Lab Technology LLC v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search across the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig into the patent itself, the assertion campaign, and any PTAB/IPR activity.

Let me investigate the defendant entity naming, patent ownership history, and any PTAB/IPR activity.

Case Overview & Background: Lab Technology LLC v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01711-SBP (D. Colo.)

The parties. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC is a patent-assertion entity (PAE/NPE). Its Rule 7.1 disclosure says it has no parent and no publicly held corporation owns ≥10% of it (Dkt. 3), and Stanford's NPE database categorizes it as an "acquired patents" asserter (npe.law.stanford.edu) — i.e., a shell that buys and licenses rather than makes anything. It is represented throughout its campaign by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), a prolific volume filer (CourtListener docket). The defendant is named in the caption as "Zoom Communications Video, Inc." — a name that does not match the operating company's legal name at filing (Zoom was then Zoom Video Communications, Inc., and only renamed itself Zoom Communications, Inc. in late 2024). The named defendant is the operating videoconferencing/unified-communications company (NASDAQ: ZM), not an NPE; the misnomer is worth flagging, though the public record does not state whether it contributed to the case's swift end.

The patent and accused technology. The sole asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 B1, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes" (App. No. 11/926,390, filed Oct. 29, 2007; priority to Nov. 2, 2004 via App. 10/980,046, which issued as U.S. 7,391,858) (Google Patents; Justia). In one line: it claims routing a call dialed to a user's "voice identity" (a phone number, extension, or VoIP/IM username) to a target device or voicemail according to a stored mapping policy with date/time attributes — i.e., cross-network call forwarding/find-me routing dating to 2004. The same family also produced U.S. 8,811,822 and 9,413,895. The complaint attached the patent plus an infringement claim chart as Exhibits 1–2 (Justia docket). The specific accused Zoom service is not described in any public source I could verify — RPX lists only "1 Accused Product" without naming it (RPX Insight). Given the patent's subject matter, the logical target is Zoom's cloud telephony offering (e.g., Zoom Phone), but that is an inference, not a documented fact.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed June 19, 2024 and docketed June 20, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on the District of Colorado's direct-consent track under D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1 (Dkt. 7, 8). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on June 28 (Dkt. 10), and Judge Prose entered an order dismissing without prejudice on July 1, 2024 (Dkt. 11) — a 13-day lifespan, with no answer, motion, or merits ruling. Venue matters here mostly by its oddity: Zoom is headquartered in San Jose, California, and nothing in the public record identifies a Colorado nexus, so the Colorado filing looks like PAE forum-shopping/case-distribution rather than a venue compelled by the parties or the accused conduct. The dismissal was under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any answer, so it required no court leave and preserves Lab Technology's right to refile.

Why it's notable. The Zoom suit is not an isolated case but one month's filing in a coordinated 2024 assertion wave. In June 2024 alone, Lab Technology filed against AT&T, Anritsu, and Quectel in E.D. Tex. and against Lyft, NVIDIA, and LG Electronics in W.D. Tex., plus Zoom in D. Colo. (Stanford NPE DB); the parallel AT&T case (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00412) was likewise voluntarily dismissed without prejudice about a month later (PatSnap Eureka summary). The pattern — near-immediate Rule 41 dismissals that keep claims alive — recurred against Lumen (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00172), Zendesk (W.D. Wis. 3:25-cv-00303), Mitel and 3CX (S.D. Fla. 2025), and Solera (N.D. Tex. 2026), suggesting a low-cost licensing/shake-down model rather than litigation on the merits. The portfolio has drawn defensive attention from Unified Patents, which on Nov. 27, 2024 filed an ex parte reexamination against Lab Technology's U.S. 8,498,388 (audio-announcement patent, asserted against Amazon and Google) and ran a PATROLL prior-art bounty on U.S. 8,503,973 (emergency-call location patent, asserted against Cisco, Microsoft, Stryker, Samsung, and Verizon) (Unified Patents). I found no IPR, PGR, or reexam specifically targeting the '102 patent, so the '102 remains an unadjudicated assertion risk — reinforcing why the two-line docket that is the Zoom case matters as a data point about this campaign rather than as a substantive ruling.

Caveats on sourcing. Party names, dates, judge, and docket entries are confirmed from PACER-derived dockets (CourtListener/Justia/RPX). The accused Zoom product, the reason for dismissal, and any settlement are not disclosed in public records and should not be asserted as fact. The naming of the defendant as "Zoom Communications Video, Inc." is confirmed from the complaint caption but the reason for the apparent misnomer is unknown. The PatSnap "Eureka" case summaries are secondary/AI-generated and contain at least one error (misidentifying the AT&T case as "Fed. Cir."), so they are used only for campaign-pattern corroboration.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with the docket and case background.

