Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

I'll research this case across the case docket, patent records, and litigation databases.

Good initial haul. Let me verify the patent portfolio, ownership chain, other defendants, and any IPR activity.

Case Overview — Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:24-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a patent assertion entity (NPE/PAE) with no operating business. RPX reported that it was formed in New Mexico on January 8, 2024 — roughly four months before this suit — and that its complaints are signed by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, with Benjamin C. Deming (DNL Zito) also appearing (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 8). The patents it asserts were developed by TP Lab, Inc. (Cupertino, CA), whose co-founder/inventor Chi Fai Ho (a former Nokia business-strategy director and Amber Networks VP, and founder of the earlier NPE IPLearn LLC) and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu appear across the asserted family. RPX/Mondaq coverage ties Lab Technology's campaign to the monetization orbit of Jeffrey M. Gross, and notes that at filing, USPTO assignment records still did not reflect a recorded transfer from TP Lab to Lab Technology (ownership was only pleaded). Notably, the '973 family was previously held by Local Intelligence, LLC (a Dominion Harbor affiliate), which never asserted it and transferred the assets back to TP Lab in November 2019. Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is Verizon's wireless operating subsidiary (Basking Ridge, NJ); the original defendant, Verizon Communications Inc., was dismissed without prejudice and the caption amended by unopposed motion (ECF Nos. 21, 23, 24, entered Aug. 22–23, 2024). Verizon was represented by Duane Morris LLP (Kevin P. Anderson, Elissa Sanford, Holly E. Engelmann) with Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm) appearing for Verizon Communications Inc.

Patents and accused technology. The case metadata authorizes a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 B1, "Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location" (App. No. 13/337,038, filed Dec. 23, 2011; issued Aug. 6, 2013; priority July 14, 2005 as a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,272,402; inventors Ho and Chiu; original assignee TP Lab). Independent claim 1 is a device-side method: the mobile phone (a) obtains a current wireless base station identity, (b) obtains a stored base station identity, (c) determines they do not match, (d) obtains a subscriber location corresponding to the current base station identity, and (e) sends that location to the phone system — i.e., the handset itself detects that it has roamed and initiates the location update. The technical heart of the invention is E911/VoIP caller-location determination: the specification describes querying a subscriber-location datastore/ALI-style record so a PSAP can dispatch to the right address. Infringement was directed at Verizon's E911-capable services — RPX/Mondaq reported that Verizon was accused over platforms (described in that source as a "Webex Cloud Communication platform," a reference I could not independently verify) supporting Enhanced 911 emergency services, and, under the companion '982 patent, the Verizon Care Smart app for smartwatches. Caution on scope: contemporaneous RPX reporting states that three patents were pleaded against Verizon — the '973, plus U.S. Pat. No. 9,219,982 ("automatically refreshing a telephone display" with location/function-relevant services) and U.S. Pat. No. 8,515,032 ("system to record and analyze voice message usage information") — while the authoritative case metadata lists only the '973. The public docket does not resolve whether the '982 and '032 were dropped in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20, Aug. 21, 2024); I'd treat the single-patent scope as the metadata position and the three-patent scope as reported-but-unconfirmed.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed May 3, 2024 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne as referred judge (the case number's "2:" prefix denotes Marshall). Venue mattered in two ways: it is Judge Gilstrap's courtroom — among the most experienced and fastest patent dockets in the country — and the parties jointly moved the court into an aggressive schedule (Docket Control Order, ECF No. 15, Aug. 2, 2024: Markman Sept. 9, 2025 before Judge Payne; pretrial conference Jan. 26, 2026; jury selection Mar. 2, 2026), with a joint protective order (ECF No. 22) and discovery order (ECF No. 16) entered shortly after a July 18, 2024 scheduling conference. Verizon answered the amended complaint on Sept. 4, 2024 (ECF No. 25). But the case never reached claim construction: on Nov. 21, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27), which Judge Gilstrap granted (ECF No. 28, signed Dec. 3, entered Dec. 4, 2024), closing the case after 216 days with no merits ruling and no public indication of settlement terms — the use of a joint motion (rather than a Rule 41(a)(1) unilateral notice, which Lab Technology used elsewhere) suggests a negotiated resolution, likely a license, though that is inference, not record evidence.

