Lab Technology LLC v. TELUS International (U.S.) Corp.

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

Good leads. Let me dig deeper into the TELUS case specifically and the '973 patent.

Let me pin down the '973 patent details, its original owner, and any PTAB proceedings.

I'll research this case across docket sources, PTAB, and legal news. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the docket specifics and the patent's litigation history.

Important threshold note on sourcing

I hit tool-call limits mid-research, so this entry rests on the sources I retrieved rather than a full PACER pull. I flag below exactly what is verified, what is circumstantial, and what I could not confirm. Where I cannot confirm an event, I say so rather than infer it — an early-stage case like this is defined as much by what has not happened as by what has.

---

1. Case identification and party/counsel facts (verified)

Sources: PACER Monitor docket page, Justia D. Nev. IP docket browse.

The Rabicoff firm signature is consistent with Lab Technology's filing pattern across its portfolio (Rabicoff Law LLC appears as plaintiff's counsel in the Zoom, Greenlight, Samsung, and Sangoma matters discussed below).

---

2. Chronological developments in 2:26-cv-00127

(a) Filing and initial pleadings — complaint filed 2026-01-21

Verified: complaint filed 2026-01-21; plaintiff represented by Rabicoff and Truitt; §271 cause of action.

Not verified / no record found:

• Answer. No answer, motion to dismiss, or Rule 12 practice by TELUS appears in any source I retrieved.
• Counterclaims. None found. Even where a defendant does appear, none of the aggregator snapshots I pulled show an answer or counterclaim docket entry.
• Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure / patent-report filings. These are routine (the sister MetTel case shows both), but I did not see them confirmed on this docket.
• Assignment to a district judge / magistrate and any early scheduling order. Not confirmed.

(b) Pre-trial motions of substance — none found

No motion to dismiss, transfer (§1404/§1406), stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion appears in any retrieved source. This is unremarkable given a filing date of January 2026 and a reported "active (early stage)" posture as of 2026-09-17.

(c) Claim construction (Markman) — none; case has not reached that stage

No Markman briefing, hearing, or claim construction order found. Given the §271 complaint was filed in January 2026, this stage would not realistically have been reached.

(d) Discovery milestones — none of strategic significance found

No scheduling order, discovery cutoff, ESI protocol, or §315(b)-relevant discovery event is documented in the sources retrieved.

(e) Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or §285 fee motion found.

(f) Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — no disposition found; case appears active

The metadata states the case is active and early stage as of 2026-09-17. I found no voluntary dismissal, settlement, consent judgment, or notice of appeal.

---

3. A parallel D. Nev. case against the same defendant family — flag this

A second D. Nev. case appears in the record: Lab Technology LLC v. Telus Intl US Corp, No. 2:26-cv-00284, indexed 2026-02-05 and reporting a "Closed" status. Sources: Ex Parte litigation page, Open Public Records entry.

Caveats on this: the entity name differs slightly ("Telus Intl US Corp" vs. "TELUS International (U.S.) Corp."), the aggregator pages are low-confidence secondary sources, and a "Closed" flag on an aggregator is not proof of dismissal. Two plausible readings — (i) a genuinely separate suit against a related TELUS entity that resolved quickly, or (ii) an aggregator duplication/refiling artifact. I could not resolve this and it should be checked directly against PACER before anyone relies on it. If it is a real second case that closed while 00127 remained open, the closure mechanics (and any with/without-prejudice language) would be the single most important unresolved fact about this litigation.

---

4. The asserted patent: U.S. 8,503,973

What the patent is: The '973 patent covers "methods and systems for accurately determining the location of a caller during an emergency call" — i.e., E911 / NG911 emergency-caller location technology. Unified Patents describes it as "asserted by Lab Technology, LLC, an NPE" and lists prior assertions against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon. Source: Unified Patents PATROLL, 2025-01-03.

