Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the patent, the plaintiff's ownership chain, and any PTAB/reexam activity.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company formed on January 8, 2024 — by all available accounts a patent assertion entity (NPE/PAE), not an operating company. Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies it in the "acquired patents" asserter category, and RPX describes it as a newly formed entity whose asserted patents were "apparently received from TP Lab, Inc.," a Silicon Valley R&D lab founded in 2004 by Chi Fai Ho (a former Nokia business-strategy director and Amber Networks VP) whose portfolio also fed Dolby, Fiver LLC, ZAMA Innovations, and Dominion Harbor affiliate Local Intelligence. Lab Technology is represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm that has filed numerous complaints for plaintiffs tied to monetization figure Jeffrey M. Gross (RPX/Mondaq, May 31, 2024). Defendant AT&T, Inc. is one of the largest U.S. telecommunications carriers, operating nationwide wireless, wireline, VoIP, and IP/cloud networking infrastructure — a classic deep-pocket operating-company target. Defense counsel of record was Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm, PC) (PACER Monitor).

Patent and accused technology. The single patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes." Public patent records show the '102 issued July 9, 2013 to TP Lab, Inc., with a priority date of November 2, 2004 (a related family member, U.S. 8,111,822, carries the identical title and issued in 2012). Technical sketch: the claims map a single "voice identity" (e.g., a subscriber/number identity) across heterogeneous telephony networks — PSTN, wireless, VoIP — with time attributes governing persistence, routing, and recognition of that identity across network boundaries. In practical terms it reads on carrier-grade voice identity/session management, so the accused instrumentality was alleged to be AT&T's telephony systems and services performing voice-identity mapping across its multi-network infrastructure. One important caveat: the complaint (Dkt. 1) incorporated its claim charts by reference to exhibits, and the publicly indexed complaint analysis indicates the narrative pleading did not name specific accused products or services; the precise accused AT&T offerings are therefore not confirmable from the public record, and reporting that characterizes the target as "voice identity mapping across AT&T's multi-network telephony infrastructure" should be treated as a reasonable inference, not a verified fact.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed June 4, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as 2:24-cv-00412, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred; the plaintiff demanded a jury. AT&T obtained an unopposed 45-day extension to answer, moving the deadline to August 12, 2024 (Dkt. 6, granted June 27, 2024). Before any answer or motion to dismiss, Lab Technology filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 28, 2024 (Dkt. 7), and on July 3, 2024 Judge Gilstrap entered an order accepting it under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and dismissing all claims without prejudice, with the AO 120 form sent to the USPTO (Dkts. 8–9). The case thus terminated 29 days after filing, with no answer, no claim construction, no merits ruling, and no identified PTAB proceeding on the '102. The Marshall/EDTX venue matters because it is a historically plaintiff-friendly, fast-moving patent docket with deep NPE experience; notably, this case sat within a simultaneous burst of Lab Technology suits all assigned to Judge Gilstrap (Samsung 2:24-cv-00324, Verizon 2:24-cv-00323, Amazon 2:24-cv-00409, Anritsu 2:24-cv-00411, Bose 2:24-cv-00413, Ericsson 2:24-cv-00414, Quectel 2:24-cv-00415, Stryker 2:24-cv-00416) (RPX, June 8, 2024).

Why it is notable. Three things make this a meaningful data point. First, it exemplifies the "file-and-dismiss" NPE campaign pattern: the same plaintiff dismissed Samsung (May 13, 2024), Verizon, NVIDIA (7 days), Lyft (7 days), Zoom (~8 days), and later AT&T a second time in case 2:24-cv-00830 (filed October 11, 2024; voluntarily dismissed December 12, 2024) — a sequence consistent with rapid, off-record licensing or demand-letter settlements rather than merits litigation. Second, there is a documented defensive-aggregator response: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL prior-art contest offering $10,000 across five Lab Technology communication patents (June 2024) and later filed an ex parte reexamination against Lab Technology's U.S. 8,498,388 — instituted by the CRU on January 15, 2025 (Unified Patents). No IPR or reexamination specifically targeting the '102 was identified. Third, the family carries real validity risk: Lab Technology's U.S. 9,219,982 (same TP Lab provenance) was held patent-ineligible under Alice §101 and the Delaware action dismissed with prejudice (Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del. July 23, 2026)), while the '102 itself was re-asserted against 3CX USA in S.D. Fla. and dismissed with prejudice after 65 days (Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., No. 1:25-cv-22704, closed Aug. 20, 2025). Market context: this is part of the broader monetization of legacy 2004–2006-era telephony/VoIP identity patents across carriers, handset makers, and UC/PBX vendors.

