Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the patents, the plaintiff's assertion campaign, and any IPR history.

Case Overview — Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.)

Parties. The plaintiff, Lab Technology LLC, is a patent assertion entity (PAE/NPE) — a non-practicing holder of a telecom/telephony patent portfolio acquired out of TP Lab Inc., the original assignee of the patents-in-suit. Public records describe Lab Technology as New Mexico-organized (per the complaint analysis in its parallel Verizon action), with a Rule 7.1 disclosure stating "No Parents or Affiliates Listed" (D.I. 4, D. Del. Nov. 6, 2025). It is a serial filer: over 2024–2026 it brought short-lived infringement actions on this portfolio against Verizon, Samsung, Amazon, Lyft, Zoom, LG, Lumen, Mitel, 3CX, Zendesk, u‑blox, LifeStation, and Solera, among others. Its lead counsel across the campaign is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC); in this Delaware case, Docket Alarm and PatSnap identify Delaware local counsel as Brian E. Lutness (Silverman, McDonald & Friedman), with Judge Colm F. Connolly reported as presiding (Docket Alarm's snapshot still listed the case as "Judge Unassigned" as of filing, so the Connolly assignment should be treated as likely-but-not-fully-confirmed). The defendant, Everbridge, Inc., is an enterprise software company whose flagship product line is a critical event management (CEM) and mass-notification SaaS platform — the software large enterprises, healthcare systems, and governments use to push emergency alerts and manage incident response. (Everbridge's corporate history — including its 2024 take-private by Thoma Bravo — is widely reported market background that I could not independently re-verify in this research pass, so treat those specifics with caution.)

The technology and asserted patents. The asserted patents are U.S. 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location," issued Aug. 6, 2013; priority July 2005) and U.S. 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone," issued Dec. 22, 2015; priority June 2006, app. 14/730,866). In one line each: the '973 patent claims a mobile phone that reads its current wireless base-station identity, compares it to a stored base-station identity, and — when they differ — obtains a "subscriber location" and sends it to the phone system, i.e., an automated E911 caller-location update mechanism; the '982 patent claims a telephone that queries a location server and automatically refreshes its on-screen menu to surface the "communication services" tied to the user's current "function" (location/time context). Both are terminal-disclaimer-encumbered family members (the '982 family also includes '067, '084, and '388), which litigants have flagged as raising obviousness-type double-patenting exposure. Notably, the '982 patent survived an Alice § 101 challenge in Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018), where the court denied dismissal on the strength of Core Wireless v. LG, and both patents have been targeted by Unified Patents' PATROLL crowdsourced prior-art program ($2,000 bounties on the '973 and '982 claims), with Unified separately filing an ex parte reexamination against sibling patent U.S. 8,498,388 in November 2024. The accused instrumentality here is not spelled out in the publicly retrievable text; the complaint attached four exhibits (D.I. 1), which under this plaintiff's standard template are the claim charts identifying the accused Everbridge products/services — but no public source I found quotes the specific accused offerings.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed November 6, 2025 in the Wilmington division of the District of Delaware, the case was reassigned on Nov. 12, the summons was returned executed on Dec. 2, and Everbridge obtained a short answer extension — then, on December 3, 2025, roughly 27 days after filing, Lab Technology filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which the court accepted (D.I. entries per Docket Alarm / open-public-records; PatSnap's verbatim quote: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant Everbridge, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment."). Because Everbridge had never answered, the dismissal was self-executing and required no judicial approval, and it defaults to without prejudice — so no merits ruling, no validity or infringement finding, no fee award, and no res judicata bar on re-assertion. Delaware matters here for a straightforward reason: Everbridge is a Delaware corporation, making venue proper under § 1400(b) as a resident defendant even post-TC Heartland, and D. Del. remains a preferred NPE forum with a deep patent bench. The case's significance is less doctrinal than pattern-level: it is one more data point in Lab Technology's file-and-dismiss monetization campaign (parallel dismissals in 7 days against Lyft, ~65 days against 3CX, and similar quick exits against Samsung, Amazon, Lumen, and others), it shows the emergency-communications/critical-event-management sector being pulled into the '973 E911 patent's assertion web, and it leaves both patents live for future enforcement — a monitoring concern for CEM, mass-notification, UCaaS, and VoIP vendors. I found no IPR or other PTAB proceeding against the '973 or '982 patents specifically; Unified's challenge activity to date has run through PATROLL and an ex parte reexamination on a sibling patent.