Confirmation caveat: The case summary you provided notes the '973 patent was not confirmed as an asserted patent in the TELUS case. I likewise could not retrieve the TELUS complaint or its patent-report filing. The basis for treating '973 as the patent-in-suit here is circumstantial but reasonably strong: (i) your case metadata lists 8,503,973 as the patent at issue; (ii) Lab Technology's '973 assertions cluster in VoIP/UCaaS/telecom defendants (Sangoma, MetTel), a category TELUS International fits; and (iii) a sibling Lab Technology filing on 2026-09-04 against MetTel, Inc. in D. Del. (1:26-cv-01120) carries an explicit "Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 8,503,973." Source: PACER Monitor – Lab Technology v. MetTel. Treat '973 as the working assumption, not a verified fact for the TELUS docket specifically.

No recognized technical relationship to any other '973 patent: Search results surfaced two unrelated patents sharing the "973" number — U.S. 10,035,973 (Novozymes/Danisco, oil recovery from ethanol production, IPR2019-01010) and the '973 patent in Illumina v. BGI Genomics (N.D. Cal. 3:20-cv-01465). Neither is related to the Lab Technology patent. I note them only to prevent conflation, since search noise mixes them freely.

---

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

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. 8,503,973 was identified in any source I retrieved. The PTAB documents my searches returned concerned patent 10,035,973 and are irrelevant.

Two things to weigh instead:

1. Elevated IPR risk, well-documented. On 2025-01-03, Unified Patents announced a $2,000 PATROLL prior-art bounty on U.S. 8,503,973 — awarded to two submitters — expressly describing the patent as NPE-asserted. Unified's PATROLL program feeds IPR petitions that Unified itself files. A published bounty on this exact patent is a concrete, dated signal that invalidating prior art has been crowdsourced and that a petition is a live possibility.
2. The practical shadow IPR already casts. In the Sangoma matter (below), an analyst write-up expressly identified the threat of IPR as a likely driver of Lab Technology's early exit — "the threat of an IPR petition — which could invalidate the patent entirely — is a recognized litigation pressure point that can incentivize patent assertion entities to exit before triggering that risk." Source: PatSnap Eureka, Lab Technology v. Sangoma Technologies. That is commentary, not a docket fact, but it forecasts the realistic stay/IPR dynamic in the TELUS case.

Effect on the litigation so far: none documented. No §315(b) bar has been triggered by service on any IPR petitioner that I can identify, and no stay motion has been filed.

---

6. Portfolio context — outcomes in Lab Technology's other suits

These are not developments in 2:26-cv-00127, but they are the best available evidence of how this plaintiff and this patent tend to resolve, and they are directly relevant to forecasting the TELUS case.

Other Lab Technology filings in the Stanford NPE database (Anritsu 2:24-cv-00411 E.D. Tex.; Quectel 2:24-cv-00415 E.D. Tex.; Lyft 6:24-cv-00333 W.D. Tex.; NVIDIA 6:24-cv-00337 W.D. Tex.; LG Electronics 6:24-cv-00336 W.D. Tex.; Zendesk 3:25-cv-00303 W.D. Wis.; u-blox America 4:25-cv-00610 N.D. Tex.; Mitel Networks 1:25-cv-22712 S.D. Fla.) — Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Lab Technology is classified there as an acquired-patent asserter and is described as a New Mexico entity in the Greenlight complaint.

Two §101 data points worth flagging. The Greenlight complaint reportedly pleaded that the '982 patent's eligibility had been upheld in HTC America (2018-04-06) and in a USAA decision dated 2026-01-30 — one week after the TELUS complaint was filed. Eight months later, the D. Del. court nonetheless invalidated the '982 claims under Alice. I could not independently verify the HTC or USAA rulings, and I did not find any §101 ruling on the '973 patent specifically. So: eligibility risk on the '973 patent is untested in the sources I retrieved, and a plaintiff win on a sibling patent did not protect that sibling patent.

