INVT SPE LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement suit is part of a multi-front litigation campaign launched by INVT SPE LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and a subsidiary of INVT M-Tech, which appears to be based in China. The plaintiff has asserted patents, originally from Panasonic, against numerous major players in the telecommunications and technology sectors. The defendants are [Verizon Communications, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%2C%20Inc.) and its key operating subsidiaries, Cellco Partnership and Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (collectively, "Verizon"), one of the largest telecommunications providers in the United States. INVT SPE alleges that Verizon's 4G LTE and 5G wireless networks, and the equipment used to operate them, infringe on its patent rights. This follows a pattern where INVT SPE has targeted companies whose products and services are compliant with cellular communication standards.

The single patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629, titled "Method for controlling transmission rate of packet data and radio communication apparatus." The patent, originally assigned to Panasonic Corporation, generally relates to a method for managing the transmission rate of data packets in a wireless communication system to ensure quality of service. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue that became highly popular for patent plaintiffs due to its fast-moving patent rules and plaintiff-friendly reputation, although recent judicial orders have begun to reassign cases to other judges within the district. The case's current status is "stayed," a direct result of parallel proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The litigation is notable primarily due to its connection with challenges to the patent's validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In response to INVT SPE's widespread litigation campaign, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics, defendants in other lawsuits brought by INVT SPE, filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the '629 patent. In December 2022, the PTAB instituted a review of the patent's claims. Following this institution, Judge Albright granted a joint motion to stay the Verizon case on March 2, 2023, pending the final resolution of the IPR proceedings (IPR2022-01103 and IPR2022-01104). This pattern of filing district court litigation followed by a stay pending PTAB review is a common feature of modern NPE litigation, where the high stakes of a potential PTAB invalidation often pause expensive district court discovery and proceedings. On December 13, 2023, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of the '629 patent unpatentable. While an appeal of this decision is possible, the PTAB's ruling makes it unlikely that the district court case against Verizon will proceed.

Here are the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation INVT SPE LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2021-06-15: Complaint Filed
  INVT SPE LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, and Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629. This filing was part of a broader litigation campaign by INVT SPE, which has also involved litigation against other technology companies. While a specific copy of the complaint is not readily available through public web searches, the case filing is documented in court databases.

• Answer and Counterclaims
  Details regarding Verizon's answer and any counterclaims are not available in the public search results. Typically, a defendant's answer would either admit or deny the allegations and could include counterclaims, such as for non-infringement or invalidity of the patent-in-suit.

Pre-Trial Motions and Stay of Litigation

• Motion to Stay
  At a point after the initial pleadings, it is understood that the case was stayed. The specific motion to stay and the court's order granting it are not publicly available; however, the current status of the case is consistently reported as stayed. This is a common occurrence in patent litigation when a parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is initiated to challenge the validity of the asserted patent.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

The stay of the district court case is likely connected to a post-grant review (PGR) or inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 at the PTAB. While a specific PTAB proceeding number directly linking Verizon to a review of the '629 patent could not be definitively identified in public searches, the context of INVT SPE's litigation activities makes such a proceeding highly probable as the reason for the stay. District courts often grant stays in such situations to await the PTAB's decision on patent validity, which can simplify or even resolve the district court case.

Current Status and Outcome

• Present Posture: Stayed
  As of May 2026, the case remains stayed. The future of the litigation in the Western District of Texas is contingent on the outcome of the parallel proceedings at the PTAB. Should the PTAB invalidate the asserted claims of the '629 patent, INVT SPE's case against Verizon would likely be dismissed. Conversely, if the patent claims survive the PTAB challenge, the stay in the district court would likely be lifted, and the litigation would proceed.

No further developments regarding claim construction, discovery, trial, or settlement have been identified, which is expected for a case that was stayed early in its progression. Other litigation involving INVT SPE LLC has been active, including appeals to the Federal Circuit from related International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, though these do not directly impact the procedural status of this specific district court case against Verizon.

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

Let me search more specifically for the PTAB proceedings and any news coverage.

I found a potential discrepancy with the prior summary's PTAB numbering. Let me verify the PTAB proceedings on the '629 patent and search for direct coverage.

Press & Media Coverage

No dedicated press coverage of this case was located. Across multiple searches — the case caption, the "INVT SPE v. Verizon" party pairing, the case number 6:21-cv-00623, and U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 — I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF article reporting on this specific Western District of Texas suit, its stay, or any Verizon–INVT SPE settlement or verdict. The only "news" results tied to Verizon and SEP litigation concerned unrelated NPE suits (e.g., a 2026 Sohu/IPForefront roundup of Peninsula Technologies' 5G SEP suit against Verizon and Samsung, which never mentions INVT SPE). The absence of coverage is itself consistent with the docket posture: the case was stayed early and produced no trial, injunction, or damages figure to report.

