Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the patent's provenance, the accused technology, the Lab Technology campaign, and any IPR linkage.

Overview & Background

The parties. Lab Technology LLC is a Texas-based patent-assertion entity — it is not an operating company and appears to hold no products of its own. The asserted patent traces back to TP Lab, Inc. (California), whose inventors Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu filed the application; USPTO assignment records show the patent moving from TP Lab to Local Intelligence, LLC (Texas) in 2017, with Lab Technology later appearing as the asserting owner (the public record I reviewed does not detail the final link in that chain, so treat the exact Lab Technology–Local Intelligence relationship as unconfirmed). The campaign has been run largely out of Rabicoff Law LLC (Isaac Rabicoff, Chicago), sometimes with Beusse Sanks PLLC, and Lab Technology has been publicly characterized by Unified Patents as "an NPE." Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. is the paradigmatic operating company target: a global networking and collaboration vendor whose unified-communications stack (Webex Calling, Unified CM, and related cloud/hosted telephony) must provide emergency-call location functionality to be sold in the U.S.

The patent and the accused technology. The sole patent in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 B1, "Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location" — one line: a phone/phone system obtains a caller's "subscriber location" (e.g., a civic address) from a location datastore so the emergency dispatcher can be told where the caller is. Claim 1 is notably device-centric, requiring the mobile phone to (a) obtain a current wireless base-station identity, (b) obtain a stored one, (c) determine they don't match, (d) obtain the subscriber location for the current base station, and (e) send that location to the phone system. The application (13/337,038) was filed December 23, 2011, issued August 6, 2013, and claims an estimated priority date of July 14, 2005; a sibling family member, U.S. 8,744,400, carries the same title. The commercial hook is that E911/NG911 call-location is mandatory — Kari's Law and RAY BAUM'S Act require dispatchable location for multi-line telephone systems — so effectively every VoIP/UC product in the U.S. practices some version of the functionality, which is what makes the patent broadly assertable. Note that the public docket for the Cisco case does not identify the accused product; RPX records "1 Accused Product," but the name is not disclosed in the sources I could verify (the complaint's claim-chart exhibits were not publicly available). In the parallel Verizon complaint, the only substantive infringement dispute flagged was precisely the device-side vs. network-side split — whether the handset or the network performs the claimed compare-and-update steps — a weakness that is especially acute against a Cisco-style infrastructure defendant.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed June 21, 2024 in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division, assigned to District Judge Ernest Gonzalez (case number rendered "6:24-cv-00338-EG"). Docket: Dkt. 1 complaint + exhibits; Dkt. 3 Rule 7 disclosure; Dkt. 7 notice of related cases (June 24, 2024 — signaling companion assertions); Dkt. 8 notice of voluntary dismissal (June 28, 2024), just seven days after filing; then Dkt. 9, Order Dismissing Case (Mar. 12, 2025), and Dkt. 10, the AO-120 report to the USPTO. Venue mattered because Waco was the epicenter of the post-TC Heartland patent-plaintiff boom under Judge Albright, and this filing landed on a newer judge's docket in that same division; the speed of the exit meant none of that venue law was ever tested here. One point the existing summary correctly flags: the prejudice term is not stated on the public docket for Cisco — and unlike Lab Technology's 2025 S.D. Fla. cases (Sangoma, dismissed with prejudice at 44 days; 3CX USA, 1:25-cv-22704, dismissed with prejudice at 65 days), nothing in the Cisco record confirms whether the dismissal bars re-assertion.

Why it's notable. Three reasons. First, it is a data point in a multi-front NPE campaign — Unified Patents reports the '973 patent has been asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon (the Verizon action was 2:24-cv-00323 in the E.D. Tex., asserting '973 alongside U.S. 8,483,102 and 8,515,032). Second, the defensive response came from Unified Patents' PATROLL crowdsourcing program, which awarded $2,000 on January 3, 2025 for prior art on the '973 patent — a signal that the patent is viewed as validity-vulnerable, though I found no confirmed IPR petition against it in the sources searched. Third, market/term context: Google Patents lists the '973 patent as active with an estimated expiration of December 28, 2025, meaning this campaign is a late-life monetization push, consistent with the pattern of hard-filing then quick, often with-prejudice dismissals (likely private settlements or covenants) rather than litigated merits outcomes.