The case is notable less for anything decided than for the campaign it belongs to. It was one of Lab Technology's first two suits (with Lab Technology v. Samsung, 2:24-cv-00324, filed the same day and dismissed without prejudice 10 days later), followed in June 2024 by a wave of E.D. Tex. complaints against Amazon, Anritsu, AT&T, Bose, Ericsson, Stryker, and Quectel, plus W.D. Tex. suits against Cisco (6:24-cv-00338) and Microsoft (6:24-cv-00331) — a broad assertion pattern over E911/telephony features that are effectively regulatorily mandatory under FCC E911 rules, Kari's Law, and RAY BAUM'S Act, which makes near-universal VoIP/UCaaS/carrier implementations a target-rich environment. On the defensive side, Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing prior-art bounty on the '973 patent, paying $2,000 to two winners (announced Jan. 3, 2025), and separately filed an ex parte reexamination against Lab Technology's '388 patent on Nov. 27, 2024. I found no IPR or PGR petition against the '973 in the PTAB record; the reexamination activity is aimed at a sibling patent, not this one. So the '973 emerged from this litigation still presumptively valid, unadjudicated on claim scope, and with Lab Technology free to re-assert it — which it has continued to do (e.g., Lab Technology v. Everbridge, D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355 (Nov. 6, 2025); Lab Technology v. Sangoma, S.D. Fla. 1:25-cv-22717, dismissed with prejudice 44 days after filing; and Lab Technology v. MetTel, D. Del., filed Sept. 4, 2026). The Verizon matter itself left open the two questions that would have mattered — whether claim 1's device-side base-station-ID comparison reads on network-side E911 location determination, and what "subscriber location" means (civic address vs. coordinates) — both flagged as the likely claim-construction fault lines in the complaint itself.

Sourcing note and gaps. Verified from PACER-derived dockets (PacerMonitor, Justia, RPX Insight, Patexia) and RPX/Mondaq reporting: case number, judges, all docket entry numbers and dates cited above, counsel, the substitution of Cellco and dismissal of Verizon Communications Inc., and the scheduling/Markman/trial dates. Verified from USPTO/patent records: '973 bibliographic data and claim 1 language. Reported but not independently confirmed: that the original complaint pleaded three patents ('973, '982, '032); the specific Verizon products/services accused (including the odd "Webex" reference); and any settlement/license rationale for dismissal. No merits opinions, claim constructions, damages rulings, or IPR decisions exist for this case; anything suggesting otherwise would be unsupported.

I'll research this case systematically with web searches.

I have solid docket data. Let me dig into the PTAB/IPR angle and the broader campaign.

Let me check the PTAB and the specific dismissal terms.

Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case No. 2:24-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.) | Filed 2024-05-03 | Dismissed 2024-12-04 | Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Mag. J. Roy S. Payne

Source note: I hit my search-step limit before I could pull the PACER docket directly or confirm a few specifics (noted inline). Everything below is grounded in the docket entries indexed by PACER Monitor, RPX, Justia, Unified Patents, and Mondaq; where a fact comes from an AI-aggregator site (Ex Parte, PatSnap Eureka) I flag it as such. This supplements, and does not repeat, the existing case summary.

---

Patents actually put at issue

The metadata lists 8,503,973 only, but the complaint as filed asserted three patents (RPX's case profile also records "3 Patents-in-Suit"):

All three trace to TP Lab, Inc. (inventors Shin Cheung Simon Chiu and Chi Fai Ho), and the '973 patent belongs to a 12-patent emergency-caller-location family that had earlier passed to Dominion Harbor affiliate Local Intelligence, LLC (Aug. 2017) and back to TP Lab (Nov. 2019). (Mondaq, 2024-05-31; Unified Patents, 2025-01-03.)

---

Chronological docket timeline

2024-05-03 — Filing & initial pleadings.