Let me research the patent's PTAB history and the broader assertion campaign.

Let me examine the complaint itself and the PTAB record for this patent family.

Overview

This is a "file-and-dismiss" NPE case — it never progressed past the pleading stage. The entire substantive docket consists of a complaint and a voluntary dismissal, 13 days apart. What follows is the full chronological record, then the strategic context (parallel PTAB activity and the plaintiff's wider campaign) that explains the outcome.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Source: CourtListener docket 68874928; Justia docket; RPX Insight.

Parties and counsel. Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC, a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, NM — a non-practicing patent-assertion entity. Sole identified plaintiff's counsel in this case: Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago (CourtListener parties page). No defense counsel appears of record — consistent with a case that died before an appearance was required.

The patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 B1, "System and method for mapping a voice identity across multiple telephony networks with time attributes," issued 2013‑07‑09, application 11/926,390 filed 2007‑10‑29, inventors Chi Fai Ho and Shin Cheung Simon Chiu. Claim 1 is a system claim to a voice-identity mapping data structure with transitive mapping, where the target voice identities are non-phone-number identities (IM or email account identity) routed by a telephony switch. The same specification family includes U.S. 7,391,858 and U.S. 8,111,822 (same title) and U.S. 8,503,973 ("Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location"). (Google Patents US8111822; IPRDB US8483102B1; patents.justia.com/patent/8111822).

Caution on the defendant name. The caption as filed reads "Zoom Communications Video, Inc." That is an unusual formulation: the publicly traded company was Zoom Video Communications, Inc. at the time of filing (it renamed itself Zoom Communications, Inc. in late 2024, after this suit was dismissed). I could not locate a corporate entity named exactly "Zoom Communications Video, Inc." The caption in the prompt is controlling for the case name, but readers should not assume the named defendant is necessarily the same entity as the well-known Zoom Video Communications, Inc. — the name in the pleadings may be a drafting artifact. Flagging this as unverified.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, no § 1406/§ 1404 venue or transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for a more definite statement, no § 101 motion, no motion for judgment on the pleadings. No answer was ever filed.

One contextual point: the case was filed in the District of Colorado, an atypical forum for this defendant (Zoom's principal place of business is in the Northern District of California). Venue in D. Colo. would have been a live question under TC Heartland / § 1400(b), and plaintiff's decision to dismiss within 13 days — before any defense appearance — may have been informed by anticipated venue motion practice rather than by a settlement alone. That is inference, not a documented docket event; no venue motion was filed.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference on the docket, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) report, no initial disclosures, no protective order, no ESI order, no discovery served or answered. The AO‑120 report (Dkt. 6) is the only docket item of administrative substance.

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no attorney's-fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, no bill of costs, no appeal to the Federal Circuit.

6. Disposition — final

Sources: CourtListener docket; Justia.

Legal significance of the "without prejudice" label. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and effected before Zoom served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) applied as of right — the court's order was ministerial. The key consequences:

• No merits determination on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The ’102 patent's asserted claim 1 remains judicially unconstrued as against Zoom.
• No claim preclusion / res judicata. Lab Technology was free to re-assert the same patent against the same defendant and did not need to; two voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1) would be required before the dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits (Rule 41(a)(1)(B)).
• No fee shifting. No § 285 motion was filed or decided, so Zoom recovered nothing and there is no exceptional-case ruling on the record.
• Total life of the case: 13 days (per RPX). Cause of dismissal is not disclosed in the public record — no stipulation, settlement agreement, or license is on the docket. Confidential resolution and/or a decision to refile in a different forum are the two undisclosed possibilities.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding involving U.S. 8,483,102 was identified. A search of publicly indexed PTAB materials returned no petition, institution decision, or final written decision on the ’102 patent, and none on its same-titled family members (7,391,858; 8,111,822) surfaced either. Because a targeted PTAB docket query (PTAB-API / Docket Navigator equivalent) was not available in this research pass, treat this as "none found in the public record" rather than a certified negative.

Practical effect: there was no IPR-driven stay motion, no statutory-bar clock, and no PTAB estoppel exposure in this case. The absence of an IPR is itself notable — the defendant never had to appear, so it had no reason to petition. Given the patent's 2007 priority date and a claim 1 that reads on transitively mapped IM/email voice identities, validity exposure under §§ 101/102/103 would be the obvious defense in any refiled or renewed action.

