Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc.

I'll research this case and its context. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patent, the D. Del. assignment, and the NPE's campaign.

Case Overview: Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01120 (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) — a non-practicing holding company with no operating business — that has built a monetization campaign around a portfolio of older telecom/telephony patents originally assigned to TP Lab Inc. (inventors Chiu Shin Cheung Simon and Ho Chi Fai). Since roughly 2024, Lab Technology has sued a broad cross-section of the communications industry: Samsung (2:24-cv-00324, E.D. Tex.), Verizon (2:24-cv-00323, E.D. Tex.), Cisco (6:24-cv-00338, W.D. Tex.), Everbridge (1:25-cv-01355, D. Del.), Lumen (7:25-cv-00172, W.D. Tex.), Sangoma (S.D. Fla., 2025), LifeStation (1:25-cv-09284, S.D.N.Y.), Mitel, 3CX USA, u-blox, Trimble, EXFO, ETA Transit, Solera Holdings (4:26-cv-00297, N.D. Tex.), and TELUS International (2:26-cv-00127, D. Nev.). Its counsel of record in this district, Brian E. Lutness (Silverman, McDonald & Friedman), filed the Rule 7.1 disclosure; Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) has appeared for the NPE in most of the Texas and other filings. The Rule 7.1 statement lists no parents or affiliates, which is the typical bare-entity profile of a litigation-funded patent holder. Defendant MetTel, Inc. is a privately held, New York–headquartered managed communications and digital-transformation provider (founded 1996 by CEO Marshall Aronow; ~700–1,000 employees; HQ at 55 Water Street, NYC, with a related entity, Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation LLC). MetTel resells and manages voice, data, mobility, IoT, SD-WAN, and unified-communications services to enterprises and government agencies — a five-time Gartner Magic Quadrant leader in Managed Network Services — with marquee federal work including a U.S. Postal Service POTS Transformation contract (17,000 locations / 23,000+ lines) and CFPB mobility services. Its telephony stack is largely hosted: a Cisco BroadWorks/UC-One-based cloud UC offering ("TrueUC"), the MetTel Portal/Bruin customer platforms, and its DataRemote-powered "POTS in a Box" copper-retirement solution.

The asserted patent and accused technology. The complaint asserts a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 B1, "Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location" — filed Dec. 23, 2011, issued Aug. 6, 2013, claiming priority back to July 14, 2005 (a continuation-family member of TP Lab's US 8,121,613), 26 claims, with an estimated term running to roughly 2029–2030. In one line: it claims device-side E911 location updating, in which a mobile phone compares a current wireless base-station identity against a stored base-station identity and, on detecting a mismatch, obtains and transmits the subscriber's location to the phone system (independent claim 1; parallel system claim 11 and toll-free/directory-services variants in claims 21 and 24). This mid-2000s-era mechanism is a natural fit for VoIP/UCaaS E911 architectures, and the practical infringement battleground is the claim's device-side-versus-network-side framing — whether the accused platform's E911 location processing is performed "by the mobile phone" as claimed or by network infrastructure (the same vulnerability flagged in Lab Technology's parallel Verizon complaint). Notably, the public docket does not identify MetTel's accused products or services: the complaint as filed is only about five pages and, consistent with the NPE's filings elsewhere, appears to incorporate claim charts by reference to exhibits rather than describing the accused instrumentality in the body — so the precise accused MetTel offering (hosted UC/VoIP, POTS Transformation, or an E911 feature within them) is not confirmed by any source I could verify.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is brand new. Per the PACER Monitor docket, the complaint (with jury demand, $405 fee, receipt ADEDC-5058080) was filed 9/4/2026, alongside magistrate consent/referral forms and an AO 120 Patent/Trademark Report listing only 8,503,973; summons issued to MetTel on 9/4/2026; the Court issued a deficiency notice for failure to file a Rule 7.1 statement, which Lab Technology then cured. No answer, motion, scheduling order, or claim-construction activity appears yet, and I could not verify the presiding judge from the sources available — D. Del. assigns new filings across its Article III and magistrate benches, and no assignment surfaced in my searches. Venue matters here for the standard D. Del. reasons that keep it a top NPE destination: a compact, patent-experienced bench with well-developed local rules and a reputation for efficient case management, plus the forum-selection/commerce considerations that make Delaware a habitual filing ground for assertion entities (Lab Technology has already filed at least one other case in this district). Practitioners should not assume MetTel is Delaware-incorporated, however — it presents publicly as a New York company, so the venue theory is unverified.