• Dkt. 1: Complaint against Verizon Communications Inc. (9 pp. + Exs. 1–6, Civil Cover Sheet). Filed by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), a high-volume NPE-filing firm.
• Dkts. 2–4: Rabicoff appearance; Rule 7.1 disclosure; AO 120 form.
• Dkt. 5: Summons issued as to Verizon Communications Inc.
• Case assigned to Judge Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Payne referred.

2024-05-16 — Dkt. 6. Defendant's unopposed first extension of time to answer, granted to 2024-07-11 under Local Rule CV-12 (45-day extension).

2024-06-24/25 — Dkt. 7. Scheduling Order; Rule 16 scheduling/case-management conference set for 2024-07-18.

2024-07-10 — Dkt. 8. Notice of appearance of Benjamin Charles Deming (DNL Zito) for plaintiff.

2024-07-11/13 — Dkts. 9–10. Second unopposed extension; answer due 2024-08-12.

2024-07-18 — Minute entry. Scheduling/Case Management Conference held before Judge Gilstrap. The court asked whether the parties would consent to trial before the magistrate judge and gave counsel the claim-construction and jury/trial dates. (No consent appears to have been given.)

2024-07-26 — Dkts. 11–12. Appearances of Holly Elin Engelmann and Elissa Sanford (Duane Morris LLP) for Verizon Communications Inc.

2024-08-01 — Dkts. 13–14. Joint motions for (i) a Docket Control Order and (ii) a Discovery Order — a sign the parties were cooperating on a routine schedule, not litigating early motions.

2024-08-02/05 — Dkts. 15–16. Both orders granted (Judge Payne).

• Docket Control Order: Markman hearing 2025-09-09; Pretrial Conference 2026-01-26; Jury Selection 2026-03-02.
• Discovery Order entered.

2024-08-12 — Dkts. 17–18. Answer of Verizon Communications Inc. to the original complaint + Rule 7.1 disclosure. No counterclaims appear on the indexed docket.

2024-08-20 — Dkt. 19. Joint motion for entry of a protective order.

2024-08-21 — Dkts. 20–21. First Amended Complaint naming Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, plus an unopposed motion to substitute party and amend the case caption. This is the pivotal practical correction: the original complaint had named the wrong Verizon entity.

2024-08-22/23 — Dkts. 22–24.

• Protective Order entered (Dkt. 22).
• Caption amended to Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Dkt. 23).
• All claims against Verizon Communications Inc. dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Dkt. 24, Mag. J. Payne) — i.e., a party-substitution dismissal, not a merits ruling.

2024-09-04 — Dkts. 25–26. Answer of Cellco Partnership to the Amended Complaint + Rule 7.1 disclosure. Again, no counterclaims indexed.

2024-11-21 — Dkt. 27. JOINT MOTION to Dismiss filed by Lab Technology (with proposed order). That a joint motion was filed (rather than a Rule 41(a)(1) unilateral notice) is the strongest available signal of a negotiated, consensual exit.

2024-12-03 / 2024-12-04 — Dkts. 28–29. ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Gilstrap on 2024-12-03, entered 2024-12-04 (Dkt. 28); AO 120 form sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 29). Case closed after 216 days.

---

Pretrial motions of substance

• Motions to dismiss (FRCP 12): None on the merits. The only dismissal motion was plaintiff's own unopposed motion to drop Verizon Communications Inc. and substitute Cellco (Dkt. 21, granted Dkt. 24, without prejudice).
• Motion to transfer venue: none docketed. Notably, E.D. Tex. was a plaintiff-selected venue and no §1404/§1406 challenge appears — consistent with the short life of the case and with Verizon's apparent willingness to litigate there.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none — there was no IPR to stay for (see below).
• Summary judgment: none; the case never survived to the SJ window.
• Protective order / discovery order: the only contested-capable motions of substance, both resolved by joint motion (Dkts. 13, 14, 19), which is itself strategically telling — the parties were papering a normal case, then walked away.

Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. The Docket Control Order set a Markman hearing for 2025-09-09, but the case was dismissed roughly nine months earlier. No claim-construction order, no Markman briefing, and no constructions exist. The teed-up disputes (per the complaint and claim charts) would have centered on the '973 claim term "subscriber location" (civic address vs. GPS/coordinate data) and the device-side-vs-network-side locus of the claimed steps, and on "voice message record" for the '032 patent — but none of this was adjudicated.