---

7. Present posture (as of 2026-09-17)

• Active, early stage. Complaint filed 2026-01-21; no answer, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery milestones, no trial, no disposition on the 2:26-cv-00127 docket as reflected in retrieved sources.
• Litigation horizon: Given the January 2026 filing and seven-plus months of apparent inactivity/limited activity, either (a) the docket has moved in ways my sources didn't capture, or (b) the case is parked — consistent with Lab Technology's pattern of quiet, short-lived filings (Zoom: 8 days; Sangoma: 44 days; Samsung: dismissed pre-appearance).
• The realistic resolution paths, ranked by the portfolio's revealed pattern: early voluntary dismissal (with or without prejudice), a private license/covenant not to sue that never appears on the docket, or a §101/§112 challenge if TELUS appears and moves to dismiss.
• Watch items: (1) whether any IPR petition on 8,503,973 is filed — Unified's 2025 PATROLL bounty makes this the key variable for a stay motion; (2) the true status and relationship of 2:26-cv-00284; (3) whether TELUS answers or moves to dismiss on §101 in light of Greenlight, which invalidated a Lab Technology sibling patent on §101 just two months ago.

---

8. Verification gaps — please treat as open

I could not verify, and did not fabricate, the following: the complaint's actual asserted patent(s) and accused products in the TELUS case; any answer or counterclaims; any motion; any Markman activity; any discovery event; any trial or post-trial motion; the identity of any TELUS defense counsel; and the relationship between 2:26-cv-00127 and 2:26-cv-00284. My searches were cut off before I could pull the CourtListener/RECAP docket or the PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Case Tracking System (PTAB-CTS) for 8,503,973 directly. Those two lookups — plus the TELUS complaint PDF — are the highest-value next steps to close the gaps above.

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

Good initial lead. Let me verify the docket entry and dig into both attorneys.

Let me dig deeper into the docket structure and the plaintiff's counsel.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Bottom line: Based on the PACER Monitor party/representation listing for this docket, the plaintiff's representation traces the firm pattern Lab Technology has used across its national filing campaign — a Chicago-based patent boutique as lead/out-of-district counsel, paired with a Las Vegas attorney to satisfy D. Nev.'s local-counsel rule. Two names appear. I could not open the underlying PACER docket sheet or the complaint itself (paywalled), so the party-to-counsel mapping below rests on the PACER Monitor entry plus strong corroboration from Lab Technology's other cases. I have flagged where the record is thin.

---

1. Isaac Rabicoff — Lead / out-of-district counsel (plaintiff side)

Relevant experience: Rabicoff is one of the most prolific plaintiff-side patent filers in the country. A 2024-year-end survey of U.S. patent litigation ranked him first among plaintiff's counsel with 597 cases handled (GreyB, "Top Patent Attorneys in US Patent Litigation"). He is the recurring counsel of record for Lab Technology LLC itself, including:

• Lab Technology LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:24-cv-00337 (W.D. Tex.) — appearance filed 6/21/2024 (docket)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01711 (D. Colo.) — appearance and Rule 7.1 disclosure (RECAP PDF)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.) (CourtListener)
• Lab Technology LLC v. LifeStation, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y.) — including a pro hac vice motion (PACER Monitor)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356 (D. Del.) — with Silverman, McDonald & Friedman as local counsel
• Lab Technology LLC v. Lyft, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00333 (W.D. Tex.) — dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Inference/Caveat: PACER Monitor's listing for 2:26-cv-00127 shows Rabicoff under "Rabicoff Law LLC" and his name is not shown as Nevada-barred, so the expectation is that he appears pro hac vice or via a verified petition, with a Las Vegas local counsel designated under D. Nev. Local Rule IA 11-2. That is exactly the sequence the court has run in his other Nevada case, Metronome LLC v. Irwin Naturals (2:25-cv-02471, D. Nev.), where the clerk issued the standard "NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 11-2 … Verified Petition and Designation of Local Counsel" directed at Rabicoff (PACER Monitor). If a parallel notice has issued in the TELUS matter, it was not visible in the sources I could retrieve.

---

2. Glenn H. Truitt — Apparent local counsel (plaintiff side)

Relevant experience note: Truitt's published profile is a corporate/transactional and healthcare practice — M&A, corporate governance, private securities, privacy, and asset protection — not patent litigation (Private Wealth Law profile). Against that backdrop, his role here is most plausibly local counsel of record to satisfy D. Nev.'s local-counsel requirement, rather than merits counsel on the infringement case. I found no prior patent-infringement docket for him in the searchable sources.