Sourcing caveats (flagged, not fabricated): the specific Cisco product accused, the prejudice term of the Cisco dismissal, the underlying dismissal order's text, defense counsel, and any IPR/PTAB proceeding are not confirmed by the public sources I could reach; the complaint and its claim charts were not publicly available. Everything else above is grounded in the PACER-derived dockets (Justia/Docket Alarm mirrors), RPX, Unified Patents' January 3, 2025 PATROLL announcement, USPTO assignment records via Google Patents/Justia, and Unified's public statement identifying Lab Technology as an NPE.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

Key docket facts are emerging. Let me dig into the PTAB record and the broader '973 campaign.

Let me confirm the PTAB record for the '973 patent and check for any earlier litigations.

Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.) — Key Developments and Outcome

Bottom line: This was not a litigated case in any substantive sense. It is a seven-day complaint-to-dismissal episode in a serial NPE campaign over U.S. Patent 8,503,973. Every litigation milestone you asked about — answer, counterclaims, Rule 12 motion, transfer/stay motion, Markman, discovery, summary judgment, trial, JMOL, fees, appeal — is absent from the record. The only legally meaningful events are the filing, the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal, and a belated dismissal order roughly eight and a half months later. Set out below is the chronological record as verified from the docket, with the campaign and PTAB context, and an explicit statement of what the record does not establish.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2024-06-21 to 2024-06-24)

• 2024-06-21 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Lab Technology LLC filed a § 271 patent infringement complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location"). Filing fee receipt ATXWDC-18905981; exhibits 1–2 plus civil cover sheet attached. Jury demand by plaintiff. Case assigned to District Judge Ernest Gonzalez, Waco Division, and stamped 6-24-cv-00338-EG. Same-day entries: Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) (Dkt. 2); Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 3); AO 120 Patent/Trademark form forwarded to the USPTO Director (Dkt. 4); Request for Issuance of Summons (Dkt. 5); Summons Issued as to Cisco (Dkt. 6).
• 2024-06-24 — Notice of Related Cases (W.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 7). The only other substantive filing. It signals the multi-defendant nature of the assertion, but the related-case list is not reflected in the aggregator dockets.
• No answer, no counterclaims. The docket shows no appearance by Cisco counsel and no responsive pleading. Consequently Cisco never pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity or non-infringement, which is why there was no vehicle later for a § 285 fee motion and no adjudicated invalidity finding.

Docket sources: Justia docket; full docket text.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There is no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 venue transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. The case never reached a contested posture, so none of the standard W.D. Tex. pre-trial machinery was engaged.

3. Claim construction — did not occur

No Markman briefing, no Venable-style order, no claim-construction hearing, no claim-construction order. This matters substantively: the '973 claim 1 dispute anticipated in the campaign is a genuine scope question — whether the mobile phone itself performs the steps of obtaining a current base-station identity, comparing it to a stored base-station identity, and sending a subscriber location, versus network-side implementation. That question (and the construction of "subscriber location") was never presented to or decided by any court. See the claim text summarized in RPX Insight for US 8,503,973 B1.

4. Discovery milestones — none

No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference reflected, no infringement contentions/invalidity contentions, no discovery. The case terminated before any case-management event.

5. Voluntary dismissal (the operative disposition)

• 2024-06-28 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed (Dkt. 8), with a proposed order attached, by Rabicoff for Lab Technology. This is seven days after the complaint.
• Because Cisco had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — effective on filing, no court approval required. The public docket entry does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and the attached proposed order's text is not reflected in the aggregator records. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) the default is without prejudice absent a contrary specification or the two-dismissal rule. Treat the prejudice term as unverified. (Note: PatSnap's AI-generated case writeup asserts the term is unconfirmed but, at another point, describes the plaintiff outcome as though optionality were preserved — that page is secondary commentary, not a primary source: PatSnap.)
• 2025-03-12 — Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 9), signed by Judge Gonzalez, and Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 10). Case terminated 2025-03-12. Patexia likewise records a termination date of March 12, 2025, status "Dismissed – Other."
• Flagged anomaly: the ~8.5-month gap between the notice (2024-06-28) and the dismissal order (2025-03-12) is unexplained on the public docket. Legally it is largely immaterial — the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal took effect on filing — but I could not retrieve the text of Dkt. 9 to confirm whether the court's order recited a prejudice term or, e.g., retained jurisdiction for a fee motion. That is the single most important unverified document in this file.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, fees, appeal — none