Discovery milestones

Thin by design. The only discovery events of record:

• 2024-08-02 — Discovery Order entered (Dkt. 16).
• 2024-08-22 — Protective Order entered (Dkt. 22), the prerequisite for confidential-source-code/technical discovery.

No discovery disputes, motions to compel, or scheduling-order amendments appear on the indexed docket. Discovery effectively ended with the 2024-11-21 joint dismissal motion.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. Jury selection was calendared for 2026-03-02 and never occurred. There is no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no §285 fee motion on the docket.

Final disposition

Dismissed by joint motion on 2024-12-04 (216 days). Because the dismissal was by joint motion rather than a plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1) notice, the disposition was a negotiated consensual dismissal, and the publicly indexed docket entries do not state whether it was with or without prejudice — I could not verify the prejudice term before reaching my search limit, so treat that as unresolved. Patexia classifies the disposition as "Dismissed – Other." No settlement amount, license, or covenant not to sue is disclosed anywhere in the public record. There is no appeal (nothing appealable) and the case is terminated.

---

Parallel PTAB / post-grant proceedings — the key finding

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against U.S. 8,503,973 appears in the record. My searches for an IPR on the '973 patent returned nothing. Two adjacent facts matter for context:

1. Unified Patents PATROLL contest on the '973 patent (announced 2025-01-03). Unified awarded $2,000 to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan for prior-art submissions on 8,503,973, describing it as "asserted by Lab Technology, LLC, an NPE," relating to "methods and systems for accurately determining the location of a caller during an emergency call," and noting it "has been asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon." A PATROLL contest is a crowdsourced prior-art hunt, not a PTAB filing — but it signals an AIA-challenge threat that Lab Technology may have wanted to avoid triggering.
2. Unified did file a post-grant challenge in the same family — but on a different patent: an ex parte reexamination against U.S. 8,498,388 on 2024-11-27, weeks after Lab Technology sued Amazon and Google. Timing is suggestive: Lab Technology's joint dismissal of the Verizon case (2024-11-21) came days before Unified's reexam filing on the sibling patent (2024-11-27). The '973 patent itself was never challenged.

Effect on the litigation: none directly — no PTAB proceeding existed to stay or await. The litigation was resolved on the parties' own schedule.

---

Broader campaign context (why this case mattered)

This was one skirmish in a serial NPE campaign, not a standalone dispute:

• Companion E.D. Tex. case against Samsung, No. 2:24-cv-00324 (filed ~May 2024), asserting five TP Lab patents ('973, '032, '982, '388, '570). It was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (court order accepting the notice; no merits ruling, no fee award). (RPX, 2024-06-08; PatSnap Eureka — aggregator.)
• June 2024 wave (all E.D. Tex.): Amazon (2:24-cv-00409), Anritsu (2:24-cv-00411), AT&T (2:24-cv-00412), Bose (2:24-cv-00413), Ericsson (2:24-cv-00414), Quectel (2:24-cv-00415), Stryker (2:24-cv-00416). (RPX, 2024-06-08.)
• W.D. Tex. filings: Cisco (6:24-cv-00338, dismissed 2025-03-12), Qualcomm (6:24-cv-00335, dismissed 2024-06-28 — 9 days), LG Electronics U.S.A. (6:24-cv-00336).
• Later/other filings: AT&T again (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00830, filed 2024-10-11); Everbridge (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355, filed 2025-11-06); Sangoma (S.D. Fla., dismissed with prejudice 2025-07-30); MetTel (D. Del. 1:26-cv-01120).

The pattern across the campaign — early voluntary or joint dismissals before claim construction, no Markman rulings, no PTAB challenges on the '973 patent, and no disclosed settlements — is the defining feature of this litigation. Lab Technology extracted no merits win and Verizon (Cellco) incurred no adverse ruling, fee award, or judgment.