Caveats worth flagging: (a) Martindale lists him at a different firm name, "Ideal Business Partners," which may simply be a stale listing (Martindale). (b) Avvo's profile for him shows an entry reading "Lawyer disciplined by state licensing authority in 2016," and one 2025 anonymous client review alleges malpractice (Avvo). I could not verify either item against the State Bar of Nevada's own records, and anonymous Avvo reviews are not reliable; treat both as unconfirmed aggregator content, not as established fact.

---

What I could not confirm

1. The complaint itself and any appearance/pro hac vice filings. The D. Nev. docket sheet and the complaint PDF are behind PACER. I was unable to retrieve a specific CM/ECF entry number for an appearance, a verified petition, or a designation of local counsel in 2:26-cv-00127.
2. Unambiguous attorney-to-party mapping. The PACER Monitor case page lists "Glenn Truitt / Private Wealth Law, Inc." and "Isaac Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC" under a "Represented By" header, but the truncated snapshot does not cleanly show which party each is attached to (PACER Monitor case page). The prior case section likewise treated both as plaintiff-side counsel. The mapping is strongly inferred, not directly read off a filing.
3. Whether other Rabicoff Law attorneys will appear. In related Lab Technology matters the firm has occasionally added second counsel; none is confirmed here.
4. Any TELUS-side counsel. No defense appearance surfaced — consistent with the case being at a very early stage.

Contradiction / discrepancy to flag

There appear to be multiple, parallel Lab Technology v. TELUS docket numbers in D. Nev.: 2:26-cv-00127 (this case, filed ~Jan. 21, 2026), 2:26-cv-00128, and 2:26-cv-00284 (Lab Technology LLC v. Telus Intl US Corp, filed Feb. 5, 2026 — indexed as closed by Open Public Records and Ex Parte) (Open Public Records; Ex Parte). This suggests a short multi-filing burst against TELUS entities; if 00127 was superseded or dismissed, counsel-of-record may have shifted between dockets. That is worth verifying on PACER before relying on the 00127 listing as the operative appearance.

Sources: PACER Monitor case page for 2:26-cv-00127; Rabicoff Law docket entries in Lab Technology v. NVIDIA, Zoom, Lumen, LifeStation, Greenlight, Lyft; D. Nev. LR IA 11-2 notice pattern from Metronome LLC v. Irwin Naturals; Private Wealth Law, Martindale, California State Bar, and Avvo profiles for Glenn H. Truitt; GreyB 2024 top-patent-attorney survey.

I'll search for the docket and counsel information for this case.

Initial results only show plaintiff's counsel. Let me dig into the docket and look for defense-side appearances.

Let me pull the docket-level detail and check for any defense appearances, plus the related Nev. case.

Counsel of Record for Defendant TELUS International (U.S.) Corp. — 2:26-cv-00127 (D. Nev.)

Bottom line: no defense-side attorney appearance is reflected in any publicly available docket data for this case. As of the most recent docket snapshot I could retrieve, the only "Represented By" entries on the 2:26-cv-00127 docket are for the plaintiff. I cannot name defense counsel without fabricating them, so I am reporting the appearance gap and the adjacent evidence instead.

What the docket shows

Source: PACER Monitor docket page for 2:26-cv-00127, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62653114/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_TELUS_International_US_Corp_ (nature of suit 830, cause 35:271; "Last checked" field reflects the filing date, indicating the docket had not been updated since filing). Docket aggregator listing: https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-nevada/court-nvdce/noscat-10

Why there is no defense counsel to report yet

1. The case is at the pleadings stage. Per the docket snapshot, the complaint has been filed and the record still shows only the initiating documents. There is no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no notice of appearance by any attorney for TELUS. Under D. Nev. practice, defense counsel is not obligated to appear until the response deadline, and the response clock runs from service, not filing.