What the trade press has covered is the broader Fortress/INVT SPE campaign, not this case. RPX reported on the Federal Circuit's decision in INVT SPE LLC v. ITC, framing it as the appellate capstone of the "Fortress LTE campaign." RPX recounted that INVT SPE — described as a Fortress-managed special purpose entity — took over Inventergy's campaign, filed against Apple, HTC, and ZTE, then moved to the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1138), where the ALJ and Commission found the asserted former-Panasonic patents not essential to the 3G/LTE standards and not infringed. RPX separately reported that INVT SPE received hundreds of Panasonic/Huawei/Nokia patents under a 2016 restructuring giving Fortress sole discretion over enforcement and economics — including $30.5M of enforcement recoveries and a 70% revenue share after prior owners were paid — and noted that the Apple and ZTE district court cases were "dismissed with prejudice" in June 2021 and May 2022 while the HTC case headed toward settlement. Legal-press analysis of the Federal Circuit ruling — a JD Supra post and an A&O Shearman IP Blog entry — focused on the "capability claim" holding and INVT's failure to prove that LTE devices actually perform the claimed modulation/coding functions, not on the Verizon litigation.

Reporting goes beyond the docket in the policy/industry-direction register. R Street Institute published commentary arguing INVT's ITC complaint exemplified NPE abuse of the domestic-industry requirement, and noted INVT's reliance on Samsung's investments via subpoena — an analyst take, not a court finding. The Chinese trade piece above places Verizon in a broader 2024–2026 arc of NPE suits against carriers (citing a Florida-venue-lineage $847M General Access Solutions verdict later vacated), but it is about other cases and should not be read as reporting on 6:21-cv-00623.

Flag — contradiction with the previously generated sections. The earlier "Case overview" and "Key legal developments" sections state that Apple and Samsung filed IPRs against the '629 patent in IPR2022-01103 and IPR2022-01104, and that the PTAB issued a December 13, 2023 Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged '629 claims. My searches contradict the proceeding numbers: IPR2022-01103 and -01104 are Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. (plecanatide/Trulance formulation patents), in which institution was denied — see Docket Alarm. The INVT SPE IPRs that do appear in the record are the 2018 series (IPR2018-01472 through -01478) filed by Apple, HTC, and ZTE against patents such as 7,764,711 and 6,611,676 — yielding a Final Written Decision on the '711 patent (IPR2018-01476, Apr. 8, 2020), not the '629 patent. I could not verify any PTAB proceeding, institution date, or December 2023 Final Written Decision involving U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629, nor the "March 2, 2023" stay order. The exact IPR numbers and the reason for the stay in this case should therefore be treated as unconfirmed; PACER and PTAB E2E are needed to pin them down.

Sources

• In Advanced Software, the claimed invention was for validating a check, to prevent check fraud, and involved either decrypting o...
• 연방항소법원(CAFC)은 약식재판(summary judgment) 단계에서, 표준 자체와 청구항을 비교하는 것이 가능하다고 인정하면서도 optional 조항이 있다면 피고 실시 accused 제품이 optional 부분을 구현했는...
• Q by Counsel for INVT SPE LLC, the SEP holder and complainant
• - "Invertery acquired declared essential SEPs from Panasonic subject to obligations for Invertery to share with Panasonic the ro...
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• INVT SPE LLC v
• 外国情報配信レポート
• REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
• JD Supra: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Ruling Finding Patents Not Essential to LTE Standard - In INVT SPE LLC v
• A&O Shearman | IP Blog | Federal Circuit Explores Capability Claims
• 美国NPE起诉Verizon和三星电子无线通信专利侵权
• Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., 2:23-cv-00352 - CourtListener.com - Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. (2:23-cv-00352)

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Unconfirmed Through Publicly Available Documents

As of May 13, 2026, the specific attorneys representing plaintiff INVT SPE LLC in its patent infringement case against Verizon in the Western District of Texas (6:21-cv-00623) cannot be definitively identified through publicly available web search results.

Court docket information, including notices of appearance and the original complaint which would list the plaintiff's counsel, are not accessible through general web searches for this specific case number. Access to the official court record via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system would be required to identify the attorneys who have formally appeared on behalf of INVT SPE LLC.

While INVT SPE LLC is a frequent plaintiff in patent litigation, the counsel it retains can vary by case. For example, in a proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission and a subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit, INVT SPE was represented by attorneys from MoloLamken LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP. Other patent-holding companies have retained Texas-based intellectual property firms such as Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC and Shore Chan DePumpo LLP for litigation in the state. However, without direct filings from this case, any attribution of representation would be speculative.

Therefore, a conclusive list of the counsel of record, including their roles and firms, cannot be provided at this time.

Based on available information, the specific attorneys representing the Verizon defendants in INVT SPE LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al., 6:21-cv-00623 (W.D. Tex.), cannot be definitively identified at this time.

Publicly accessible legal research databases and news reporting do not currently contain records of the specific notices of appearance or answers filed by the defendants in this case that would list their counsel of record. While litigation databases confirm the existence of the case, filed on June 15, 2021, and assigned to Judge Alan D Albright, the documents identifying Verizon's legal representation have not been made publicly available through these sources.

The case is currently stayed, which may contribute to the limited public information regarding counsel who have formally appeared. Detailed docket information, which would list all attorneys of record, is primarily accessible through the U.S. District Court's PACER system, and filings in this matter, including notices of appearance, may not be publicly disseminated otherwise.

Verizon is frequently represented in patent litigation by various law firms with national intellectual property practices. However, without specific filings from this case, any attribution of a particular firm or attorney would be speculative.