Sources: Docket Alarm (docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--25-cv-01355); Justia Dockets (dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv01355/91090); open-public-records.com docket snippets; PatSnap litigation analyses for the Everbridge, Lyft, LifeStation, Samsung, and 3CX cases; Unified Patents PATROLL contest pages for US 8,503,973 and US 9,219,982; RPX Insight patent page for US 9,219,982; Patent Docs / JD Supra coverage of Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America (N.D. Cal. 2018); Ex Parte complaint analysis of Lab Technology v. Verizon (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00323). Judge assignment, the exact accused products, and the prejudice terms (beyond the Rule 41 default) are not confirmed by well-sourced public records and should be verified against PACER.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the PTAB proceedings, and the broader enforcement campaign.

Let me get the full docket and check PTAB records directly.

Bottom line

Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.) never became a litigated case. It was filed 2025-11-06 and self-terminated 27 days later on 2025-12-03 by a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal, before Everbridge answered or appeared. There is no claim construction, no discovery, no motion practice of substance, no trial, no judgment, no fee award, and no appeal. The only legally consequential development on the asserted patents happened outside this docket — a 2026-07-23 D. Del. opinion invalidating the '982 patent under §101 in the companion case filed the same day against a different defendant. That is the development that actually matters for Everbridge's residual exposure.

---

Chronology of this docket

Pre-suit context (for framing). Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico entity formed 2024-01-08 that acquired a family of telephony patents originating with TP Lab, Inc. (inventors Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu). The '982 patent's family was previously held by Local Intelligence LLC (a Dominion Harbor affiliate) and was transferred back to TP Lab in November 2019. Lab Technology began filing in E.D. Tex. in 2024 (Verizon/Cellco 2:24-cv-00323; Samsung 2:24-cv-00324; Anritsu 2:24-cv-00411), then W.D. Tex. (Lumen 7:25-cv-00172, filed 2025-04-17), then D. Del. See Mondaq, "Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation" (2024-05-31).

2025-11-06 — Filing and initial pleadings. Five docket entries, all on the filing date (Justia docket; Docket Alarm):

Two points of candor here. First, the complaint's Exhibits 1–4 were filed but I could not retrieve their contents; based on the identical templates Lab Technology used in the Verizon and Solera complaints, the exhibits are almost certainly patent copies plus per-patent claim charts, and the complaint body likely identifies no accused product by name, incorporating claim charts by reference. Treat that as inference, not confirmed fact. Second, on the merits theory: Everbridge is a critical-event-management/mass-notification vendor (and, per public reporting, a Thoma Bravo portfolio company since its 2024 take-private — background I did not re-verify in this session), and the '973 patent is an E911 caller-location patent. The '982 patent concerns automatically refreshing a telephone display based on location. A plausible accused-feature theory exists (E911/caller-data services; notification app UI), but I found no source identifying the accused Everbridge product, and I will not invent one.

Characterization of the '973 patent — source conflict worth flagging. The "emergency caller location" characterization is well supported: Unified Patents' PATROLL contest describes '973 as relating "to methods and systems for accurately determining the location of a caller during an emergency call," and an AI-generated analysis of the parallel Verizon complaint quotes claim 1 as requiring the mobile phone to obtain a current base-station identity, compare it to a stored one, obtain a subscriber location, and send it to the phone system (Unified Patents, 2025-01-03; Ex Parte complaint analysis, 2:24-cv-00323). By contrast, a PatSnap litigation note labels '973 as a "display refresh" patent. That PatSnap label appears erroneous (it conflates '973 with '982); I rely on the Unified/claim-text sources.