8. Strategic context — why 13 days

The outcome here is explained by Lab Technology's portfolio-campaign filing pattern, not by anything specific to Zoom. The same counsel (Rabicoff Law LLC) filed a burst of near-identical § 271 complaints asserting the ’102 patent (sometimes paired with U.S. 8,503,973) across many districts, using boilerplate complaints with attached claim charts:

• Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 6:24-cv-00331 (W.D. Tex.) — filed 2024‑06‑21, closed 2024‑07‑01 (11 days), same dismissal date as the Zoom case. (RPX)
• Lab Technology LLC v. AT&T, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — filed 2024‑06‑04, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2024‑07‑03 (29 days). (PatSnap Eureka analysis)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., 7:25-cv-00172 (W.D. Tex.) — filed 2025‑04‑17, extension of time to answer 2025‑05‑12, notice of voluntary dismissal 2025‑06‑24, order dismissing 2025‑06‑25. (Dkts. 9–13.) (CourtListener docket 69909727)
• Lab Technology LLC v. 3CX USA Corp., 1:25-cv-22704 (S.D. Fla.) — filed 2025‑06‑16, dismissed with prejudice 2025‑08‑20 (65 days), with the order allocating each side's own fees and costs. (PatSnap Eureka)
• Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings, LLC, 4:26-cv-00297 (N.D. Tex.) — filed 2026‑03‑12; appearing defense counsel from Baker Botts (McNabnay, Wyatt, Green); answer and counterclaims by Solera 2026‑04‑16 (Dkts. 10–12); joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 2026‑04‑23 (Dkt. 15); terminated same day; AO‑120 final report 2026‑05‑01. (Justia docket)
• Others in the same campaign include Mitel Networks (S.D. Fla., 2025), Sangoma Technologies (S.D. Fla., 2025 — two suits), 3CX, u-blox America and EXFO America (D. Colo., 2025), Trimble and Alaio/Bitrix (D. Colo., 2025), ETA Transit (D. Colo., 2025), TELUS International (U.S.) Corp. (D. Nev., 2:26-cv-00127, filed 2026), and Lab Technology LLC v. TELUS-adjacent filings. (Justia party search)

Two observations that bear on this case's value as precedent:

1. The Zoom dismissal was part of a coordinated, same-day wave. Microsoft's W.D. Tex. case also closed on 2024‑07‑01. Mass same-day voluntary dismissals across districts are a hallmark of a license/settlement sweep or a portfolio-level restructuring decision rather than case-specific merits developments.
2. The campaign is nearly all early dismissals, and the only "with prejudice" resolution found is the 2025 3CX case. No Lab Technology case in this campaign has produced a claim construction ruling, a validity judgment, or a trial verdict on the ’102 patent. The patent has therefore never been tested in an Article III court, and every resolution to date is silent as to the merits — which means the ’102 patent remains an unresolved assertion risk for VoIP/UC defendants, but with essentially no estoppel or precedent developed to date.

Recurrence note: Given the dismissal was without prejudice, the practical question is not whether this case has any further docket history (it has none — Dkt. 11 is the terminal entry), but whether Lab Technology re-asserted against Zoom. The record here shows a fresh 2026 wave (Solera, TELUS) rather than a refiling against Zoom, consistent with a settle-and-move-on licensing model.

---

Caveats and unsourced items

• No settlement amount, license, or fee payment is disclosed anywhere in the public record for this case. Any confidentiality characterization is inference.
• No IPR/PGR was found on the ’102 patent, but this was not confirmed against a live PTAB docket database; treat as "none located."
• The defendant's exact corporate identity ("Zoom Communications Video, Inc.") is unverified; the name does not match a known entity exactly.
• No defense counsel of record appears, and no answer or counterclaim was ever filed in this case — unlike the 2026 Solera matter, where counterclaims were filed before the joint dismissal.
• The PatSnap Eureka entries cited for AT&T and 3CX are AI-generated secondary summaries; the docket events they describe (filing date, dismissal date, without-prejudice vs. with-prejudice character, fee allocation language) are consistent with PACER-derived records, but I would not rely on their narrative analysis without checking the underlying orders.

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

Let me verify the attorney's background, firm details, and any pro hac vice or local counsel issues.