2. The near-identical companion case never generated a defense appearance either. A parallel D. Nev. suit, Lab Technology LLC v. TELUS International (U.S.) Corp., 2:26-cv-00284 (filed Feb. 5, 2026; assigned to Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon, referred to Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler), was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on Mar. 17, 2026, before any defense appearance. Its docket shows: summons served Feb. 11, 2026; plaintiff's motion to extend the answer deadline (granted — answer due Apr. 3, 2026); then ECF No. 11, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Truitt, Glenn), and termination on Mar. 19, 2026. The "Represented By" block again lists only Rabicoff and Truitt. Sources: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62976432/Lab_Technology_LLC_v_TELUS_International_US_Corp_ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/nvd/2:26-cv-00284/lab-technology-llc-v-telus-intl-us-corp

   ⚠️ Flag for the case file: the existence of two overlapping D. Nev. suits against the same defendant in the same ~six-week window (00127 and 00284) is a real anomaly, and the 00284 docket resolves as a plaintiff-side walk-away. If 00127 is the surviving case, the 284 dismissal (and whether it was with or without prejudice) is worth confirming on PACER directly, both for claim-preclusion mechanics and because it explains the absence of any TELUS appearance to date.

What I searched and could not confirm

• PACER Monitor docket pages for both Nevada case numbers (defendant's "Represented By" field is empty/unpopulated).
• Justia dockets index for D. Nev. IP cases (party lists only; no counsel).
• CourtListener and Law360/Reuters-style queries for the case caption or number and for "Lab Technology" + "TELUS" — no defense-side filings, firm press releases, or counsel mentions surfaced.
• Open Public Records summary for 2:26-cv-00284 (indexing only; no counsel data): https://www.open-public-records.com/court/nevada-17565805.htm

Corroborating pattern from the wider Lab Technology campaign (context, not identification)

• TELUS International (U.S.) Corp. — the U.S. arm of the entity now branded TELUS Digital (formerly TELUS International) — is a frequent commercial-defendant in this campaign family. Because Lab Technology's other suits have repeatedly ended in pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissals, defendants in this campaign have often exited without ever entering an appearance. That is precisely what happened in 2:26-cv-00284 and in Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01355 (D. Del.) ("no defense counsel had entered an appearance before dismissal" / dismissed before any substantive response). If TELUS follows that pattern here, a defense-side attorney may never appear in 00127 either.
• Where adversaries have litigated, they were represented by general commercial litigators rather than A-list patent boutiques — e.g., Gregory Erich Stuhlman of Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP for Greenlight Financial Technology in Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del. Jul. 23, 2026) (the '982 patent held §101-ineligible; case dismissed with prejudice). Judge Richard G. Andrews (D. Del.) and Judge J. Caleb Boggs III appear in the Greenlight ruling per IP Law Daily's report. This is not evidence that Chipman Brown or any other firm represents TELUS — I found no such link and am noting it only as a comparable-defense-bar datapoint.

What I'd verify next (and why I can't state it now)

1. Live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00127 — pull the full docket sheet (not the aggregator snapshot) to check for any appearance, corporate disclosure, or extension motion filed after the last cached date. Aggregator pages in this campaign are stale (the 00127 page appears to have been cached on the filing date).
2. Nevada CM/ECF attorney query for the case, and a check of whether TELUS's response deadline has been extended by stipulation (as happened in 00284) — an extension motion often precedes any appearance by name.
3. TELUS Digital's in-house legal department — for a corporate defendant of this size, in-house counsel (TELUS Digital legal, Vancouver/Las Vegas) may be directing strategy even if no in-house attorney appears on the docket. I found no sourced name for a TELUS in-house attorney connected to this matter and will not guess at one.

Accuracy note on the case metadata: the metadata's patent (U.S. 8,503,973) is consistent with everything I found about this campaign — the '973 patent (emergency caller location; app. 13/337,038) travels together with U.S. 9,219,982 ('982, display refresh) in Lab Technology's filings, including the Delaware suits. This supports the earlier section's open question rather than contradicting it.