2025-11-12 — Assignment/order. Docket aggregators show an "Order" and "Case Assigned/Reassigned" (open-public-records). Docket Alarm lists "Judge Unassigned Judge," while a PatSnap/Eureka litigation note lists Judge Colm F. Connolly as presiding. The two are reconcilable (assignment occurred after filing), but I could not confirm the identity of the assigned judge from a primary source. Flagging as unresolved.

2025-11-19 — "Amended Document – NOT Motion." An amended non-motion filing — most likely an amended AO-120 patent report or amended Rule 7.1 disclosure, though I could not confirm. No substantive significance evident.

2025-12-02 — Service and first (and only) deadline adjustment. Three entries: "Summons Returned Executed," "Extension of Time to File Answer," and "SO ORDERED" with a reset answer deadline. Notably, no attorney appearance for Everbridge appears on this docket; the extension appears to have been obtained without defendant counsel of record (consistent with the PatSnap observation that the case ended "before the defendant engaged counsel of record"). This is the classic D. Del. courtesy-extension pattern in NPE cases.

2025-12-03 — Termination. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed; case terminated; AO-120 report to the PTO. The notice text, as quoted from PACER:

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant Everbridge, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment."

Two nuances. (i) Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) makes the dismissal self-executing — no court order was required, and none issued on the merits; the docket entry is administrative. (ii) One secondary source argues the notice's "without prejudice" language is arguably part of the rule citation rather than an affirmative prejudice term. I regard that as over-reading: the notice expressly states "without prejudice," and the default under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) is without prejudice absent a prior dismissal of the same claim.

---

What did not happen (negative findings)

Because the case ended in 27 days pre-answer, the following categories are empty, and I want to be explicit rather than silent:

• Answer / counterclaims: none. Everbridge filed no responsive pleading and no counterclaims (no invalidity or non-infringement counterclaim, no §285 fee counterclaim).
• Motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR: none. (Everbridge had no reason to file one — but note that a §101 motion to dismiss was exactly the vehicle that killed the '982 patent in the companion Greenlight case; see below.)
• Markman / claim construction: none. No scheduling order, no Local Rule 4-1 narrowing, no Phillips briefing. Claim-construction disputes on "subscriber location" (the '973 term identified as central in the parallel Verizon analysis) were never joined.
• Discovery: none — no Rule 26(f) conference, no ESI order, no protective order, no discovery disputes.
• Trial / verdict / post-trial: none.
• Fees and costs: no motion under §285 or Rule 54, no award. Everbridge likely incurred minimal cost and obtained no fee-shifting relief.
• Appeal: none. An order of dismissal without prejudice at plaintiff's own request is not appealable by plaintiff, and Everbridge obtained what it wanted.

---

Parallel and related proceedings

PTAB (IPR/PGR): none identified on either patent. I searched for IPR/PGR petitions on U.S. 8,503,973 and 9,219,982 and found no PTAB proceeding. This is a notable negative: the closest thing to a validity challenge mounted against '973 is a Unified Patents PATROLL crowdsourcing prior-art contest, whose winners (Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan) were announced 2025-01-03 for a $2,000 award on the '973 patent (Unified Patents). PATROLL contests are frequently a precursor to a Unified-filed IPR, but I found no evidence that an IPR was actually filed, and I cannot affirmatively rule one out from the sources I could reach. Because there was no IPR, the "stay pending IPR" dynamic — the usual lever in mass-notification/telecom NPE cases — never arose, and no IPR estoppel (§315(e)) attaches against Everbridge.