Why the case is notable. Three reasons. First, sector exposure: E911/emergency caller location is a regulatory necessity in essentially every U.S. commercial telephony product, so the '973 patent reaches carriers, UCaaS/cloud-PBX vendors, device makers, PERS/medical-alert providers, and telematics companies alike — which explains the unusual breadth of Lab Technology's defendant list (Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, Verizon per Unified Patents, plus the newer wave of VoIP, PERS, and GPS targets). A managed-communications reseller like MetTel occupying the middle of that stack is a logical next target. Second, third-party validity attack via crowdsourcing: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL contest on claim 1 of the '973 patent (June 6–Aug. 30, 2024, $2,000 prize), awarding the prize to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan for prior art announced in December 2024 — a signal that the patent's validity is contested. I found no confirmed IPR/PGR petition against the '973 at the PTAB in the public reporting I reviewed, so the IPR-linkage question should be treated as open rather than established. Third, the campaign's exit pattern: Lab Technology's cases overwhelmingly end fast and quietly — voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals against Cisco, Everbridge, Lumen, and Samsung (without prejudice), a dismissal with prejudice against Sangoma, a joint stipulation in Solera, and a settlement in LifeStation — which is the classic signature of license/settlement-driven "file-and-settle" monetization rather than merits litigation. Whether MetTel follows that pattern (early license/dismissal) or instead litigates validity — potentially inviting an IPR built on the PATROLL prior art — is the key thing to watch.

Sourcing caveats. The docket facts above are drawn from the PACER Monitor docket for 1:26-cv-01120 and cross-checked against Justia/CourtListener dockets for Lab Technology's other suits; the patent's claims and family history come from RPX Insight, Unified Patents' patent portal, and the PATROLL contest page. I was unable to verify: the presiding judge, MetTel's specific accused products, any PTAB proceeding against the '973, the exact damages/licensing theory, and whether MetTel is Delaware-incorporated. I also could not obtain the complaint PDF, so the accused-instrumentality description above is inference from the patent's claims and the NPE's pattern in companion cases, not a confirmed reading of the MetTel pleading.

I'll research this case across the sources available. Let me start with several searches.

Good — I've found the case is very recent (filed September 2026). Let me dig into the docket, the patent, counsel, and parallel proceedings.

Bottom line

Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01120 (D. Del.) is roughly two weeks old as of today (2026-09-17). The case has not progressed past the initial pleading stage: a complaint with jury demand and the AO-120 patent report were filed on 2026-09-04, summons issued the same day, and plaintiff filed its Rule 7.1 disclosure. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion of substance, no Markman order, no discovery, no trial, and no disposition — and I found no IPR/PGR petition on U.S. Patent 8,503,973. The most legally consequential development bearing on this case is not in this docket at all: a July 2026 D. Del. ruling invalidating a related Lab Technology patent under Alice, plus third-party prior-art crowdsourcing activity targeting the '973 patent.

Everything below is organized chronologically, with explicit flags where the public record is empty or where I'm inferring.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2026-09-04)

Docket entries confirmed via PACER/PacerMonitor docket for 1:26-cv-01120:

Source: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66647042/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_MetTel,_Inc

Plaintiff's counsel: Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (the same firm that represents Lab Technology in its other D. Del. matter — see §7). Note this differs from Lab Technology's other campaign cases, which are typically handled by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC). In D. Del. the Rabicoff firm appears to have engaged Delaware local counsel, or Lutness has taken over the Delaware filings.

No answer or counterclaims yet. MetTel had not entered an appearance on the docket snapshot I could retrieve. Under FRCP 12(a)(1)(A)(i), a responsive pleading would ordinarily be due 21 days after service (roughly 2026-09-25, absent waiver, an extension, or a Rule 12 motion) — but I want to be explicit that this is my inference from the rule, not a docketed deadline. I found no order setting an answer deadline, no stipulation extending time, and no Rule 12(b) motion. Counterclaims (including a DJ counterclaim for invalidity/non-infringement, which is the norm in PAE cases) are a plausible next step but have not been filed.