Sourcing note: Party names, court, case number, dates, judge assignments, docket entries (Dkts. 1–9), counsel, and the dismissal ruling are confirmed via Justia Dockets and PACER Monitor records for 2:24-cv-00412. Portfolio provenance, campaign scope, and the Greenlight/3CX outcomes come from RPX reporting and secondary litigation databases (PatSnap, Stanford NPE Database, Unified Patents). Specific accused AT&T products, the complaint's claim-chart contents, and the exact patent asserted in the second AT&T suit (2:24-cv-00830) are not confirmed on the public record and are flagged as such above.

I'll research this case across sources. Let me start.

Now let me look into the patent's PTAB history and the broader Lab Technology campaign.

Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.) — Litigation Development Log

Bottom line: This was a 29-day, pre-answer case. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no judgment, and no appeal. The only "legal development" of substance is the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) self-dismissal without prejudice. I found no PTAB IPR/PGR on U.S. 8,483,102 in any accessible source.

---

Chronological timeline

The dismissal was as of right: under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. AT&T had served neither — it had only obtained an extension — so the dismissal was self-executing. Judge Gilstrap nonetheless entered a formal order "granting" the notice, the same pattern used in Lab Technology's companion cases (in the parallel Samsung case, 2:24-cv-00324, the order adds that all other pending requests for relief are "DENIED AS MOOT").

---

Item-by-item responses to your checklist

• Filing & initial pleadings. Complaint (Dkt. 1), 2024-06-04. The complaint pleads plaintiff is a New Mexico corporation at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE STE N, Albuquerque, NM 87110, and that AT&T has "an established place of business at 712 East Grand Avenue, Marshall, TX 75670" (venue under § 1400(b)). It alleges direct infringement plus induced infringement of "Exemplary '102 Patent Claims" identified in claim charts (Ex. 2), and pleads that service of the complaint plus charts supplies actual knowledge. No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed.
• Pre-trial motions of substance (motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment). None. AT&T's only filing was the unopposed Rule CV-12 extension (Dkt. 6).
• Claim construction (Markman). Did not occur. No scheduling order, no discovery order, no claim construction briefing.
• Discovery milestones. None. The case ended before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference phase; no scheduling/case management conference was ever set.
• Trial, verdict, JMOL/new trial, fees. None. No substantive ruling, no damages, no injunction, and no fee or cost motion. The dismissal order did not allocate fees or costs (contrast Lab Technology's later 3CX USA case, 1:25-cv-22704 (S.D. Fla.), where the dismissal order stated fees and costs are borne by the party incurring them).
• Final disposition. Dismissal without prejudice on 2024-07-03; case closed. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, it is not an adjudication on the merits and carries no res judicata / claim-preclusion effect for AT&T (Rule 41(a)(1)(B); a second Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal of the same claim would operate as an adjudication on the merits, which is a live strategic consideration here given the refiling discussed below).
• Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '102. None found. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving U.S. 8,483,102 in PTAB or aggregator records, and no district-court stay motion, so there was no PTAB effect on this litigation. Related-but-different third-party activity on the portfolio (not the '102): Unified Patents ran crowdsourced PATROLL prior-art contests on Lab Technology patents announced 2024-06-06 (five contests, $2,000 each, expiring 2024-08-30) and awarded $4,000 on 2024-12-04, and on 2024-11-27 Unified filed an ex parte reexamination of U.S. 8,498,388 (a different Lab Technology patent asserted against Amazon and Google) — Unified Patents. I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether the '102 itself was among the PATROLL targets.

---

Strategic context that explains the dismissal

This case was not litigated in isolation; it was one of a batch filed the same day, and the dismissal pattern was campaign-wide rather than case-specific.