The real substantive development: the companion '982 case. Lab Technology filed two cases on the same day, 2025-11-06: Everbridge (1:25-cv-01355) and Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc. (1:25-cv-01356-JCB). Greenlight was asserted on claim 13 of the same '982 patent — a kids'/teen banking app that refreshes content based on the phone's location. Greenlight moved to dismiss, Lab Technology amended (first amended complaint, 2026-04-06), and Greenlight moved again on prosecution disclaimer and §101. On 2026-07-23, the court (reported as "Barker, J."; case suffix "-JCB") held:

• Prosecution disclaimer — rejected. The applicant's distinction of a remote "location server" from self-contained location tracking was a plausible disclaimer but not a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage. (Justia opinion text, doc. 35)
• §101 — patent-ineligible. Under Alice step one, the '982 claims are directed to the abstract idea of displaying different content on a telephone based on that telephone's location; under step two, the claims merely filter content using generic computer components and recite no inventive concept. Leave to amend denied as futile; dismissed with prejudice. (VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, 2026-07-30)

Plaintiff counsel in that case was the same Brian E. Lutness (Silverman, McDonald & Friedman) who appears for Lab Technology in the Everbridge docket; Greenlight was represented by Gregory Erich Stuhlman (Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole). The case number suffix "JCB" and the reported attribution to "Barker, J." did not match up in my research — I flag the presiding judge's identity as unverified.

Contrary earlier '982 rulings (context for why this matters). The '982 patent's §101 posture was previously better: in Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila denied HTC's Alice motion to dismiss, finding the claimed specific improvement to user interfaces was not an abstract idea (2018-04-06). A separate decision reportedly upholding '982 eligibility dated 2026-01-30 appears in one secondary source associated with USAA; I could not verify that citation. Local Intelligence's Texas suit against Samsung over '982 was dismissed with prejudice in January 2019, and its D. Del. suit against LG Electronics was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pre-answer. See Mondaq (2024-05-31).

Effect on the Everbridge matter. None procedurally — the Everbridge case was already gone eight months before the Greenlight ruling. But it is dispositive of practical exposure: the '982 patent now stands adjudicated ineligible in D. Del. (albeit in a non-precedential, non-binding-as-to-Everbridge posture, since Everbridge was never a party to Greenlight). If Lab Technology refiled against Everbridge asserting '982, Everbridge would have a ready-made, already-briefed §101 motion to dismiss in the same district and would likely also invoke issue preclusion/defensive collateral estoppel. The '973 emergency-location patent, by contrast, has not been invalidated anywhere — it remains the live asset, which is why the Unified PATROLL prior-art effort on '973 and the absence of any IPR are the two facts I would monitor most closely going forward.

Full campaign roster (for pattern purposes).

---

Assessment, and where my sourcing is thin

The Everbridge case is best understood as one filing in a serial, low-investment assertion campaign, not as litigation that "resolved" anything. The 27-day, pre-answer, pre-appearance exit is consistent with either (a) a quick licensing/settlement resolution, or (b) a tactical dismissal — e.g., after the companion Greenlight case was teed up for a §101 fight, or for internal portfolio-management reasons. The public record does not disclose consideration, a license, or the reason for dismissal, and neither party stated one. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives Lab Technology an unconditional right to refile against Everbridge on the '973 patent (and theoretically on '982, subject to the Greenlight estoppel problem). There is no res judicata protection for Everbridge from this docket.

What I could not verify, stated plainly: the identity of the assigned D. Del. judge in 01355; the contents of D.I. 1's Exhibits 1–4 and the accused Everbridge product; the substance of the 2025-11-12 order and 2025-11-19 amended filing; the precise entity who filed the 2025-12-02 extension request; whether any IPR/PGR exists on '973 or '982; and the identity of the judge who invalidated '982 in Greenlight. Two aggregator pages (Docket Alarm, Justia) are both truncated/incomplete and were last refreshed 2025-11-06, so a PACER pull of the full docket (expected 10–12 entries) would be the right next step to close those gaps.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel. Let me start with several searches.

Good start — I have a lead. Let me verify the docket and any co-counsel (these Lab Technology cases often have out-of-state counsel behind local Delaware counsel).

Let me dig into the docket and check whether out-of-state counsel (e.g., Isaac Rabicoff, who appears in the related Lab Technology campaign) appeared here.

Bottom line

The public record identifies one attorney as counsel of record for plaintiff Lab Technology LLC in Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.):

Brian E. Lutness — Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (Wilmington, Delaware) — Delaware counsel of record / local counsel.