A note on docket-scraper artifacts: the PacerMonitor entry for Dkt 1 renders the caption as "COMPLAINT … against Lab Technology LLC," which is a scraper mis-parse — Lab Technology is the plaintiff and MetTel is the defendant. The 35 U.S.C. § 1126 cause-of-action coding also appears in aggregator listings for sister Lab Technology cases and is unreliable metadata.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (motion to dismiss / transfer / stay)

None filed and none decided. There is no record of:

• a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
• a § 1404(a)/§ 1406 motion to transfer venue,
• a motion to stay pending IPR, or
• any motion for judgment on the pleadings.

What to watch, based on this plaintiff's docket history:

• § 101 motion to dismiss is the highest-probability dispositive motion, given the Alice ruling discussed in §7.
• Venue/transfer is possible — MetTel is a New York–headquartered business communications provider; a § 1404(a) motion to S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y. would be the conventional defense play. I have no evidence MetTel has signaled this.
• Stay pending IPR is only live if a petition gets filed (see §8).

---

3. Markman / claim construction

Not reached. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction opinion. D. Del. patent cases typically reach Markman roughly 12–18 months after filing, so this is unsurprising at the two-week mark.

Worth noting for later: a third-party analysis of the '973 patent in the Verizon case (2:24-cv-00323, E.D. Tex.) flagged the term "subscriber location" — with the specification supporting both a broad reading (geophysical coordinates, '973 Patent col. 4:36–37) and a narrower civic-address reading ("a street address, a building number, a cubicle number," col. 4:35–36) — as the pivotal construction. The other recurring dispute is the locus of the claimed steps: claim 1 requires the mobile phone itself to compare current vs. stored base station identity and initiate the location update, which sets up a device-side vs. network-side infringement argument. Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:24-cv-00323/doc/analysis/1

---

4. Discovery milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no ESI or protective order, no infringement/contentions or invalidity contentions service. Nothing with strategic significance has occurred, and none is likely before MetTel appears.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

Not reached — no trial events, no verdict, no JMOL/new trial motion, no § 285 fee motion. The case is at the pleading stage.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

No disposition. The case is active and in its earliest phase. No notice of voluntary dismissal, no settlement, no consent judgment, no appeal. Note that this plaintiff does dismiss early and often (see §7), so an early Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exit is a realistic scenario — but nothing has been filed.

---

7. The most important legal development bearing on this case: the Greenlight Alice ruling (D. Del., 2026-07-23)

This is not in the MetTel docket, but it is the single most legally significant event for this litigation's trajectory.

In Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.), Judge Barker granted dismissal with prejudice on 2026-07-23, holding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone") invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101:

• Alice step one: claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of "displaying different content on a telephone based on that telephone's location."
• Alice step two: no inventive concept — "merely claims the abstract idea of filtering content on a set of generic computer components."
• Prosecution disclaimer argument was rejected — the court found the applicant distinguished a remote "location server" from self-contained location tracking in the prior art, but that did not support dismissal on disclaimer grounds.
• Leave to amend denied as futile; dismissal with prejudice.

Reported at: https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-d-del-infringement-case-dismissed-after-patent-for-youth-banking-app-ruled-invalid/ipm0107526d0680f64e55bab66a8737e642b2 (Bloomberg Law IP Law Daily, 2026-07-30). Counsel: Brian E. Lutness (Silverman, McDonald & Friedman) for Lab Technology; Gregory Erich Stuhlman (Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole LLP) for Greenlight.

Why this matters for MetTel: the '982 and '973 patents are part of the same Lab Technology telephony portfolio, asserted in the same campaign, and both were litigated in D. Del.; the '982 patent was knocked out on § 101 grounds in the very district where MetTel is now sued. If MetTel (or its counsel) files a § 101 motion, this opinion is directly citable as a same-plaintiff, same-district, same-portfolio ruling — albeit on a different patent with different claims (the '973 claims are keyed to base-station-identity change triggering a location update, not display filtering), so it is not dispositive.