Let me confirm the D. Colo. pro hac vice / local counsel rule and check for any other appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Lab Technology LLC

Bottom line: exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff in this case — Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). He was the sole filer of record; no local counsel, co-counsel, or in-house counsel appeared, and the docket contains no pro hac vice motion (consistent with D. Colo. practice, which does not permit pro hac vice admission).

The one attorney of record

Relevant patent litigation experience

• Volume patent plaintiff's practice: Rabicoff Law was listed among Lex Machina's top 3 most-active patent litigation firms in 2017; his bio states he has led licensing campaigns against Amazon, Apple, Google, Huawei, LG, Samsung, Microsoft, Sony, and T‑Mobile (rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html).
• PTAB/post-grant defense experience: As lead counsel he has defeated institution of numerous IPRs and CBMs, including denial of institution on all claims in a CBM petition filed by Mastercard, and has opposed an RPX‑filed IPR (firm website); representative PTAB appearances include CBM2014‑00159 (Think Computer/Square), IPR2018‑00225 (Sharpe Innovations/T‑Mobile), IPR2020‑00111, and IPR2018‑00418.
• Appellate: Argued before the Federal Circuit and authored a Federal Circuit amicus brief on representative-claim issues in § 101 analysis; co-presented an IPLAC CLE on patent venue post‑TC Heartland.
• Education: J.D., Loyola University Chicago (Trial Advocacy Certificate); B.S. Physics, University of Kansas.
• Pattern of NPE plaintiff-side filings: Rabicoff is a high-volume filer for assertion entities; he appears as plaintiff's counsel for Lab Technology in numerous other suits (e.g., Lab Technology v. Qualcomm, W.D. Tex. 6:24‑cv‑00335; Lab Technology v. AT&T, E.D. Tex. 2:24‑cv‑00323; Lab Technology v. Lumen, W.D. Tex. 7:25‑cv‑00172; Lab Technology v. LifeStation, S.D.N.Y. 1:25‑cv‑09284), as well as for Cedar Lane Technologies, Patent Armory, Pointwise Ventures, and others. In several non-Texas districts he has had to move for pro hac vice admission, and in at least two C.D. Cal. cases (2020) the court issued notices that he was not admitted and removed him from the docket pending PHV status (see, e.g., Be Labs LLC v. Comtrend Corp., 8:20‑cv‑01472 and Rotablade Systems LLC v. G.B.T Inc., 2:20‑cv‑08493).

Local counsel / pro hac vice — the key gap

• No local counsel appeared. The D. Colo. docket shows a single attorney (Rabicoff) and no second appearance for plaintiff.
• No pro hac vice motion was filed — because D. Colo. does not allow PHV. The District of Colorado requires full admission to the court's bar for all attorneys (state of Colorado licensure is not required), and expressly "does not allow pro hac vice admissions." See D. Colo. General Attorney Information ("Attorneys … must apply for membership to the Bar of the Court. The Court does not allow pro hac vice admissions – full membership is required.") and LAttyR 3. So the absence of a PHV motion is expected, not an anomaly.
• Caveat / not well sourced: The available public docket does not show a D. Colo. bar-admission record one way or the other, and no admission-deficiency notice appears (the case was dismissed 13 days after filing, likely before any such check matured). I therefore cannot confirm from public sources whether Rabicoff had obtained D. Colo. bar membership at the time; his firm bio's admissions list does not include the District of Colorado.

Docket support (plaintiff's counsel filings)

• ECF No. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement against Zoom Communications Video, Inc., U.S. Patent No. 8,483,102 (Ex. 1) with claim charts (Ex. 2), signed/filed by Isaac Rabicoff (entered 6/20/2024).
• ECF No. 2 — Notice of Entry of Appearance of Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Lab Technology LLC (6/20/2024).
• ECF No. 3 — Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, signature block: "Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N Ravenswood Ave Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613."
• ECF Nos. 4–5 — AO‑120 patent report and summons request, filed by Rabicoff.
• ECF No. 10 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Case (6/28/2024), filed by Rabicoff.
• ECF No. 11 — Order Granting Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Magistrate Judge Susan Prose (7/1/2024).

Sources: CourtListener docket 68874928, CourtListener parties page, Justia docket, RPX Insight.

Points I could not verify

1. Whether any additional attorney was engaged but never entered an appearance (e.g., an unappeared supervising partner at Rabicoff Law). Rabicoff Law's PTAB filings frequently list Kenneth A. Matuszewski (USPTO Reg. No. 74,791) as backup counsel, but he did not appear in this case and I found no filing bearing his name here.
2. Defense-side counsel — irrelevant to your question, but for completeness, none appeared; the case was dismissed 13 days after filing and no answer or appearance by Zoom Communications Video, Inc. appears on the docket.
3. No filings in this matter are sealed (it was a publicly docketed complaint-and-dismissal), so there is no sealing issue affecting the counsel identification.