That is the only plaintiff-side name I can ground in docket-derived sources. I could not confirm any second (out-of-state) attorney appearing in this case, even though the broader Lab Technology campaign does use one. Details and caveats below.

---

Counsel table

No in-house counsel for Lab Technology appears. Lab Technology LLC is a patent-assertion entity (it filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure stating "No Parents or Affiliates Listed," D.I. 4), and no corporate/GC appearance is on the docket.

---

What the record shows (and its limits)

• Docket is thin and partly incomplete. The case was filed Nov. 6, 2025 and dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) roughly 27 days later (early December 2025), before Everbridge answered. Docket Alarm expressly flags "[t]he docket is incomplete," and the Justia docket page states it "was last retrieved on November 6, 2025."
• The truncated Justia docket text ends an entry with "| Brian E." — consistent with Brian E. Lutness's CM/ECF signature on the amended Rule 7.1 statement (the Nov. 19, 2025 "Amended Document – NOT Motion" entry, which matches the "AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S RULE 7.1 STATEMENT" pattern Lutness filed in related cases). This is corroborating, not conclusive, because the full text is not visible without PACER.
• A third-party litigation summary (PatSnap) lists plaintiff counsel as "Brian E. Lutness — Counsel for Lab Technology LLC," firm "Silverman, McDonald & Friedman." I treat this as corroboration only: it is AI-generated content and it also contains at least one apparent error (it names Judge Colm F. Connolly as presiding, while Docket Alarm shows the case initially unassigned and the public-record aggregator shows a "Case Assigned/Reassigned" event on Nov. 12, 2025).
• No pro hac vice motion appears in the sources I could reach. In related campaigns, Lutness has moved pro hac vice for Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) as out-of-state counsel (documented in Secure Matrix LLC v. Dress Barn Omni, where Lutness paid the PHV fee for Rabicoff), and Rabicoff's name appears on a summons request in another Lab Technology matter (Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., 7:25-cv-00172). Whether Rabicoff (or any other Rabicoff Law attorney) appeared or signed the complaint in the Everbridge case is not confirmed by anything I could retrieve — the case closed before the usual PHV paperwork, and I could not pull the D.I. 1 complaint PDF signature block. Do not assume his appearance here without checking PACER for D.I. 1 and any D.I. 6–8.
• I did not retrieve the complaint's signature block, so I cannot rule out that drafting counsel (potentially out-of-state/Rabicoff Law) signed the pleading even though the CM-ECF attorney-of-record field reflects the Lutness firm.

---

Practical takeaways

1. Verified plaintiff counsel of record: Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (Wilmington, DE) — acting as Delaware/local counsel of record.
2. Treat the "second chair" question as open. If you need the full team, pull PACER for D.I. 1 (signature block) and any appearance/PHV entries; my sources don't capture them.
3. Note the timing anomaly: the aggregator shows a Summons Returned Executed, Extension of Time to File Answer, and "SO ORDERED" on Dec. 2, 2025, immediately before the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dec. 3, 2025). That suggests Everbridge had retained counsel and obtained an extension just before the case was dismissed — I could not verify defense counsel names from the sources I retrieved, so I'm flagging that as an inference, not a finding.
4. Because the dismissal was before answer and without prejudice, the same patents (8,503,973; 9,219,982) remain live for re-assertion, and the counsel roster could differ on any refiling.

Sources: Docket Alarm, Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., 1:25-cv-01355 (docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--25-cv-01355/); Justia Dockets, same case (dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv01355/91090); open-public-records.com Delaware civil records page for 1:25-cv-01355; PACER Monitor entries for Lab Technology LLC v. CallCurrent, Inc. (1:26-cv-01122), Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc. (1:26-cv-01120), and Secure Matrix LLC v. Dress Barn Omni, Inc. (1:25-cv-01530); PatSnap litigation summary of 1:25-cv-01355 (corroborating only); CourtListener feed for Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., 7:25-cv-00172.

I'll research the docket and any appearances of counsel for Everbridge in this case.