Plaintiff's broader campaign (context, not this docket)

Lab Technology is a non-practicing entity (Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an NPE holding acquired patents). The '973 patent has been asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon per Unified Patents. Confirmed sister actions:

Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/lab-technology-llc ; https://dockets.justia.com/search?parties=Mitel%20Network%2C%20Inc. ; https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/1/3/2000-awarded-for-lab-technology-communication-patent-prior-art ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69909727/lab-technology-llc-v-lumen-technologies-inc/

---

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on U.S. 8,503,973

No IPR or PGR petition against the '973 patent appears in the public record. My searches of PTAB-related coverage surfaced no Lab Technology v. MetTel-linked or patent-specific PTAB proceeding on 8,503,973. Accordingly:

• No IPR instituted, no FWD, no Director Review, no stay motion. The litigation has not been affected by any PTAB proceeding.
• However, the patent is on third-party validity radar. Unified Patents awarded a $2,000 PATROLL crowdsourcing prize (announced 2025-01-03) to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan for prior art on U.S. 8,503,973, describing it as "asserted by Lab Technology, LLC, an NPE" and relating to "methods and systems for accurately determining the location of a caller during an emergency call." Source: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/1/3/2000-awarded-for-lab-technology-communication-patent-prior-art

That is a meaningful IPR-risk signal: a well-funded defensive aggregator has already curated prior art on this exact patent. It is also a plausible explanation for the pattern of early voluntary dismissals in the sister cases — the threat of a PTAB petition is a recognized pressure point that can drive PAE exits. I want to be clear this is inference; the Unified Patents award does not itself establish that a petition was prepared or filed, and no petition is on the public docket.

---

9. What to watch next (with confidence levels)

MetTel's profile: MetTel is a business communications / unified communications provider, which means E911/caller-location compliance (Kari's Law, RAY BAUM'S Act) is a regulatory necessity in its product stack — the exact technical territory the '973 patent occupies. This is why the patent maps to it, and it also means the "network-side vs. device-side" claim-scope question flagged in §3 is likely to be the central non-infringement defense.

---

10. Sources and confidence

Well-sourced (docket-level, from PACER/PacerMonitor 1:26-cv-01120): filing date 2026-09-04; complaint with jury demand; AO-120 listing 8,503,973; summons issued 2026-09-04; Rule 7.1 statement by Brian Lutness; deficiency notice. URL: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66647042/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_MetTel,_Inc

Well-sourced (judicial ruling): Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del. Jul. 23, 2026) — § 101 invalidity, dismissal with prejudice, via Bloomberg Law IP Law Daily (2026-07-30).

Well-sourced (third-party, non-authoritative narrative): Unified Patents PATROLL award on '973 (2025-01-03); PatSnap case analyses of the Cisco, Samsung, and Sangoma matters; Stanford NPE database party page.

NOT confirmed / do not treat as fact: (a) whether MetTel has appeared or filed anything since 2026-09-04 — my last docket snapshot predates today; (b) judge assignment in 1:26-cv-01120; (c) existence of any IPR/PGR on '973 — I found none, but a very recently filed petition could be unindexed; (d) the terms of the sister-case dismissals (with vs. without prejudice varies by case and some docket text is ambiguous); (e) any settlement or licensing arrangement behind any dismissal.

Caveat on aggregator content: Some PatSnap summaries contain internally inconsistent patent descriptions (e.g., describing '973 as "telephony announcement systems" in one post and "emergency caller location" in another). I have relied on the Unified Patents description and the '973 claim text analysis, both of which are consistent with an E911 caller-location patent (application 13/337,038).

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

Good leads. Let me dig into the specific docket and confirm counsel.

Let me look for the full docket and any entry of appearance, plus verify attorney details.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Case: Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01120 (D. Del., filed Sept. 4, 2026)

Bottom line

Based on the docket as retrieved, the only attorney whose name appears on any filing in this case is Brian E. Lutness of Silverman, McDonald & Friedman. The Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (D.I. 5) — the plaintiff's only substantive filing to date — was filed by "Lab Technology LLC (Lutness, Brian)." No separate entry of appearance, motion to appear pro hac vice, or additional signature has been identified on the public docket, so the counsel lineup may still be incomplete.