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motion, no bill of costs, no § 285 exceptional-case motion, no appeal. No merits ruling on validity or infringement exists.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '973 patent

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. 8,503,973 at the PTAB in connection with this case, and no Cisco petition. The patent is listed as an active grant (RPX Insight). What did exist was defensive prior-art harvesting, not a PTAB challenge: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL contest on claim 1 of the '973 patent from 2024-06-06 to 2024-08-30, and announced $2,000 in awards to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan, with the winning art released and the announcement dated 2024-12-17 (post also logged 2025-01-03). See PATROLL contest page and Unified Patents announcement. Note the timing: the contest opened two weeks before the Cisco complaint was filed, indicating the '973 patent was already flagged within the defensive-aggregator ecosystem. Caveat: absence of a PTAB proceeding is based on my searches, not an exhaustive PTAB docket pull (PTAB proceeding numbers were not surfaced in any search result).

8. Campaign context (why the Cisco dismissal is best read strategically, not on the merits)

• Unified Patents identifies the '973 patent as asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon (Unified Patents).
• E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00323 (Verizon) and 2:24-cv-00324 (Samsung) were contemporaneous 2024 filings; the Samsung dismissal order (quoted via PACER in secondary reporting) expressly dismissed claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
• The campaign continued after Cisco: D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355 (Everbridge) (~27 days, dismissed without prejudice) and S.D. Fla. Lab Technology v. Sangoma Technologies (filed 2025-06-16, closed 2025-07-30, reportedly with prejudice with each side bearing its own costs). A further D. Del. suit, 1:26-cv-01120 (MetTel), was filed 2026-09-04 on the same '973 patent — i.e., the campaign is ongoing as of today.
• Counsel shift: the 2024 wave (Cisco, Samsung, Verizon) was filed by Isaac Rabicoff/Rabicoff Law LLC; later suits are being filed by Brian E. Lutness/Silverman, McDonald & Friedman.

9. Assessment

The Cisco case produced no legal ruling of any kind. Its significance is entirely as (a) evidence of the '973 patent's assertion profile against large unified-communications vendors whose E911 functionality is regulatorily mandatory, and (b) a data point in a documented pattern of extremely short-lived NPE suits resolved before any responsive pleading. What the public record cannot tell you — and what a PACER pull of Dkt. 8 and Dkt. 9 would resolve — is whether the Cisco dismissal was with or without prejudice, and therefore whether Cisco's exposure under the '973 patent is extinguished or merely dormant. Given the MetTel filing two weeks ago, the patent is plainly still being monetized.

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

Let me retrieve the Mondaq/RPX article directly and search for additional coverage.

Strong hit — RPX's campaign writeup identifies the accused product. Let me look for additional outlets covering the campaign and any Cisco-side reaction.

Press and analyst coverage

There is essentially no mainstream press coverage of this case. I searched the caption, the party names, the patent number, the accused product, and the campaign angles across legal and tech outlets — I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article about Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:24-cv-00338. This is unsurprising given the case's seven-day lifespan and the absence of any merits event; there was never a ruling, verdict, damages number, or disclosed settlement to report. The coverage that exists is (a) one analyst writeup that discusses the Cisco suit as part of a broader campaign, (b) the NPE-defense ecosystem's prior-art activity, and (c) secondary database/AI-generated case summaries.