Notable: the docket shows a motion for extension of time to answer and a "SO ORDERED" entry — suggesting defense counsel may have appeared. Let me dig into the docket details and hunt for defense counsel.

Let me check CourtListener/RECAP for the actual docket entries, which would show any attorney appearances.

Bottom line

No counsel of record for Everbridge, Inc. can be identified in this case. Every public source I could reach (Justia Dockets, Docket Alarm, the PatSnap PACEER-based case write-up) shows plaintiff-side counsel only. The case was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) roughly 27 days after filing (complaint 11/6/2025; notice of voluntary dismissal 12/3/2025), and the docket reflects no answer or Rule 12 motion.

Notably, the litigation-intelligence write-up expressly states the case "resolved before the defendant engaged counsel of record" — i.e., the absence of defense appearances is itself a reported feature of this docket, consistent with the theory that it was a licensing-driven filing rather than contested litigation. (PACER/PatSnap case analysis, 1:25-cv-01355)

What the record does show

Court: D. Del. (Wilmington), Case No. 1:25-cv-01355, Nature of Suit 830 (Patent), 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge unassigned in the captured docket metadata; one third-party summary lists Judge Colm F. Connolly as presiding, but that attribution appears in only a single low-authority source and I could not corroborate it. (Justia docket; Docket Alarm)

Docket entries captured publicly:

• 11/6/2025 — Filing 1, Complaint for patent infringement w/ jury demand (Exs. 1–4); Filing 2, magistrate consent/referral forms; Filing 3, Form AO-120 report listing patents 8,503,973 and 9,219,982; Filing 4, Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parents/affiliates) filed by plaintiff; Filing 5, Summons issued as to Everbridge.
• 11/12/2025 — Order; case assigned/reassigned.
• 11/19/2025 — "Amended Document – NOT Motion" (nature not visible in free sources).
• 12/2/2025 — entries indexed as "Extension of Time to File Answer," "SO ORDERED," "Set/Reset Answer Deadline," and "Summons Returned Executed."
• 12/3/2025 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Terminate Civil Case; patent report to Commissioner.

With respect to the 12/2 entries: the only source surfacing an "Extension of Time to File Answer" is a low-quality aggregator (open-public-records.com) whose docket text is partly garbled and which does not name any attorney. If that entry is real, a defense attorney signed a stipulation or motion, but no name, firm, bar number, or appearance docket entry is available in any accessible source. I am not going to put a name to it. The 11/19 "Amended Document" could also be a plaintiff-side amended filing (e.g., corrected civil cover sheet/summons) rather than anything defense-related.

Plaintiff's counsel (for completeness, since defendant's is blank)

• Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman — counsel for Lab Technology LLC per the PACER-derived party/representation table. (Reported by PatSnap; the Justia docket snippet also shows a "Brian E." name string.) Note the Justia docket listing was last retrieved 11/6/2025, so it is incomplete for later events.

What is unverified / sealed

• No attorney appearance (D. Del. Form for Appearance of Counsel) by any Everbridge-side attorney appears in any public source I reached. I could not independently confirm whether one was filed and simply not captured by free aggregators.
• No in-house counsel for Everbridge (a Delaware-incorporated, publicly traded critical-event-management company) is identified in the public filings.
• No sealed filings are indicated; the gap here is docket-capture completeness, not sealing.
• I was unable to reach a full PACER docket sheet directly (my remaining queries were truncated), so this is not a certified negative.

Recommended verification path

For a definitive answer, pull the full docket from PACER (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01355) or CourtListener/RECAP and check for a Form Appearance, the 11/19 amended document, and the 12/2 extension stipulation. If the 12/2 extension is genuine, the signature block on that stipulation is the only likely place a defense counsel name would appear in this short-lived case. Firm-level confirmation could also be sought from Everbridge's litigation counsel of record in its other Delaware patent matters, but I have no verified information in this session tying any specific firm to Everbridge, and I will not guess.

Caveat: the case-metadata above (dismissal without prejudice, no merits ruling) is treated as authoritative; the docket-entry list from free aggregators should be treated as provisional pending a PACER pull.