Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

This is a key finding — the docket indicates the case was voluntarily dismissed in June 2025. Let me dig deeper.

Let me verify the dismissal, IPR activity, and additional details.

Case Overview: Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company with a stated principal place of business at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Albuquerque, NM — a small, single-purpose patent-holding vehicle rather than an operating company (Compl. ¶2). It is a classic patent assertion entity (NPE/PAE): it does not make or sell products, and it is represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a documented pattern of filing short-lived telephony/software patent suits. Lab Technology has sued an array of telecom and technology defendants — AT&T, [Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Lyft, Zoom, TELUS International, Solera Holdings, Yeastar, and MSS Electronics — and in several of those cases voluntarily dismissed within days of filing (e.g., the Lyft case was dismissed 7 days after filing; the AT&T case 29 days) (PatSnap case history; AT&T docket). Defendant Lumen Technologies, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation and one of the largest U.S. fiber, telecommunications, and enterprise-networking providers (the company formerly branded CenturyLink); per the complaint it maintains an established place of business at 11902 Burnet Rd, Austin, TX, within the district (Compl. ¶3, ¶7).

Patents and accused technology. Two patents are asserted. U.S. Patent 8,483,102 ("System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes"), filed Oct. 29, 2007 and issued July 9, 2013, claims a telephony system in which a "policy processor" coupled to one or more phone switches maps a "search voice identity" to a "target voice identity" under a stored mapping policy that includes time attributes — i.e., time-based call forwarding/routing across PSTN, PBX, mobile, and VoIP networks, where the voice identities comprise usernames. The '102 family (inventors Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu) traces to TP Lab, Inc. of Palo Alto (Google Patents; iprdb). U.S. Patent 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location"), filed Dec. 23, 2011 and issued Aug. 6, 2013, claims a method performed by a mobile phone: obtain the current wireless base station identity, compare it to a stored base station identity, determine that location has changed, obtain the "subscriber location" for the new base station, and send that location to the phone system — an E911/emergency-location update mechanism for nomadic and VoIP callers (complaint analysis). Caveat: the complaint does not name specific accused products or services in its narrative. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates claim charts filed as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). Those exhibits are not in the public RECAP collection, so the precise accused Lumen services cannot be confirmed from the public record; based on the patents' subject matter, they would logically map to Lumen's voice/unified-communications call-routing services and its emergency-calling/location functionality, but that is inference, not a verified fact.

Procedural posture and venue — note the status discrepancy. The case was filed April 17, 2025 in the Midland–Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas (the "7" case prefix) and assigned to Judge David Counts, with referral to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, pursuant to the court's July 25, 2022 order assigning patent cases (Justia docket). Lumen entered an appearance through attorney Kevin E. Cadwell and obtained an extension of time to answer (due July 7, 2025). However, the docket shows the case did not proceed: Lab Technology filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 24, 2025 (Dkt. 11), the court entered an Order Dismissing Case on June 25, 2025 (Dkt. 12), and an AO-120 report followed (Dkt. 13) (CourtListener docket). In other words, the metadata field "status: pending" is inconsistent with the public docket, which reflects a case closed roughly 68 days after filing and before any answer or merits ruling. Venue still matters analytically: W.D. Tex. has long been the nation's leading patent-plaintiff forum, and after the Federal Circuit's 2022 In re: Apple/In re: Google mandamus decisions curtailed Judge Albright's Waco docket, the Midland–Odessa docket under Judge Counts emerged as a favored alternative for NPE filers; the complaint here expressly grounded venue on Lumen's Austin, Texas office (Compl. ¶7).

Why it is notable. The case is a textbook example of the modern "file-and-dismiss" NPE campaign model: a two-patent assertion by a single-vehicle plaintiff against a deep-pocketed telecom defendant, resolved by voluntary dismissal before any responsive pleading, which (absent a private license or covenant not to sue) leaves the patents' validity and infringement unadjudicated and refiling available. It sits within a broader wave of PAE activity against Lumen — for example, Random Chat, LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00968 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., filed Sept. 22, 2025), asserting U.S. Patent 8,402,099 on IP-based multimedia communications (RPX; Ramey LLP), and the earlier Slack v. Lumen Technologies, No. 3:24-cv-01043. Lab Technology continued filing similar assertions through 2026 against TELUS International, Solera Holdings, Yeastar, and MSS Electronics, which suggests the Lumen dismissal reflected case-specific economics rather than retirement of the portfolio. On IPR linkage: I was unable to verify any inter partes review or other PTAB challenge to either the '102 or '973 patent within this research session; because the asserted claims were never adjudicated and the case was dismissed pre-answer, there is no parallel IPR activity tied to this litigation that I can confirm. Industry impact is therefore limited and primarily illustrative of NPE filing patterns in W.D. Tex. rather than a substantive test of the patents' scope.