The one genuinely substantive article is RPX Corporation (published via Mondaq on 2024-07-22), "Litigation Over Former TP Lab Patents Proliferates." It reports that Lab Technology filed the Cisco suit on 6/21 as one of eight W.D. Tex. complaints filed the same day — against Alphabet/Google (6:24-cv-00334), Cisco (6:24-cv-00338), Intel (6:24-cv-00332), LG Electronics (6:24-cv-00336), Lyft (6:24-cv-00333), Microsoft (6:24-cv-00331), NVIDIA (6:24-cv-00337), and Qualcomm (6:24-cv-00335) — following E.D. Tex. suits against Samsung, Verizon, Amazon, Anritsu, Bose, Ericsson, Stryker, and Quectel. Critically for this file, RPX identifies the accused Cisco product: it reports that with the '973 patent "Lab Technology targets Cisco WebEx Calling," focusing on its support of enhanced 911 (E911) calling, "including functionality related to sending a user's designated emergency address and dynamic location detection" — the same theory it reports against Microsoft Teams Phone. This is the fact the earlier sections flagged as unverified; RPX supplies it at the campaign level (though still not from the complaint itself). RPX adds corporate background that the prior sections did not have: Lab Technology was formed in New Mexico on January 8, 2024, was "of uncertain management or personnel," and, as of that article, USPTO records had yet to reflect assignment of any of its six patents-in-suit away from TP Lab, Inc. RPX also describes the assignment chain more precisely than the earlier sections did — the emergency-caller-location family (12 patents, inventors Ho and Chiu) went from TP Lab to Dominion Harbor's Local Intelligence, LLC in August 2017, but Local Intelligence never asserted it and transferred the assets back to TP Lab in November 2019, with the patents then moving to the New Mexico entity. RPX frames the whole thing as a pattern of "recently formed New Mexico plaintiffs" litigating through Rabicoff Law LLC.

The defensive/industry-reaction coverage comes from Unified Patents, which on 2025-01-03 announced a $2,000 PATROLL award to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan for prior art on U.S. 8,503,973, expressly identifying Lab Technology as "an NPE" and listing the '973 patent as "asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon." The underlying PATROLL contest page shows the contest ran 2024-06-06 to 2024-08-30 with a $2,000 prize — note it opened two weeks before the Cisco complaint — and at launch listed the patent as asserted against Samsung, Verizon, and Stryker. Unified's framing is the closest thing to "industry reaction" in the record, and it is a validity-challenge posture rather than reporting on the case: no Cisco statement, no defense-side comment, and no executive or analyst quote about the Cisco suit specifically appears in any source I found. The remaining database entries are thin and partly derivative — Patexia records filing 2024-06-21, termination 2025-03-12, status "Dismissed – Other," with no narrative; PatSnap publishes an AI-generated case writeup that correctly notes the prejudice term is unconfirmed and that no merits ruling issued, but is secondary commentary rather than reporting.

What the coverage does not say — and where I'd flag contradictions with the earlier sections. No outlet reported damages sought or awarded, settlement terms, or any market impact, and no article reported the dismissal itself (the 2024-06-28 notice and 2025-03-12 order drew no press). Three corrections/updates to prior sections: (1) the earlier "Key legal developments" section read the '973 assignment chain as TP Lab → Local Intelligence (2017) with the final link to Lab Technology unconfirmed — RPX indicates the family reverted from Local Intelligence back to TP Lab in November 2019 before moving to Lab Technology, and that the assignment was still unrecorded in July 2024; (2) the earlier overview described Lab Technology as "Texas-based," whereas RPX reports New Mexico formation on 2024-01-08; (3) the earlier sections said the accused Cisco product was undisclosed — RPX's campaign piece discloses it as WebEx Calling's E911 functionality, which should now be treated as reported by RPX rather than court-confirmed. Adjacent PatSnap case writeups on sibling campaign suits (e.g., Stryker, dismissed with prejudice in the E.D. Tex., and Mitel, dismissed without prejudice in two days) show the campaign's mixed dismissal terms but say nothing about Cisco; the Cisco prejudice term therefore remains unverified in the press as well as on the docket.