---

Bottom line

1. Filed 2024-05-03 against the wrong Verizon entity; corrected to Cellco Partnership by amended complaint on 2024-08-21 (Verizon Communications Inc. dismissed without prejudice 2024-08-22).
2. One answer from Cellco (2024-09-04); no counterclaims indexed.
3. No substantive pretrial motions — no MTD, transfer, or stay motion was ever filed; only routine joint scheduling/discovery/protective-order motions.
4. No Markman — hearing was set for 2025-09-09 but the case died first.
5. No discovery disputes; no trial; no verdict; no post-trial motions.
6. Resolved by joint motion; dismissed 2024-12-04 (216 days). Prejudice term unverified; no public settlement/license.
7. No PTAB IPR/PGR on the '973 patent. The only post-grant activity in the family was Unified's ex parte reexamination of the '388 sibling patent and a Unified PATROLL prior-art bounty tied to the '973 patent.

Unverified items (search-step limit reached): the with/without-prejudice term of the final dismissal order; whether the joint dismissal was conditioned on any confidential agreement; and the absence of any pending PTAB petition on the '973 patent as of today (2026-09-17) beyond what I could retrieve.

I'll search for press coverage across multiple angles.

Press & analyst coverage

Bottom line: this case generated essentially no mainstream press. I searched the caption, both party names, the '973 patent number, and verdict/settlement angles, and found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or JD Supra article about Lab Technology v. Cellco/Verizon. The only published coverage comes from three specialist channels: RPX's litigation commentary republished on Mondaq, Unified Patents' blog, and litigation-analytics vendors (PatSnap Eureka, PacerMonitor, Patexia, RPX Empower), the last of which are database records rather than reporting. No damages figure, settlement amount, license term, or market-impact estimate has been reported anywhere I could find — consistent with the case ending by joint dismissal with no disclosed consideration.

What the trade coverage did report. Mondaq (May 31, 2024, RPX-authored) was first, reporting that Lab Technology — "formed in New Mexico on January 8, 2024" — filed back-to-back E.D. Tex. suits against Samsung (2:24-cv-00324) and Verizon (2:24-cv-00323), asserting three patents against Verizon ('973, '032, '982) drawn from a family of 12 emergency-caller-location patents naming Shin Cheung Simon Chiu and Chi Fai Ho. The piece is notable for two things it flagged as warning signs rather than case developments: that USPTO records did "not reflect the assignment of any of these three patents away from TP Lab" even though Lab Technology "pleads ownership," and that the family had earlier passed to Dominion Harbor affiliate Local Intelligence (Aug. 2017) and back to TP Lab (Nov. 2019) without ever being asserted. It reported Verizon was accused of infringing the '973 through support of E911 in the "Verizon Webex Cloud Communication platform," and of the '982 through the Care Smart smartwatch app; the Samsung comparison product was the Galaxy S24+. Mondaq followed on July 22, 2024 with a campaign-roundup piece that situates Verizon among a widening defendant set (Google, Cisco, Intel, LG, Lyft, NVIDIA, Zoom, AT&T, Amazon, Microsoft) and notes the '973 "is broadly directed to obtaining the location of a mobile device coupled to a wireless base station," with Cisco WebEx Calling and Microsoft Teams Phone targeted on their E911 "designated emergency address and dynamic location detection" features.

The only coverage treating the '973 itself as the story came from Unified Patents, which opened a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest on the patent on June 6, 2024 (contest page), noting it "has been asserted against Samsung, Verizon, and Stryker." Unified announced on Dec. 17, 2024 — thirteen days after Judge Gilstrap closed this case — that prior art had been found, then awarded $2,000 split between Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan on Jan. 3, 2025, describing the '973 as "asserted by Lab Technology, LLC, an NPE" and listing Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon as targets. That is the sole reported number attached to anything touching this litigation, and it is a bounty payout, not a litigation value.

