAE assertion pattern and standard-based claiming: Rembrandt's infringement theory was essentially "any Bluetooth EDR-compliant device infringes," letting one expired-patent family reach an entire consumer-electronics product line and three defendants (Apple plus chip suppliers) in two districts; the case shows the leverage dynamics of expired-patent, past-damages-only assertions. (ii) Customer-suit exception and IPR interplay: the district court's refusal to stay because the defendant had filed IPRs is a frequently cited data point (see

I'll research this case and its underlying district court litigation.

Good — I've identified the underlying case. Let me dig into the district court docket, the transfer/stay rulings, and the PTAB proceedings.

Let me pin down the Markman ruling, the stay denial, and the pleadings.

Bottom line

In re Apple Inc., No. 2020-112 (Fed. Cir.) was a procedural vehicle, not a merits appeal. It was Apple's mandamus petition attacking Judge Rodney Gilstrap's refusal, in Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG (E.D. Tex.), to transfer the case to C.D. Cal. or stay it under the customer-suit exception. The petition was never decided on the merits: after the district court granted a stay pending mandamus, the parties settled globally, and Apple stipulated to voluntary dismissal on 2020-03-26 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). No verdict, no claim-construction appeal, no damages award ever issued. The only substantive ruling that mattered — the Markman order — went against Apple and simply carried forward the Federal Circuit's own 2017 construction of the same claim term.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2019)

Two crucial case-shaping facts, both from the complaint: the patents expired 2018-12-04, so only past damages were ever at stake (no injunction), and Rembrandt was armed with the Samsung benchmark — a $15.7M jury verdict (2015), reduced on remittitur to ~$11.1M (roughly

I'll research this case, starting with the Federal Circuit docket and the underlying district court case.

The underlying case is Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-00025). Note a caption nuance: Apple is the petitioner (defendant below); the patent-infringement plaintiff is Rembrandt. Let me pull both sides' counsel.

I have both sides' names now. Let me verify Federal Circuit appearances for the respondent and check firm affiliations/bios.

Party-structure note before the counsel list

The metadata in this matter labels Apple Inc. as "plaintiff," but the Federal Circuit case is a mandamus petition in which Apple is the petitioner and defendant below; the plaintiff in the underlying infringement action is Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP. Both sides are therefore set out below, with the role labels made explicit:

Underlying suit: Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (and, at least through claim construction, the '228 patent). The mandamus petition sought transfer to the Central District of California (to coordinate with Rembrandt's C.D. Cal. suits against Broadcom and Qualcomm) or a stay. Dismissed March 26, 2020 (Fed. Cir. Doc. 48) after settlement and joint dismissal with prejudice of the district court case (Dkt. 181, Mar. 25, 2020).

---

A. Apple Inc. — Federal Circuit counsel of record (No. 20-112)

Per the entries of appearance (Docs. 4–9, all filed Jan. 8, 2020) as reflected on the Justia/UniCourt docket mirrors:

I'll research Apple's district-court defense team (and confirm the Federal Circuit respondent side) rather than rely on memory.

Good leads. Let me pin down the specific Apple-side appearances and the firms' roles.

Bottom line

The defendant in the underlying infringement case is Apple Inc. — the metadata's "plaintiff" label is the appellate-posture artifact already flagged in the prior section (Apple is petitioner at the Federal Circuit, defendant below). Apple's defense was staffed as a two-firm trial team: Ropes & Gray LLP as national/lead patent counsel and Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas) as local counsel, with Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith as the attorney whose name appears on virtually every Apple filing in E.D. Tex. No. 2:19-cv-00025. Apple's Federal Circuit team in No. 20-112 (Hallward-Driemeier, Batchelder, Rowland, Higgins, Huang, Thornton) was the same Ropes & Gray team and is already catalogued in the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section — I do not repeat those entries here.

Two docket-verified additions to be aware of: a Kevin M. Bell appearance (Dkt. 108, 2020-01-08) and a Cassandra B. Roth pro hac vice appearance (Dkt. 114, 2020-01-24), both "on behalf of Apple Inc." Their firms are not confirmed in the sources I could reach — flagged below rather than guessed.

---

A. Apple Inc. — district court (E.D. Tex. No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG) counsel

In-house counsel: I found no Apple in-house attorney appearance on the E.D. Tex. docket. The Apple declarants in the record — Michael Jaynes (Senior Finance Manager, Sunnyvale) on venue, plus the D'Orazio, Jain, Porta and Masood declarations attached to Apple's transfer reply (Dkt. 59-1 to 59-5) — are business/technical witnesses, not counsel.

Non-party "defendants-adjacent" counsel (not Apple's lawyers): Broadcom appeared as a non-party through Kilpatrick Townsend (Dkt. 74 declaration of Edward J. Mayle; notice of supplemental authority, Dkt. 102, filed by "Broadcom Corp., Broadcom Inc."). Qualcomm is not a party to the Texas case. Neither Broadcom nor Qualcomm is a defendant in 2:19-cv-00025.

---

B. Federal Circuit No. 20-112 — cross-reference only

The petitioner-side appellate appearances (Docs. 4–9, all 2020-01-08) — Hallward-Driemeier (principal counsel, Ropes & Gray, Washington, D.C.), Batchelder, Rowland, Higgins, Huang (Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto) and Thornton (Ropes & Gray, Washington, D.C.) — are set out in the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section and are not repeated here. The respondent (Rembrandt) side at the Federal Circuit was handled by Kevin K. Russell and Charles H. Davis (Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD) plus Alisa Lipski, Jane Langdell Robinson, Amir Alavi, Demetrios Anaipakos and Scott W. Clark (Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, Houston) and Michael Heim, Eric Enger, Blaine Larson and Chris First (Heim, Payne & Chorush, Houston), per the FRAP 42(b) stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 48, 2020-03-26).

---

C. Contradictions, gaps, and sourcing caveats

1. Metadata contradiction (repeat/flag): the case metadata lists Apple as plaintiff and does not list Rembrandt at all. The docket and every filing confirm the reverse alignment below: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG, with Apple as defendant/petitioner.
2. The Kilpatrick Townsend listing is ambiguous. Apple's Federal Circuit docketing statement (Case 20-112, Doc. 2) lists "David Edmond Sipiora, Andrew Nathan Saul, Edward John Mayle, Russell A. Korn, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP" among firms that "appeared for the party … in the trial court." But the E.D. Tex. filings I could retrieve show Mayle and Korn appearing for non-party Broadcom (Dkt. 74), not for Apple. I therefore report the Kilpatrick names as listed in Apple's own docketing statement while flagging that the district-court record does not clearly show a Kilpatrick notice of appearance for Apple in this case. Anyone citing this should verify against the E.D. Tex. docket entries themselves.
3. Kevin M. Bell and Cassandra B. Roth: names, dates, docket numbers, and "on behalf of Apple Inc." are docket