Sources

• Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Intellectual Property Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems — Emergency Caller Location Patent | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• 6:24-cv-00338 | Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. | RPX Empower
• Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:24-cv-00338 (W.D.Tex.)
• Litigation Over Former TP Lab Patents Proliferates - ARTICLE
• Lab Technology v. Mitel Networks | Patent Lawsuit 1:25-cv-22712 - Lab Technology LLC v. Mitel Networks Corp.
• Lab Technology v. Stryker | Patent Lawsuit 2:24-cv-00416 - Lab Technology LLC v. Stryker Corporation
• Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location - - 2008-09-07 US US12/205,883 patent/US8121613B1/en active Active
• InnoBrilliance Resumes Litigation Over Former TP Lab Patent Family - ARTICLE
• Litigation Over Former OpCo Chip Portfolio Proliferates, With More Likely Coming - ARTICLE
• Webcon Vectors v. Cisco Systems: Telecom Patent Case Ends in Swift Voluntary Dismissal | PatSnap Eureka - Ihr Partner für künstliche Intelligenz

I'll research the counsel of record for Lab Technology LLC in this case.

The docket shows a single attorney of record. Let me verify and gather background on him and his firm.

Let me verify the docket sheet directly to confirm whether any additional plaintiff-side counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC — 6:24-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.)

Short answer: the public docket shows exactly one attorney appearing for Lab Technology LLC. There is no separate local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house counsel on the docket.

---

Sole / Lead Counsel of Record

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — lead counsel (and the only attorney of record for Plaintiff)

Relevant patent litigation experience: Rabicoff founded Rabicoff Law, which the firm's own site describes as a Lex Machina top-3 most-active patent litigation firm in 2017. The firm touts licensing/enforcement campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung, and Google; successful oppositions to IPR/CBM institution (including a Mastercard CBM petition denied on all claims and an RPX IPR); Federal Circuit argument experience; and authorship of a Federal Circuit amicus brief on representative-claim issues under § 101. He is a high-volume filer of PAE/patent-assertion suits in Waco and the Eastern District, including for Cedar Lane Technologies, Patent Armory Inc., WSOU Investments (d/b/a Brazos Licensing), Boxey Tech, and Zavala Licensing — the same practice pattern reflected in this case (thin complaint, rapid voluntary dismissal). Sources: firm bio at rabilaw.com, PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2018-00418 listing him as lead counsel, and W.D. Tex. filings in Patent Armory (6:23-cv-543) and Cedar Lane matters.

---

What is not on the record — explicitly

• No local counsel appeared. No W.D. Tex. attorney entered an appearance for Lab Technology. This diverges from typical Waco practice, where an out-of-state plaintiff's firm usually associates local counsel. Note a specific wrinkle: Rabicoff's published admissions list (Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court; Federal Circuit; Seventh Circuit; E.D. Tex.; N.D. Ill. Trial Bar; W.D. Wis.) does not list W.D. Tex., yet the docket reflects an AO 458 appearance rather than a pro hac vice motion in this case. I could not verify his W.D. Tex. admission status independently, so I flag this as an open question rather than a finding.
• No co-counsel or second Rabicoff Law attorney appeared. A colleague, Kenneth Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law, USPTO Reg. No. 74,791), has served as backup counsel alongside Rabicoff in unrelated PTAB proceedings, but he did not enter an appearance here.
• No in-house counsel for Lab Technology (an apparent patent-assertion entity) appears on the docket.
• Nothing is sealed. The docket is fully public (10 entries total); the absence of additional counsel is a genuine absence, not a sealing artifact.

Docket context supporting the above

• 6/21/2024 — Complaint (ECF 1), AO 120 form (ECF 4), Summons (ECF 6); assigned to Judge Ernest Gonzalez, Waco Division.
• 6/28/2024 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF 8), signed Rabicoff. The notice did not specify prejudice on the public docket.
• 3/12/2025 — Order Dismissing Case (ECF 9) and AO 120 report to USPTO (ECF 10); case terminated 3/12/2025.

Because Cisco never answered and the case closed on the dismissal order, no defense-side counsel is relevant to the plaintiff's representation question — but note that this means plaintiff's counsel of record was never tested by an adversary appearance.

Primary sources: Justia docket for 6:24-cv-00338; RPX Empower and Docket Alarm/Unified Patents mirrors; rabilaw.com attorney bio; PTAB filings under Reg. No. 74,147.

I'll research the docket and related filings to identify Cisco's counsel of record.

The docket shows no defense appearance. Let me confirm and check for any Cisco-side counsel activity or related appearances.