Where accounts diverge, and caution flags. (1) Prejudice term: PatSnap Eureka records the "basis of termination" as "Dismissed with Prejudice" and states three patents were asserted — which would resolve the open question flagged in the earlier sections (the docket's own order text, Dkt. 28, does not state a prejudice term, and Patexia records only "Dismissed – Other"). PatSnap is an AI-generated analytics page, its entry also says "Chief judge: None recorded" despite the case being plainly assigned to Judge Gilstrap, and its 215-day duration differs by one day from the docket-inclusive 216; I would treat its "with prejudice" field as unverified and possibly inferential, not as reporting. (2) The "Webex" anomaly: RPX's reporting accuses Verizon of infringing the '973 via "its Webex Cloud Communication platform," yet in the same July 22 article RPX attributes WebEx Calling to Cisco — Webex is Cisco's product, so the Verizon reference reads as a transcription error in the source, not a verified factual allegation, and I could not corroborate it from any complaint or docket text. (3) Framing: RPX's coverage is analytical rather than reportorial — its takeaway is structural (a two-week-old New Mexico entity suing on patents whose assignment was unrecorded, through Rabicoff Law LLC), and that framing, not any ruling in this case, is why the matter was written about at all. There are no executive statements, no industry-reaction quotes, and no analyst commentary specific to the Verizon suit in any source I located.

Sources

• Lab Technology v. Verizon Communications et al. | Patent Lawsuit 2:24-cv-00323 - Lab Technology LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.
• 2:24-cv-00323 | Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless | RPX Empower
• 2:24-cv-00323 | Lab Technology LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc | Ex Parte
• Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless (2:24-cv-00323), Texas Eastern District Court
• Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless > Summary
• Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation - ARTICLE
• News & Views — Unified Patents
• Lab Technology, LLC v. Sangoma Technologies: E911 Patent Case Ends in Swift Voluntary Dismissal | Patsnap Eureka - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Litigation Over Former TP Lab Patents Proliferates - ARTICLE
• Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation - ARTICLE
• Lab Technology v. Everbridge | Patent Lawsuit 1:25-cv-01355 - Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc
• Complaint analysis | 1:25-cv-01356 | Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology Inc | Ex Parte

I'll research the counsel of record for Lab Technology LLC in this case. Let me search multiple sources.

Good progress. Now let me get the specific docket entries and confirm which attorneys represent the plaintiff versus Verizon.

Let me get the full docket from CourtListener and verify the individual attorneys' backgrounds.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Lab Technology LLC

Bottom line: Two attorneys appeared for the plaintiff, Lab Technology LLC, on the public docket of Lab Technology LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:24-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.): Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (the case's lead/principal counsel and the filer of the complaint, amended complaint, and the joint dismissal motion) and Benjamin Charles Deming of DNL Zito, who entered an appearance on the plaintiff's behalf mid-case. No other plaintiff-side attorney appears in the sources I could retrieve. Nothing on this docket is indicated as sealed.

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead counsel (firm of record)

Sources: PacerMonitor docket for 2:24-cv-00323 (attorney/party list and entry text showing "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of Lab Technology LLC"); RPX Insight case page; Mondaq, "Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation" (May 31, 2024).

2. Benjamin Charles Deming — Appearing counsel (plaintiff side)

Caveats I want to flag explicitly:

• I could not independently verify Deming's office location or whether he was formally designated as E.D. Tex. local counsel. The pattern (out-of-district lead counsel from Chicago plus a second firm entering an appearance) is consistent with local-counsel arrangements common in E.D. Tex., but the docket sources I retrieved do not label him as "local counsel," so I will not assert that. Treat "DNL Zito / local counsel" as unconfirmed inference, not fact.
• The precise docket-entry number and date of Deming's notice of appearance were not captured in the sources retrieved (PacerMonitor's party/attorney grouping shows an August 2024 date cluster around the party-substitution filings, but I could not tie the date to the exact appearance entry). PACER's docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00323 should be pulled to confirm the entry number/date and any pro hac vice motions.

Attorneys who were not plaintiff's counsel (to avoid mis-attribution)

The same docket's attorney list includes defense-side names that are sometimes mistakenly grouped with the plaintiff:

• Kevin Paul Anderson — Duane Morris LLP (Washington) — filed the answers (Dkt. 17, 25) and Rule 7.1 statement (Dkt. 26) for Cellco/Verizon.
• Elissa Sanford and Holly Elin Engelmann — Duane Morris LLP — notices of appearance for Verizon Communications Inc. (Dkt. 11, 12).
• Deron R. Dacus — The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX) — E.D. Tex. local counsel for the Verizon/Cellco defendants.