A caveat up front: I was only able to pull the first five docket entries (Complaint through the Rule 7.1 statement) before exhausting my search budget, and the PACER Monitor page for this case shows no D.I. 6 or later — meaning no formal appearance has yet been docketed. I could not verify Lutness's bar admissions or his precise role designation (lead vs. local) from a primary source. The description below therefore blends the case docket with his documented role in Lab Technology's closely-related D. Del. filings, and is flagged where it is inference rather than confirmed fact.

---

Identified counsel

1. Brian E. Lutness — likely lead / filing counsel (Delaware)

• Firm: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Docket basis: Sole named filer on the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, D.I. 5 (filed Sept. 4, 2026), stating "No Parents or Affiliates Listed." The deficiency notice preceding it was directed to "[c]ounsel," and the cured statement carries his name.
• Corroborating role: Lutness appears as plaintiff's counsel for Lab Technology LLC across the related D. Del. campaign, including:
  • Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.) — identified in the July 23, 2026 §101 dismissal opinion as "Brian E. Lutness (Silverman, McDonald & Friedman) for Lab Technology LLC" (dismissed with prejudice; Alice step one/step two). (VitaLaw / IP Law Daily, July 30, 2026; Justia, D.I. 35)
  • Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.) — Rule 7.1 filed by "Brian E. …" (Lutness). (Justia docket)
  • Lab Technology LLC v. CallCurrent, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01122 (D. Del.) — "Represented By: Brian E. Lutness, Silverman, Mcdonald & Friedman." (PACER Monitor)
• Relevant experience note: Lutness functions as the recurring Delaware-side counsel for Lab Technology's patent-assertion campaign on the '973 and '982 patents; the Greenlight matter is a notable recent data point because the court held the '982 patent ineligible under §101 and dismissed with prejudice, which is directly relevant to the risk profile of the '973 patent asserted here.
• Role characterization: Because Silverman, McDonald & Friedman is a Delaware firm and D. Del. requires local counsel, Lutness is most likely acting as local/Delaware counsel, with substantive prosecution of the case handled by co-counsel (see below). I could not confirm whether he is formally designated "lead" on a docket entry — no such entry exists yet.

---

Likely co-counsel (NOT confirmed on this docket)

In Lab Technology's other suits, out-of-state patent counsel has appeared alongside the Delaware firm. In the Greenlight case the plaintiff was represented by "Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC," and in Lab Technology's S.D. Fla. suit against Mitel Networks and D. Nev. suit against TELUS International, the plaintiff's counsel of record included Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and, in the TELUS matter, Glenn Truitt (Private Wealth Law, Inc.). (Stanford NPE Database – Lab Technology LLC; PACER Monitor – TELUS; Justia – Mitel)

I am not asserting that Rabicoff or Truitt are counsel in the MetTel case. No appearance by them appears on the MetTel docket as retrieved. If they are participating, their pro hac vice motions would typically be filed after service and would show up as D.I. 6+ — which the public docket does not yet reflect.

---

What is not on the record

• No entry of appearance for any attorney has been docketed as of the retrieved docket (last entries: D.I. 1–5, all dated Sept. 4, 2026).
• No defendant counsel has appeared either — the Summons as to MetTel, Inc. issued Sept. 4, 2026 (D.I. 4), and the case is at the very earliest stage.
• No in-house counsel has been identified. Lab Technology LLC's Rule 7.1 statement lists "No Parents or Affiliates Listed," consistent with it being a patent-assertion entity (Stanford's NPE database classifies it as a "Patent Asserter" holding "Acquired patents") — so in-house representation is unlikely.
• Docket text quirk: the PACER Monitor entry for D.I. 1 reads "COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement with Jury Demand against Lab Technology LLC," which appears to be a docketing/transcription artifact (the defendant of record is MetTel, Inc.). I flag it because it is anomalous, not because it suggests a real party issue.