The docket appears to include only plaintiff-side filings. Let me verify via CourtListener and check Cisco's typical patent counsel for context.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

Bottom line: the docket reflects no defense appearance

I could not identify any counsel of record for Cisco Systems, Inc. in Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.). No attorney appeared on behalf of Cisco, and Cisco filed nothing. The public docket is composed entirely of plaintiff-side filings and routine court entries; every attorney entry of record belongs to the plaintiff. This is consistent with the case's procedural history that the earlier sections established: the complaint was filed June 21, 2024, summons issued the same day, and Lab Technology filed its notice of voluntary dismissal just seven days later, on June 28, 2024 — before Cisco answered or moved for summary judgment, the trigger conditions for a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal as of right. Where a defendant never responds, no appearance is entered, and no defense counsel is created "of record."

The complete docket (per the PACER mirrors I reviewed):

Sources: Justia docket mirror (dockets.justia.com, last retrieved 6/28/2024); a PACER-derived docket aggregator; Patexia case summary (id 200528); PatSnap litigation write-up of case 6:24-cv-00338. Each independently lists only Isaac Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC as counsel in the case.

Why no Cisco counsel appears

Three overlapping explanations, in order of likelihood, none of which I can confirm from a filing:

1. No appearance was ever required. The seven-day lifespan, and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) framing (Lab Technology used the identical mechanism across the June 2024 W.D. Tex. campaign — e.g., Lab Technology v. Lyft, 6:24-cv-00333, and Lab Technology v. Zoom, 1:24-cv-01711, both dismissed the same week), means the case ended at the pleading stage before Cisco's responsive deadline. A defendant that never responds never creates a record appearance.
2. Any defense engagement was off-docket. Cisco almost certainly had in-house counsel and/or outside counsel monitoring or behind a threatened/pending response, but pre-appearance work does not generate docket entries. I found no public record (firm press release, Law360 entry, or appearance slip) naming Cisco-side counsel in this matter.
3. The matter was resolved privately. As the existing sections noted, pre-answer dismissals in this campaign are consistent with private covenants or licenses — the kind of resolution that leaves no counsel of record.

Plaintiff-side counsel (for completeness / cross-reference)

The only attorney of record in the case is on the plaintiff's side and is already reflected in the earlier sections, so I note it only for the record:

• Isaac Rabicoff — lead/sole counsel for plaintiff Lab Technology LLC, Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL). Filed the complaint (Dkt. 1), appearance (Dkt. 2), Rule 7 disclosure (Dkt. 3), notice of related cases (Dkt. 7), and the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 8). Rabicoff is a prolific NPE-side filer in W.D. Tex. and is the common counsel across the Lab Technology campaign.

Explicit caveats (not fabricated)

• I could not confirm any Cisco attorney — lead, local, of counsel, or in-house — for this case, because none appears on the public docket. I am not naming Cisco's in-house legal leadership or its customary outside patent firms here, because I have no verified source tying any specific attorney or firm to this case, and inventing that link would violate the sourcing standard.
• The complaint's claim-chart exhibits (Dkt. 1, Exhibits 1–2) were not publicly available in the sources I reached, and the dismissal order (Dkt. 9) does not name defense counsel.
• If defense counsel were engaged pre-appearance, that fact would live in sealed or non-public materials, correspondence, or Cisco's internal records — not the docket. If you have PACER access, confirming an empty "attorney" filter for the defendant (or pulling the Dkt. 9 order text) would definitively close the question; the public mirrors already point strongly to a no-appearance case.
• Cross-reference flag (not a contradiction): the previously generated sections correctly stated the prejudice term is unconfirmed. The counsel finding here reinforces that — there is no defense filing (e.g., a stipulation of dismissal) that would have supplied the prejudice term either.

Practical takeaway for your workflow: if the litigation question is "who defended Cisco here," the answer is no one appeared; if the real question is "who would defend Cisco if Lab Technology re-asserts '973," that would be Cisco's in-house IP litigation group plus its retained outside patent counsel, which is not determinable from this docket and should be sourced separately (e.g., Cisco's appearances in its other active W.D. Tex. patent matters) rather than attributed to this case.