Sourcing note: party names, court, division, case number, judges, lead counsel, and the patents-in-suit are drawn from the complaint and docket records cited above. The claim-chart exhibits identifying the accused Lumen products are not publicly available, and the existence of any TP Lab patent acquisition/licensing terms, settlement, or IPR proceeding is unverified; those points should not be treated as established.

I'll research this case using web search across multiple sources.

I found that the case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed. Let me verify and dig deeper.

Let me verify the dismissal terms and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Executive Summary

The key development in Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc. is that the case never progressed past the pleading stage. It was filed 2025-04-17 and terminated by the plaintiff's own Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2025-06-24, with the Court closing the case on 2025-06-25 — roughly 69 days after filing, and before Lumen ever filed an answer. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion to dismiss or transfer, no stay motion, no Markman proceeding, no discovery, no trial, and no judgment on the merits. No PTAB proceeding on the two asserted patents surfaced in my searches.

Note: this means the previously generated case summary's "pending" status is now outdated — the docket reflects a closed case.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Court/assignment: W.D. Tex. (Midland/Odessa Division), Case No. 7:25-cv-00172, assigned to Judge David Counts under the court's patent-case assignment order, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland as referral judge.
• Parties: Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC — a New Mexico corporation at 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Albuquerque, NM (a non-practicing entity). Defendant Lumen Technologies, Inc. — a Louisiana corporation with an established place of business at 11902 Burnet Rd, Austin, TX.
• Asserted patents:
  • U.S. 8,483,102 — "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes" (filed 2007-10-29; issued 2013-07-09).
  • U.S. 8,503,973 — "Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location" (filed 2011-12-23; issued 2013-08-06).
• Theories pleaded: direct infringement (Count 1 for the '102 patent; Count 2 for the '973 patent), induced infringement through distribution of product literature and website materials, and willfulness premised on knowledge arising "at least since" service of the complaint (i.e., post-suit knowledge only — no pre-suit knowledge facts pleaded). Plaintiff also prayed for an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
• Pleading weakness: The complaint identified no accused product by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporating claim charts by reference (Exhibits 3 and 4). The narrative sections contain no description of how the accused systems operate — theoretically vulnerable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that never had to be tested.

No answer or counterclaims were ever filed. Lumen appeared through Kevin E. Cadwell (Dkt. 9, 2025-05-07) but never answered.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None. The only motion on the docket was procedural:

• Dkt. 8 (2025-05-07): Lumen's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer.
• Dkt. 10 (2025-05-12): Order granting the extension; Lumen's answer deadline set to 2025-07-07.

There was no motion to dismiss, no motion to transfer venue, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for judgment on the pleadings, and no summary judgment motion. The case was dismissed nine days before Lumen's extended answer deadline.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Rule 16 conference docket entry, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman briefing, and no claim construction order appear on the docket. The case terminated while still in the pre-answer phase, so the key claim terms that would have driven the case — "username" (’102 claim 1) and "subscriber location" (’973 claim 1) — were never construed.

---

4. Discovery Milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions, and no scheduling order were entered. The case was dismissed before the discovery period opened.

---

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

None. There was no trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee motion. The jury demand in the complaint was never acted upon.

---

6. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• Because Lumen had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Lab Technology could dismiss as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no court order or leave was required, and the dismissal was self-executing.
• Prejudice status is not clearly established in the sources I could access. The CourtListener docket entry is captioned only "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal," and the order is captioned "Order Dismissing Case." Analysts covering parallel Lab Technology dismissals (e.g., the Cisco and Everbridge matters) expressly flagged that the public record is silent on whether such dismissals were with or without prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)'s default, a dismissal is without prejudice absent a contrary specification or a prior dismissal of the same claim triggering the two-dismissal rule. I could not confirm the prejudice term from a primary source here — treat that as unresolved.
• Present posture: Case closed in the district court as of 2025-06-25. No appeal was taken (none identified). No fee or cost award appears on the record.
• Why it likely ended this way: the pattern — dismissal before the answer, no merits ruling, no settlement disclosed — is characteristic of a rapid, confidential licensing resolution or a plaintiff's strategic reassessment. The public record does not disclose which. Critically, a without-prejudice exit would not extinguish Lab Technology's claims against Lumen or weaken the patents, and imposes no estoppel or § 285 exposure on Lumen, but also yields Lumen no invalidity or non-infringement ruling to rely on going forward.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

None identified on either asserted patent. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. 8,483,102 or U.S. 8,503,973 in my searches; the case therefore was never subject to a stay-pending-IPR dynamic, and termination was not attributable to a PTAB filing. (Caveat: I was unable to complete a full dedicated PTAB docket sweep before exhausting my search steps, so I state this as "not found" rather than a categorical negative.)