I'll research this short-lived case. Let me start with searches on the docket and party.

The docket appears to contain only plaintiff-side appearances. Let me verify and check for any related cases where defense counsel appeared.

Important finding: the docket shows no defense-side entry of appearance. Let me verify that and check the closely-related follow-on case against the same entity.

Bottom line

No attorney entered an appearance for the defendant in this case. The docket for Lab Technology LLC v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01711 (D. Colo.) contains only plaintiff-side filings. There is no answer, no motion, no entry of appearance, and no sealed filing attributable to Zoom. Any list of "defense counsel of record" for this case would be fabricated — so what follows is (a) the docket evidence showing the absence of defense counsel, and (b) the best available real-world evidence of who defends this named defendant entity, drawn from a follow-on case, clearly flagged as not this case.

1. Docket evidence: no defense counsel of record

The complete docket (entries 1–11) from the Justia and CourtListener dockets (dockets.justia.com; CourtListener) is:

Every substantive filing was made by Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL — counsel for plaintiff (plaintiff's Rule 7.1 statement, Dkt. 3). PACER/RECAP party records list only one attorney in the case — Rabicoff, for Lab Technology (CourtListener parties page).

Why there was no defense counsel: the dismissal came under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a plaintiff's unilateral notice of dismissal filed before the opposing party served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Two additional facts reinforce that the defendant was never in the case: (i) there is no "Summons Returned Executed" entry on the docket, i.e., no record of service on Zoom before the June 28 dismissal, only eight days after the summons issued; and (ii) the case lasted 13 days end-to-end (RPX Insight: filed 6/19/2024, closed 7/1/2024, insight.rpxcorp.com). With no appearance deadline triggered and no answer required, no defense team had a reason — or, under the rules, an opportunity — to appear.

I found no sealed filings, no pro hac vice applications, and no local-counsel designations for the defendant in this docket.

2. Best available evidence of who actually defends this defendant entity

The same named defendant — Zoom Communications Video, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a stated Denver office (7601 Technology Way #3, Denver, CO 80237) — was sued again in the District of Colorado roughly 14 months later by an affiliate plaintiff using the same plaintiff's counsel: ReadyComm LLC v. Zoom Communications Video, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02606 (D. Colo.) (asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011). That case did proceed to appearance, and Zoom's counsel of record there are:

Source for the Ricoh appearances: the court's May 1, 2026 opinion listing "Edward D. Johnson and Clifford A. Maier, Mayer Brown LLP, of Palo Alto, CA; Michael A. Molano, Mayer Brown LLP, of San Francisco, CA … Attorneys for Defendant Zoom Communications, Inc." (opinion text; CourtListener). No Colorado-based local counsel appeared in the ReadyComm matter (the District of Colorado does not require local counsel).

Caveats you should carry forward, because this matters for accuracy:

• These three Mayer Brown attorneys are not counsel of record in 1:24-cv-01711. They appear in a different case (1:25-cv-02606), against the same-named defendant entity, with the same plaintiff's counsel. Using them as "the defendant's counsel" for the 2024 case would be an inference, not a docket fact.
• Whether "Zoom Communications Video, Inc." is an affiliate of the publicly traded Zoom entity is not something I can confirm from the record. The Ricoh/ReadyComm overlap in counsel suggests a shared defense arrangement, but I did not find a corporate disclosure filing from the defendant confirming the relationship, and the ReadyComm case was stayed and terminated on notice of settlement (Dkt. 33; minute order terminating the case 12/1/2025) before any such filing surfaced.
• Whether the dismissal of 1:24-cv-01711 was triggered by pre-suit or early licensing contact (the classic pattern for the Lab Technology / Rabicoff campaigns — Lab Technology filed the same '102 patent against AT&T (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00412), Lumen, 3CX, Mitel, Sangoma and others, all resolving by early voluntary dismissal) is not documented on this docket.

3. What I could not verify

• No defense counsel of record exists for this case — that is the answer to the question as posed.
• No PACER "attorney" listing for the defendant in 1:24-cv-01711 (Justia's party block for the defendant is blank; the only "Represented By" entry is Rabicoff for the plaintiff).
• No evidence the defendant was ever served, retained counsel, or filed anything before the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal.