Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC

I'll research this case using multiple searches to verify the parties, patents, and procedural posture.

Key finding: the docket shows the case was terminated by joint stipulation. Let me verify the patent numbers and party details.

Overview

The parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a patent-assertion entity, not an operating company. The Stanford NPE/Patent Assertion database classifies it as a patent asserter in the "acquired patents" category (npe.law.stanford.edu/party/lab-technology-llc), and Unified Patents describes it flatly as "an NPE" (unifiedpatents.com); the third-party complaint analysis of this docket identifies it as a New Mexico LLC. The asserted portfolio traces back to TP Lab Inc. / inventor Chiu Shin Cheung Simon, not to Lab Technology (Unified Patents patent record; RPX Insight). Lab Technology is represented by Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) and James O. Crewse (Crewse Law Firm PLLC) — Rabicoff is the plaintiff-side filer of record across the campaign. Defendant Solera Holdings, LLC is a Delaware LLC and a well-known vehicle-claims, repair and automotive-data software company — an operating company, not a patent holder, with a significant Dallas–Fort Worth footprint. Its defense team entered as Neil J. McNabnay, Lance Eric Wyatt, Jr. and Riley James Green (reported by PACER Monitor as Fish & Richardson PC), which signals a sophisticated, well-resourced defense rather than a default posture (pacermonitor.com).

Patents asserted and the accused product. The public record is genuinely ambiguous here and should be flagged rather than smoothed over. Case metadata and the prior case summary list U.S. 8,503,973, "Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location" (filed 12/23/2011, issued 8/6/2013, priority 7/14/2005) — a mobile-phone method claim requiring the handset to compare a current wireless base-station identity against a stored one, obtain the subscriber location, and send it to the phone system, aimed at E911/NG911 dispatch accuracy (RPX Insight). However, the third-party complaint analysis of Doc. 1 for this very case describes U.S. 9,219,982, "Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone" (priority 6/22/2006, issued 12/22/2015) — claims covering a phone that queries a location server and automatically refreshes its screen with contextually relevant communication services (ex parte complaint analysis; RPX). RPX's party page for Solera lists "US 9,219,982 B2 +1 more" for this case, which is consistent with both patents having been asserted. Notably, Lab Technology has asserted the '973 and '982 together against other defendants (e.g., Verizon), so a two-patent complaint is plausible. The accused product is not identified in any public filing: the complaint names only unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates by reference a claim chart in Exhibit 2 that was not publicly filed. Given Solera's business, the accused instrumentality is presumably some mobile app or claims/roadside-assistance feature — but that is inference, not sourced fact.

Posture, venue and why it matters. The case was filed March 12, 2026 in the N.D. Tex., Fort Worth Division, assigned to Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor (the clerk's case note references "O'CONNOR (FORT WORTH CASES)"). Solera was served March 26; appeared through counsel April 16; answered with a jury demand and filed a counterclaim against Lab Technology the same day (Doc. 12); and the court ordered a scheduling proposal on April 17 (Doc. 14). Six weeks in, on April 23, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 15) and the case was terminated that day, with the AO 120 final report to the USPTO filed May 1 (Doc. 16) — docket. This is an important correction to the "active (early stage)" case summary: on the public docket the case is closed, with no claim construction, no merits ruling, and no stated prejudice terms. Venue choice matters because Solera's DFW presence defeats any TC Heartland attack and because Judge O'Connor's Fort Worth docket is faster and less crowded than E.D. Tex. — yet Lab Technology has repeatedly abandoned N.D. Tex. filings (e.g., Lab Technology v. u-blox America, 4:25-cv-00610) rather than litigate them. The case is notable on four axes: (1) the sheer scale of the campaign — since 2024 Lab Technology has sued Cisco, Verizon, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, NVIDIA, LG, Zoom, Lumen, Mitel, Sangoma, TELUS, Anritsu, Quectel, u-blox, Yeastar, Zendesk and Greenlight, with many dismissals inside one to six weeks; (2) the "file-and-quickly-dismiss" pattern, which feeds the ongoing Rule 11 pre-suit-investigation and § 285 fee-shifting debate (the Sangoma dismissal was with prejudice and on each-party-bears-its-own-costs terms, foreclosing fee recovery); (3) an IPR/validity overhang — Unified Patents ran a $2,000 PATROLL prior-art bounty on the '973 in January 2025, i.e., defensive aggregators have already targeted the patent; and (4) a § 101 split on the '982 — the N.D. Cal. denied HTC's eligibility challenge in 2018 (relying on Core Wireless), but on July 23, 2026 a Delaware court dismissed Lab Technology's '982 claims against Greenlight Financial with prejudice as patent-ineligible, holding the claims merely automate filtering content on generic components (VitalLaw/Bloomberg Law; cf. patentdocs on Local Intelligence v. HTC).

Sourcing caveats. (a) The patent(s)-in-suit for this case are not confirmed from a primary document; metadata says '973, the complaint-derived analysis says '982, and RPX suggests both — treat as unresolved pending the complaint PDF. (b) The dismissal's prejudice terms and the disposition of Solera's counterclaim are not visible in the retrieved docket text. (c) No PACER/opinion source confirms an IPR petition against either patent — Unified's PATROLL bounty is evidence of interest, not a filed petition. (d) I found no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog coverage of this specific Solera action, consistent with its six-week lifespan.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with broad searches.

Key finding: the case appears to have terminated quickly. Let me dig into the details.

Let me dig into the specific complaint contents, PTAB proceedings, and the dismissal.

Key Legal Developments — Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00297 (N.D. Tex.)

Bottom line first (correcting the case metadata)

The case is no longer active. The metadata in the prompt lists this matter as "active (early stage)," but the N.D. Tex. docket shows it was terminated on 2026-04-23 — roughly six weeks after filing — by a joint stipulation of dismissal signed by both sides. The case never reached an answer-stage motion, claim construction, discovery of substance, trial, or appeal. Total docket length was 16 entries.

A second correction worth flagging: the prompt lists U.S. Patent 8,503,973 as the patent at issue, but the publicly analyzed complaint in this case centers on U.S. Patent 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone"). The two patents are siblings from the same TP Lab, Inc. family (inventors Shin Cheung Simon Chiu and Chi Fai Ho), and Lab Technology routinely asserts them together — e.g., in Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.), the Rule 3 report lists both "'973" and "'982." I treat '973 as authoritative per the case metadata but note the complaint-analysis record ties the Solera pleading to '982; both are likely in suit. (Sources: dockets.justia.com docket 416619; pacermonitor.com case 63548137; ai-lab.exparte.com complaint analysis; dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv01355/91090.)

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Substance of the pleading: the complaint pleaded venue in N.D. Tex. on the theory that Solera "maintains an established place of business in the district" and committed infringing acts there. Per the complaint analysis, the accused products were not named in the pleading and were relegated to claim charts in an Exhibit 2 that was not filed with the complaint — a recurring feature of Lab Technology's pleadings and a frequent Rule 11/pre-suit-investigation criticism of this campaign. (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txnd/4:26-cv-00297/doc/analysis/1.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no §1406(a)/§1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motion appears on the docket. The only pretrial order entered was Doc. 14, Order for Scheduling Order Proposal (entered by Chief Judge O'Connor 2026-04-17, docketed/noted 2026-04-20), setting a proposed scheduling order deadline of 2026-05-18 — which was overtaken by the dismissal.

Notably, Solera was represented by Fish & Richardson, a firm with deep PTAB and §101 experience, and filed an answer with a counterclaim in under three weeks of service rather than seeking an extension or a transfer — i.e., the defense did not attempt to litigate the case so much as to put itself in position to resolve it.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing or order. The case closed before the §4:26 deadlines in Judge O'Connor's patent scheduling order could even be proposed.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No discovery order issued; the case terminated 7 days after the scheduling-proposal order and 42 days after filing.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motions, no §285 fee motion. Because the case ended by joint stipulation, the parties in all likelihood each bore their own costs and fees (the norm in these Lab Technology stipulations, and the pattern in the related Sangoma dismissal), which would foreclose a §285 exceptional-case fee award — but the text of the Solera stipulation is not in the public docket excerpt I retrieved, so the "with prejudice" and cost-allocation terms are unverified. I would not assert them as fact.

6. Settlement / dismissal — final disposition

• 2026-04-23 — Doc. 15, Joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL (filed by Rabicoff for Lab Technology, with proposed order); the clerk terminated the civil case the same day.
• 2026-05-01 — Doc. 16, Report to the Patent/Trademark Office of Final Order (Form AO-120 emailed to notice_of_suit@uspto.gov).

That is the complete disposition: dismissal by joint stipulation after answer, ~42 days from filing, ~28 days from service. No injunction, no damages, no adjudication on the merits of the '973/'982 patents, and no publicly disclosed consideration. A joint (as opposed to unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) stipulation is the signature of a negotiated resolution — most likely a license or covenant not to sue — rather than a plaintiff abandoning the case on its own.

---

Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings on the asserted patents

No IPR or PGR on U.S. 8,503,973 or 9,219,982 surfaced in my searches, and none was ever invoked in the Solera case (no stay motion, no IPR notice). What I did find on the PTAB/USPTO side:

1. Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art bounty on '973. Unified Patents announced (published 2025-01-03) that it awarded $2,000 to Dinesh Swami and Mani Manikandan for prior art on U.S. 8,503,973, describing Lab Technology as an NPE and the '973 patent as relating to "accurately determining the location of a caller during an emergency call," asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon. (unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/1/3/2000-awarded-for-lab-technology-communication-patent-prior-art.) A bounty is a pre-petition threat, not a filing — it shows the '973 patent is on a defensive aggregator's target list.
2. Ex parte reexamination instituted on a sibling patent. On 2025-01-15 the Central Reexamination Unit granted Unified's ex parte reexamination request (Control No. 90/019,749) on U.S. 8,498,388 — a different Lab Technology/TP Lab patent — finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims. (unifiedpatents.com insight, Lab Technology audio announcement patent challenge instituted.) This is the clearest evidence of the validity risk hanging over the Lab Technology portfolio.
3. §101 invalidation of '982 in a parallel case — after Solera settled. On 2026-07-23, Judge Barker (D. Del.) dismissed with prejudice Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB, holding claim 13 of the '982 patent ineligible under Alice step one (displaying content on a telephone based on its location = abstract idea) and finding no inventive concept at step two; leave to amend was denied as futile. (vitalLaw/IP Law Daily, 2026-07-30; law.justia.com D. Del. 1:25-cv-01356 doc. 35.) In that same case the court rejected the defendant's prosecution-disclaimer theory (the applicant's "location server" disclaimer did not reach all GPS/triangulation). This is the single most consequential development for Solera: if the Solera complaint asserted '982 (as the complaint analysis indicates), the patent asserted against Solera was held invalid three months after Solera's dismissal — a strong signal that Solera's quick exit was well-timed and that a joint dismissal (not a merits fight) was the rational outcome.

Effect on the litigation: none directly — Solera exited before any PTAB proceeding matured. The practical effect is inferential: Lab Technology's pattern is to assert, extract a quick resolution, and dismiss before validity gets tested (Sangoma with prejudice in 44 days; LifeStation settled; TELUS voluntarily dismissed; Solera by joint stipulation), while its patents simultaneously draw reexam/IPR/§101 fire in other districts.

---

The wider assertion campaign (context for the Solera outcome)

(Sources: dockets.justia.com; pacermonitor.com; mondaq "Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation," 2024-05-31; Patsnap Eureka litigation summaries for Sangoma and LifeStation; vitalLaw.)

Pattern: median case life is measured in weeks, pleadings rarely identify accused products with specificity, and resolution is consistently pre-Markman. That is exactly what happened in Solera.

---

Sourcing and confidence notes

• High confidence: filing date (2026-03-12), service (2026-03-26), answer + counterclaim (2026-04-16), joint stipulation and termination (2026-04-23), AO-120 (2026-05-01), judge (Chief Judge Reed O'Connor), all counsel of record, and the total absence of motion practice, Markman, discovery, or trial. These come from two independent docket mirrors.
• Moderate confidence (secondary-source complaint analysis): the technology description, the '982-centric reading of the complaint, the "terminal disclaimer" note, and the non-filing of Exhibit 2 claim charts.
• Unverified — do not rely on: the contents of Solera's counterclaim, the terms of the joint stipulation (with/without prejudice; cost allocation), any settlement consideration, and the identity of accused Solera products. Solera Holdings is an automotive data/claims-software company, which makes the fit with an E911/telephone-display patent family non-obvious — a point no source I found explains.
• Unverified: whether any IPR/PGR was ever filed on '973 or '982. I found none; I found only the Unified PATROLL bounty on '973 and an instituted ex parte reexam on the sibling '388 patent. Treat "no IPR" as "none found," not "none exists."
• Also flagged: the metadata's "active (early stage)" status is stale; the case terminated 2026-04-23.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

I found the core docket data. Let me dig deeper into the specific counsel, their roles, and verify the patent and case details.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Bottom line: Two attorneys appeared for plaintiff Lab Technology LLC in Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00297 (N.D. Tex.): Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) — the lead/registered patent attorney who filed and signed the case papers — and James O. Crewse (Crewse Law Firm PLLC), listed as additional plaintiff's counsel (Counter‑Defendant representative). Both appeared in the public record; nothing about counsel is sealed.

⚠️ Two flags on the case itself before the counsel details:

1. The docket shows the case is no longer active. PACER Monitor and the Justia docket both show a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed April 23, 2026 (Doc. 15), with the case terminated that same day and a final AO‑120 report sent to the USPTO on May 1, 2026 (Doc. 16). Your metadata lists the case as "active (early stage)," so treat the "active" label with caution — the public docket suggests it closed before any scheduling order issued.
2. Patent discrepancy. Your metadata lists U.S. Patent 8,503,973, but the complaint analysis for this case (Ex Parte) describes the asserted patent as U.S. 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone"), and the Ex Parte party page for Solera lists "US 9,219,982 B2 +1 more," which could mean '973 was co-asserted. I could not fully reconcile this from the sources retrieved.

---

1. Isaac Philip Rabicoff — Lead counsel

• Firm / office: Rabicoff Law LLC. Filings in the Lab Technology campaign list addresses including 73 W Monroe St, Chicago, IL 60603 and 600 Mamaroneck Ave, Suite 400, Harrison, NY 10528 (the firm has used both). USPTO Reg. No. 74,147.
• Role in this case: He filed the Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Lab Technology LLC (Doc. 2, filed with the complaint, March 12, 2026) and signed the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 15, April 23, 2026). He is the consistent lead filer across Lab Technology's suits nationwide (e.g., the W.D. Tex. Lumen case, the S.D.N.Y. MSS Electronics case, and the E.D. Tex. Yeastar case), which supports his designation as lead counsel here.
• Notable experience: Founder of Rabicoff Law; the firm was among Lex Machina's top 3 most active patent-litigation firms in 2017. Rabicoff has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung, and Google, argued before the Federal Circuit, and defeated institution of numerous IPRs/CBMs (including a Mastercard CBM). Registered patent attorney; admitted in Illinois, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill., and W.D. Wis.

2. James O. Crewse — Additional plaintiff's counsel (apparent local counsel)

• Firm / office: Crewse Law Firm PLLC. PACER Monitor and the complaint analysis for this case both list Crewse as counsel for the plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant alongside Rabicoff.
• Role in this case: Appears on the docket as plaintiff-side counsel; he is not the signer of the dismissal. In Lab Technology's Texas filings, this pairing is typically structured as lead patent counsel (Rabicoff) + N.D. Tex. local counsel (Crewse) — so his role is best characterized as local counsel, though I could not confirm that label from a filed pro hac vice/local-counsel designation before the case closed.
• Caveat on experience/office: I was unable to verify Crewse's office location or specific patent-litigation track record from the retrieved sources before reaching my search limit. I am not going to speculate on his prior cases or bar admissions — those should be confirmed against the N.D. Tex. docket or the firm's website. (Note that Rabicoff's own admissions list does not include N.D. Tex., which is consistent with a local-counsel arrangement.)

---

What is not in the record

• No in-house counsel for Lab Technology LLC appears (it is a patent-assertion entity).
• No other plaintiff-side appearances were filed; because the case was dismissed ~6 weeks after filing, the plaintiff's counsel roster never expanded beyond Rabicoff and Crewse.
• The dismissal itself was a Joint Stipulation (Doc. 15), not a merits ruling — the docket does not disclose the settlement/license terms, and none of the docket text retrieved indicates the dismissal was with or without prejudice (worth confirming on PACER).

Primary sources: Justia docket, Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-00297 (D. Tex.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/4:2026cv00297/416619 ; PACER Monitor docket — https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63548137/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_Solera_Holdings,_LLC ; Ex Parte complaint analysis — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txnd/4:26-cv-00297/doc/analysis/1 ; Rabicoff Law firm bio — http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html.

I'll research this case across docket sources, firm announcements, and news coverage.

Key finding already: this case was dismissed on April 23, 2026. Let me verify counsel details and firm affiliations.

Bottom line up front — the case is over

Before listing counsel, an important flag: the docket does not support the "active (early stage)" status in the case metadata. According to the N.D. Tex. docket sheet (retrieved via CourtListener/Justia docket mirror and PACER Monitor), the case was terminated on April 23, 2026 on a joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 15), with the final AO 120 report to the USPTO filed May 1, 2026 (Dkt. 16). Timeline:

The docket text does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and the terms of any agreement are not in the public record. The counterclaim filed April 16 and dismissal seven days later suggests a rapid resolution/standstill.

Defendant's counsel of record

Solera Holdings, LLC was represented by a single firm — Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas office (1717 Main Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, TX 75201). There is no separate local counsel; Fish's Dallas office serves as local counsel. No in-house counsel for Solera has entered an appearance on the docket. All three attorneys appeared on April 16, 2026, the same day Solera answered.

For context, plaintiff Lab Technology LLC was represented by Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and James O. Crewse (Crewse Law Firm PLLC) — the Rabicoff/N.D. Tex. NPE-model pairing — and it was Rabicoff who filed the joint stipulation of dismissal.

Sourcing caveats (please read before relying on this)

• Confidence level: High for names, firms, and offices — these are drawn from the docket entries themselves (ECF filer names) and PACER Monitor's party-representation block, which lists McNabnay, Green, and Wyatt under Solera's representation.
• What I could NOT verify: I did not retrieve the text of the Answer (Dkt. 12) or the notices of appearance, so I cannot confirm signature-block details, whether a formal "lead counsel" designation was made (N.D. Tex. does not require one at the pleading stage), or each attorney's N.D. Tex. bar admission status. The role assignments above are inferences from seniority and who signed which filing — not from a court order designating lead counsel. Treat "lead counsel" as a practical designation, not a formal one.
• Nothing appears sealed: the appearances and answer were filed publicly; there is no indication of sealed filings or confidential counsel arrangements in this docket.
• Patent discrepancy: the case metadata lists U.S. Patent 8,503,973, but a third-party complaint analysis (Ex Parte AI Lab) describes the asserted patent as U.S. Patent 9,219,982 ("Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone," 2006 priority) "+1 more," and notes the complaint referred to "Exemplary '982 Patent Claims." That strongly suggests two patents from the same family were pleaded, with '973 being the additional one — but I could not independently confirm the '973 from the pleadings retrieved. Given the content is third-party AI-generated docket analysis, verify against the actual complaint before relying on it.
• No Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific case was surfaced; the dismissal appears to have received no press attention, consistent with a short-lived NPE suit resolved by stipulation.