• The '102 and the portfolio. U.S. 8,483,102, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes," issued 2013-07-09 from application 11/926,390, filed 2007-10-29. The portfolio originated with TP Lab, Inc., whose named inventors include Chi Fai Ho (TP Lab founder/CEO) and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu. TP Lab transferred roughly 30 U.S. patents to Lab Technology LLC. (RPX, via Mondaq, 2024-07-22.)
• The June 2024 wave. On 2024-06-04 Lab Technology filed seven E.D. Tex. complaints: Amazon (2:24-cv-00409), Anritsu ('411), AT&T ('412), Bose ('413), Ericsson ('414), Quectel ('415), and Stryker ('416), asserting overlapping subsets of four TP Lab patents across smart speakers, mobile apps, and telecom products. (RPX, 2024-06-08.) The earlier May 2024 pair (Samsung 2:24-cv-00324; Verizon 2:24-cv-00323) had already started the campaign (RPX/Mondaq, 2024-05-31).
• The dismissals came in a cluster. Zoom Communications (D. Colo. 1:24-cv-01711, filed 2024-06-19) was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2024-07-01; AT&T's notice followed on 2024-06-28 with the order on 2024-07-03. Samsung and Verizon likewise dismissed without prejudice. This is the "file-and-dismiss" signature that RPX has associated with litigation managed by attorney Scott R. Gross and with New Mexico NPE entities — Lab Technology being "one of several New Mexico entities to launch litigation this year." No settlement or license was ever disclosed on the record in the AT&T case, so any inference that this dismissal reflected a paid resolution is unsupported; an equally plausible reading is portfolio-wide re-triage before any defense response.
• AT&T re-sued, then re-dismissed. AT&T was sued again by Lab Technology on 2024-10-11 in 2:24-cv-00830 (E.D. Tex., Gilstrap/Payne) — also a one-patent complaint with identical counsel on both sides (Rabicoff for plaintiff; Dacus for AT&T). AT&T again took a Rule CV-12 extension (answer due 2024-12-23; summons served 2024-10-18), and the court set a case management conference for 2025-01-21, but plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2024-12-12, and the case closed 2024-12-23. (Justia docket; RPX Insight.) I was not able to confirm from the retrieved docket which patent was asserted in the '830 case, so I would not assume it was the '102.
• The '102 is still live elsewhere. Lab Technology asserted the '102 against 3CX USA Corp. in S.D. Fla., 1:25-cv-22704, filed 2025-06-16 and dismissed with prejudice on 2025-08-20 — the only Lab Technology case I found in which the '102 was resolved with prejudice (bilateral-settlement-style dismissal), and a signal that the '102 remains an unresolved assertion risk for telephony defendants generally.

---

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Docket facts above come from PACER-derived aggregators (Justia, PacerMonitor), which mirror the E.D. Tex. docket for Dkts. 1–9; I did not independently pull the PACER register of actions. The complaint's verbiage and party/venue allegations are from the filed complaint text.
• No opinion, verdict, judgment, or Federal Circuit decision exists in this case, so there is nothing to cite on the merits.
• Negative findings (no IPR/PGR on the '102, no Markman, no motion practice) rest on the absence of records in the sources searched as of today's date (2026-09-13); a PTAB petition could exist that was filed and not indexed in the aggregators I queried, and I could not exhaustively check for post-2025 developments. Treat the PTAB negative as "not found," not as "confirmed none."
• Some secondary summaries of this case (e.g., AI-generated litigation blogs) repeat the same procedural facts and are consistent with PACER, but PACER docket entries should be treated as controlling.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel of record.

Initial results show the complaint was signed by Isaac Rabicoff. Let me verify the full docket, including whether local counsel appeared.

I have the docket. Note that PACER Monitor's "Represented By" list appears to conflate both parties' counsel. Let me verify plaintiff's counsel details and Rabicoff's background.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Bottom line: The docket in Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.) shows exactly one attorney appearing for the plaintiff: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois), acting as sole/lead counsel. No local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no additional firm appeared on behalf of Lab Technology before the case closed 29 days after filing.

Docket support (all filings by Rabicoff for the plaintiff)

Sources: PACER Monitor docket page for 2:24-cv-00412; Justia Dockets docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00412; RPX Insight litigation record for the case; the complaint text as republished by RPX (signed only by Rabicoff); firm bio at rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html.

Important clarification — do not confuse with defense counsel

Aggregators list two attorneys under this case number and can make it look like the plaintiff had two lawyers. The second name is defense-side local counsel:

• Deron R. Dacus, The Dacus Firm, PC (Tyler, Texas) — appeared only as counsel for AT&T, Inc., filing Dkt. 6, "Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re AT&T, Inc." (6/26/2024, granted 6/27/2024 extending AT&T's deadline to 8/12/2024). PACER Monitor's party-view "Represented By" list shows both names without clearly separating sides; Dacus was not plaintiff's counsel.
• The same pairing recurs in the plaintiff's later, related AT&T suit, Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00830 (E.D. Tex., filed 10/11/2024): Rabicoff for Lab Technology, Dacus for AT&T.