---

Suggested verification steps

To fully confirm before relying on this:

1. Pull the actual PACER docket for 1:26-cv-01120 for D.I. 6+ (appearances, pro hac vice motions) — the free aggregators I used stop at D.I. 5.
2. Open the complaint PDF (D.I. 1) and read the signature block — that is the authoritative list of filing counsel and any co-counsel, and it was not retrievable here.
3. Query the D. Del. CM/ECF attorney log for Brian E. Lutness to confirm bar status and firm address.

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

Let me check the docket directly and search for any appearances by MetTel's counsel.

Bottom line

No counsel has entered an appearance for MetTel, Inc. in Lab Technology LLC v. MetTel, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01120 (D. Del.) as of the information I can retrieve. The case is roughly two weeks old (complaint filed 9/4/2026; summons issued 9/4/2026), and the publicly indexed docket contains only plaintiff-side filings. I cannot name any defense attorney without fabricating one, so I am not doing so.

What the docket actually shows

The PACER Monitor docket summary for the case (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66647042/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_MetTel,_Inc) lists only these events:

There is no notice of appearance, Rule 7.1 statement, motion, answer, or extension request on behalf of MetTel. The only attorney whose name appears anywhere in this case file is plaintiff's counsel:

• Brian E. Lutness — Silverman, McDonald & Friedman (Wilmington, DE); plaintiff's (Lab Technology's) counsel. He is the filing attorney on the Rule 7.1 statement and is identified as Lab Technology's counsel in the related Greenlight case. This is plaintiff-side, not defense counsel.

Because the Rule 7.1 deficiency notice was directed at the plaintiff, it confirms the court had not yet received an appearance from anyone for MetTel at the time of the last docket check (last checked 09/04/2026 on PACER Monitor).

Why no defense appearance is expected yet

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), MetTel's responsive-pleading deadline runs 21 days after service of the summons and complaint. With the summons issued 9/4/2026, any appearance is most likely to land in mid-to-late September 2026, and Delaware practice typically produces a consolidated package: a notice of appearance (often two — Delaware local counsel plus out-of-state lead counsel), a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, and either an answer or a motion to dismiss (e.g., under § 101 or for improper venue, both very common in this plaintiff's suits). None of that exists on the indexed docket yet.

Relevant context for gauging who may appear (not a prediction of names)

Lab Technology LLC is an active, serial filer asserting the same family of telephone-display/location patents, so the identity of defense counsel in MetTel's sister cases is informative but not evidence of who will file here:

• Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.) — defense counsel of record: Gregory Erich Stuhlman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP (Wilmington, DE). Case dismissed with prejudice on § 101 grounds (July 23, 2026).
• Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.) — voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any defense appearance.
• Lab Technology LLC v. CallCurrent, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01122 (D. Del.) — filed the same day as the MetTel case; docket indexed with only plaintiff's counsel (Lutness).
• Prior campaign: Lab Technology LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00323 (E.D. Tex.) and Lab Technology LLC v. [Amazon.com Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Amazon.com%20Inc.), No. 2:24-cv-00829 (E.D. Tex.).

The ’973 patent asserted here appears alongside U.S. Pat. No. 9,219,982 in the Everbridge and Greenlight matters, and the ’973/’982 family has been the subject of § 101 litigation in D. Del.

What I could not verify

• MetTel's counsel of record: unconfirmed/absent. I found no PACER entry, firm press release, Law360 or Reuters item, or court opinion naming defense counsel for MetTel in this case. Any attorney name I gave would be invented.
• Whether the record is simply not yet updated. PACER Monitor's "last checked" stamp is 09/04/2026, so a more recent appearance could exist on PACER (https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov) without appearing in indexed results. If you have PACER access, the definitive check is a docket report for 1:26-cv-01120 filtered to entries filed after 09/04/2026.
• No sealing issue identified. There is no indication of sealed filings; the absence of defense counsel appears to be timing, not seal.

Recommended next step

Pull the live PACER docket for 1:26-cv-01120 and look for (a) a Notice of Appearance, (b) a Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement from MetTel, and (c) any Motion to Dismiss / Motion for Extension of Time. Those entries will name both Delaware local counsel and, typically, out-of-state lead counsel for MetTel. I can update this analysis the moment those entries exist.