What does exist on the defensive side is relevant context:

• Unified Patents prior-art bounty on U.S. 8,503,973. Unified Patents ran a public prior-art contest targeting at least claim 1 of the '973 patent, running 2024-06-06 through 2024-08-30, and published "winning prior art" on 2024-12-17 (Unified Patents, "Lab Technology location tracking patent prior art found"). Unified noted the patent "has been asserted against Samsung, Verizon, and Stryker." This is a defensive aggregator gathering invalidity ammunition — a precursor to a possible IPR filing — but not itself a PTAB proceeding.
• The '973 patent is also the subject of a secondary-market/monetization posture: it is one of the Lab Technology portfolio patents in what appears to be an active assertion campaign.

---

Broader Campaign Context (the same two patents against other defendants)

Lab Technology LLC, consistently represented by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), has run a multi-defendant assertion campaign on these patents, mostly resolved by early voluntary dismissal:

The Lumen case fits squarely into this campaign's signature pattern: file, obtain an extension of the answer deadline, then dismiss before the defendant answers — preserving the patents' enforceability for future assertions while avoiding any merits adjudication.

---

Bottom Line

For Lumen Technologies, this case produced no substantive litigation risk exposure beyond ~69 days of docket activity and minimal legal fees: no claim construction, no invalidity or non-infringement ruling, no damages, no injunction, and no fee award. Lumen's only docket activity was entering counsel (Kevin E. Cadwell) and obtaining an unopposed answer extension. For Lab Technology, the dismissal preserved its enforcement position on both patents — the '102 and '973 patents remain presumptively valid and were subsequently asserted against other defendants (3CX, Everbridge, MetTel). The absence of any identified PTAB proceeding means no IPR estoppel or stay pressure influenced this outcome.

Caveats on sourcing: Docket-level detail comes from CourtListener (docket 69909727) and Justia Dockets (W.D. Tex. 7:2025cv00172), which reflect PACER through roughly mid-2025. Prejudice terms of the dismissal, the existence of any confidential settlement or license, and a comprehensive PTAB check are not fully verified from primary sources and are flagged as unresolved above.

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

The docket shows a critical development — a voluntary dismissal in June 2025. Let me verify that and research the plaintiff's counsel.

I have solid detail on plaintiff's counsel. Now let me confirm the dismissal and check for any additional plaintiff-side appearances.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.)

⚠️ Threshold status note (affects this analysis)

The case metadata supplied describes the case as "pending," but the public docket shows it was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in June 2025:

• Dkt. 11 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed June 24, 2025 (by plaintiff)
• Dkt. 12 — Order Dismissing Case, entered June 25, 2025
• Dkt. 13 — Report on Patent/Trademark (AO-120), June 25, 2025

Source: CourtListener docket 69909727 (RECAP-sourced; the Justia mirror's last PACER pull of May 12, 2025 does not include the dismissal — Justia). Because dismissal came roughly two months after filing and before any answer, only one plaintiff-side attorney ever appeared. I flag this because the counsel picture is very thin — this was a short-lived filing, not a litigated case.

---

Attorney appearing for Lab Technology LLC

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — sole attorney of record / lead counsel

Relevant experience / notable matters: Rabicoff is one of the highest-volume patent plaintiffs' attorneys in the country. Lex Machina's 2021 report identified Rabicoff Law as the most active plaintiffs' patent firm for the 2018–2020 period (806 cases), and its 2020 report ranked it first for that year (356 cases, 72% involving high-volume plaintiffs). He has run licensing/enforcement campaigns against Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, LG, Huawei and Sony, and has defended numerous PTAB IPRs/CBMs (including defeating institution against Mastercard and Adobe petitions); he also filed a Federal Circuit amicus brief on representative-claim issues under § 101.

Negative/notable history worth knowing:

• 2020 sanctions — Cedar Lane Techs. v. ..., N.D. Cal. (Judge Vince Chhabria): the court sanctioned the plaintiff and Rabicoff for "objectively frivolous" positions taken in bad faith, noted he was a "serial filer" not admitted in that district, and referred him to the court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. (See NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies, Mondaq/JD Supra.)
• 2026: a W.D. Tex. judge denied Canva's motion for sanctions against Rabicoff in a separate file-sharing patent suit. (Law360, Aug. 3, 2026.)
• He is repeatedly identified as counsel for bulk "file-and-settle" patent plaintiffs (e.g., Jeffrey Gross- and Eric Zautner-linked NPEs). (Mondaq, "Six Patent Cases To Go, Please," May 27, 2025.)