Case-flow context for the plaintiff's representation

1. 5/3/2024 — Complaint filed by Rabicoff against Verizon Communications Inc. (later substituted out). The complaint pleaded infringement of the '973 patent (per the case metadata, plus '032 and '982 asserted in the related TP Lab-portfolio campaign per RPX/Mondaq).
2. 8/22–8/23/2024 — Orders granting plaintiff's unopposed motion to substitute Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and amend the caption; Verizon Communications dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. 21, 23, 24). All papers were filed by Rabicoff.
3. 12/3–12/4/2024 — Joint motion to dismiss (Dkt. 27) granted; case dismissed (Dkt. 28), AO 120 notice filed (Dkt. 29). No merits ruling, no claim construction, no IPR referenced on this docket.

Verification status

For a definitive record (entry numbers, appearance dates, pro hac vice orders, and any withdrawn appearances), the PACER docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00323 should be reviewed directly; the third-party aggregators used here (PacerMonitor, RPX, Patexia) are generally reliable but were not uniform in what they displayed.

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

I found the defendant's representation on the docket. Let me verify each attorney's role and firm.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless)

Verizon was represented by a two-firm team: Duane Morris LLP as national/lead patent counsel and The Dacus Firm, P.C. as East Texas local counsel. This is Verizon's standard defense lineup in E.D. Tex. patent cases and matches its representation in the closely related XR Communications d/b/a Vivato v. Verizon matter (2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP) and Emergency Alerts Innovations v. Cellco (2:22-cv-00270).

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 17 (Aug. 12, 2024) — Answer to Complaint, filed by Verizon Communications Inc. (Anderson).
• Dkt. 18 (Aug. 12, 2024) — Rule 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement, Verizon Communications Inc. (Anderson).
• Dkt. 25 (Sept. 4, 2024) — Answer to First Amended Complaint, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Anderson).
• Dkt. 26 (Sept. 4, 2024) — Rule 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement (Anderson).
• Notice of attorney appearance by Elissa Sanford on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. (docketed Aug. 2024).
• Notice of attorney appearance by Holly Elin Engelmann on behalf of Verizon (docketed in this case).
• Dkt. 24 (Aug. 23, 2024) — Order dismissing Verizon Communications Inc. without prejudice; Dkt. 23 – caption amended to Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless.

Caveats and open items

• No sealed or withheld counsel issue for the defense — the Duane Morris/Dacus appearances and the Verizon answers/disclosures are public docket entries, so the defense lineup is confirmed on the face of the record.
• Role labels (lead vs. of counsel vs. local) are my characterization, not stated on the docket. The docket does not designate "lead counsel"; Anderson is inferred as lead because he alone signed the operative answers and disclosures. Engelmann and Dacus are inferred as the Texas-bar/local-rule counsel given their office locations.
• One attorney I could not confirm: the aggregator page for this case also surfaces Benjamin Charles Deming (DNL Zito) adjacent to the party listings. I could not verify from a primary docket entry that he appeared for Verizon; he may be plaintiff-side or mis-listed by the aggregator. Treat that name as unconfirmed — do not rely on it.
• Note the slightly inconsistent spelling of the associate's name across sources ("Elissa Sanford" vs. "Elissa L. Sanford" / "Sandford"); the firm's own profile uses Elissa Sanford.
• Because the case was dismissed by joint motion (Dkt. 27) and closed Dec. 4, 2024 (Dkt. 28–29) with no merits ruling, there are no counsel-related opinions, sanctions, or fee motions to report.

Primary sources: PacerMonitor docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00323 (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/53370741/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_Cellco_Partnership_DBA_Verizon_Wireless); Duane Morris attorney profiles for Kevin P. Anderson and Elissa Sanford; Duane Morris press release on IOENGINE v. Roku; The Dacus Firm website.