Caveats and sourcing notes

• No local counsel for plaintiff: Lab Technology's complaint identifies no E.D. Tex. local counsel, and no such appearance appears on the docket. Rabicoff's firm bio lists admission to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which is consistent with him appearing in his own right rather than through local counsel. In other districts he has used local counsel (e.g., Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., S.D. Fla., where Terry Marcus Sanks of Beusse Sanks PLLC appeared alongside him) — but no such co-counsel appeared in this case.
• No in-house counsel for Lab Technology (a non-practicing entity asserting patents acquired from TP Lab, Inc.) appears on the docket.
• Nothing was sealed in a way that would conceal plaintiff's counsel here. The case was dismissed pre-answer, so no pro hac vice motions, notices of appearance by additional plaintiff-side firms, or joint defense filings exist. I found no evidence of any additional plaintiff's counsel in this case; if a supplemental appearance was made after the last publicly retrieved docket (7/3/2024), it would not be reflected in the free sources I reviewed.
• I could not independently verify a few biographical details beyond Rabicoff's own firm website (e.g., exact Lex Machina 2017 ranking), so treat firm-marketing claims as attorney-provided rather than court-verified.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Counsel of Record for Defendant AT&T, Inc. — 2:24-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.)

Key finding: only one defense attorney ever appeared on this docket

AT&T's answer deadline was extended, but the case was voluntarily dismissed before any appearance, answer, or corporate disclosure was filed by the defense. The only attorney whose name appears on behalf of AT&T in the entire docket is:

---

Deron R. Dacus — Defense counsel of record (sole defense attorney appearing)

Relevant patent litigation experience: Dacus is a Tyler-based E.D. Tex. patent litigator and past recipient of an ALM "Go-To Law Firm for Fortune 500 Companies" designation, frequently retained as East Texas counsel for out-of-state corporate defendants. Reported trial work includes:

• TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co. (E.D. Tex., Marshall) — represented CommScope at the March 2023 trial on DSL/FRAND issues; jury returned an $11.1M lump-sum award against his client (Marshall News Messenger, 3/29/2023).
• MonolithIC 3D Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — defense-side filings (extension/stay motion) for SK Hynix.
• Natera (W.D. Tex.) and Stratasys (E.D. Tex.) — patent matters where he entered as counsel.
• Earlier plaintiff-side verdicts: Navico/Lowrance v. Garmin ($39M verdict, 2017), Mobile Telecommunications Technologies (MTel) v. Apple ($23.6M verdict, 2014), and EON Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks ($18.8M verdict, 2014).

---

What is not on the record (and cannot be sourced)

• No national/lead trial counsel, no AT&T in-house counsel, and no additional local counsel ever appeared in this docket. PACER/Justia, PacerMonitor, and RPX all show the same four defense-side docket events: Dkt. 5 (summons), Dkt. 6 + the 6/27/2024 grant (extension), and then the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 7) and closure (Dkts. 8–9). Docket entries are limited to Nos. 1–9, all retrieved as of 7/3/2024.
• Because AT&T never answered, the case was dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) at Filing 8 (7/3/2024) — Gilstrap, J. — without prejudice, so no counsel list, appearance notice, or litigation-committee disclosure was place on the public record.
• It is common in E.D. Tex. for a local firm like The Dacus Firm to be retained as local counsel alongside a defendant's national patent litigation firm, but for this specific case no such co-counsel is documented, so attributing a "local counsel" role to Dacus would be an inference, not a sourced fact. Treat the "local counsel only" characterization as unsupported.

Follow-on litigation note (context, not counsel-of-record for this case)

Lab Technology re-filed against AT&T as 2:24-cv-00830 (E.D. Tex., filed 10/11/2024); the defense extension application there was again signed by Deron R. Dacus (Dkt. 7, 11/5/2024), and that case too was voluntarily dismissed (Dkt. 9, 12/12/2024). This reinforces that Dacus was AT&T's E.D. Tex. counsel of record in the Lab Technology campaign, but it does not establish any additional attorney's appearance in 2:24-cv-00412 itself.

Bottom line: If you need a single name, it is Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) — the sole attorney appearing for AT&T, Inc. Any "lead national counsel" or AT&T in-house attorney for this matter is not identifiable from the public record because the case terminated pre-answer.