---

Attorneys who have NOT appeared for the plaintiff

• No local counsel (W.D. Tex.) appears on the docket for Lab Technology. Despite the Midland/Odessa Division venue, Rabicoff filed pro se as counsel of record without an associated Texas firm on the docket.
• No in-house counsel appears for the plaintiff; Lab Technology LLC is a New Mexico entity (principal place of business: 1209 Mountain Rd Pl NE, Albuquerque, NM) with no disclosed in-house litigation staff.
• Kenneth A. Matuszewski (USPTO Reg. No. 74,791), Rabicoff's frequent backup counsel at Rabicoff Law LLC in other matters and PTAB proceedings, did not enter an appearance in this case.
• On the defense side, the only appearance was Kevin E. Cadwell for Lumen (Dkt. 9, 5/7/2025) — noted only to show the docket had no additional plaintiff-side activity.

---

Sourcing caveats

1. Docket access limitation: The full PACER docket was not directly retrieved; entries above come from the RECAP/CourtListener docket and the Justia mirror. I did not find a scanned copy of the live Dkt. 2 notice of appearance, so the exact firm address as it appears on this filing is not independently confirmed — the Chicago addresses above are drawn from Rabicoff Law's firm website and his filings in other cases.
2. Possible related campaign: A separate suit, Lab Technology, LLC v. Sangoma Technologies US Inc., No. 1:25-cv-22717 (S.D. Fla., filed 6/16/2025), was filed by the apparently same plaintiff entity and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 7/30/2025. That complaint was signed by Terry Sanks (Florida counsel), though a bar-admissions letter was also directed to Rabicoff — suggesting shared or overlapping representation. I could not confirm whether the same two patents (’102 and ’973) were asserted there, so treat the connection as unconfirmed.
3. I found no sealed filings in this case and no evidence of any counsel who appeared but is not reflected on the docket.

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

Important finding: the docket appears to show this case was voluntarily dismissed in June 2025. Let me dig into counsel details and whether it was refiled.

The docket shows the case was dismissed in June 2025. Let me verify counsel's firm affiliation at the time, whether additional counsel appeared, and whether the case was refiled.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Lumen Technologies, Inc.

Key finding up front: The public docket for Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.) shows the case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on June 24, 2025, with an order dismissing the case entered June 25, 2025 (DE 11, DE 12). This is inconsistent with the "pending" status in the case metadata supplied to me — I'm flagging the discrepancy rather than resolving it, since I could not retrieve a live post-dismissal PACER pull. Either way, the window for counsel appearances was short (roughly seven weeks from service), which sharply limits how much counsel activity exists on the record.

Defendant's counsel (sole appearance on the record)

Sources: docket entries at CourtListener docket and Justia dockets (DE 8 unopposed motion for extension of time, DE 9 notice of appearance by Kevin E. Cadwell, DE 10 order extending Lumen's answer deadline to July 7, 2025, DE 11 notice of voluntary dismissal, DE 12 order dismissing case); attorney bios at Akin Gump announcement, Kelley Drye addition, Best Lawyers, and Cellular Communications v. HTC, DE 201.

What is not on the record (do not assume)

• No other defense counsel appeared. I found no notice of appearance for any Lumen in-house attorney, no second outside attorney, and no local counsel in the W.D. Tex. record. The May 7, 2025 extension motion (DE 8) and the answer-deadline order (DE 10) reflect Cadwell's engagement, but the docket text does not identify additional filers.
• No answer, motion to dismiss, or invalidity/infringement contentions were filed before dismissal — the case ended pre-answer (answer was extended to July 7, 2025, then the plaintiff dismissed on June 24, 2025).
• Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice is not resolved by the available sources. The docket text says only "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal." This matters: Lab Technology's parallel 2025 campaigns used with-prejudice dismissals against 3CX USA (S.D. Fla., 65 days) and Sangoma Technologies (S.D. Fla., 44 days) and a dismissal against Cisco (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00338), per PatSnap's summaries. A with-prejudice dismissal as to Lumen would foreclose re-assertion of the '102 and '973 patents against it; without prejudice, it would not.
• No evidence of a refiled Lab Technology v. Lumen action surfaced in my searches. I could not complete a full check for a later-filed companion case (e.g., a 2026 refiling or a Nevada/Florida action against Lumen), so treat that as unverified rather than as a confirmed negative.
• Presiding judge context: Judge David Counts (patent-case assignment order of July 25, 2022), referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland (DE 7).

Practical diligence notes

1. Verify case status directly on PACER before relying on the metadata's "pending" label; RECAP indicates closed as of June 25, 2025.
2. Confirm the dismissal's prejudice terms by pulling the DE 11 notice and DE 12 order — the terms govern whether Lumen has exposure to a renewed assertion.
3. Confirm Cadwell's firm of record at the time of the May 2025 filing (Cadwell Clonts vs. Cadwell Thomas LLP) by ordering DE 9 from PACER; the free docket text omits the firm/bar details.
4. For context, plaintiff's counsel is Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who filed the complaint (DE 1) and his appearance (DE 2) — a high-volume patent-assertion filer; in the parallel S.D. Fla. cases he was joined by Terry Marcus Sanks (Beusse Sanks PLLC).