Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Medline Industries, Inc.

Lone Star SCM Systems, LP, identified as a patent-holding or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Medline Industries, Inc., a large, American healthcare company that manufactures and distributes medical supplies globally. The litigation involved U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182, which generally describes an interrogator and interrogation system, encompassing RFID and data capture technology used for identifying and tracking items, particularly in environments benefiting from asset tracking like surgical procedures. While the specific accused products from Medline are not detailed in the available public records for this case, Medline's extensive operations in medical supply chain and distribution suggest the alleged infringement related to their asset tracking or inventory management systems.

The case was filed in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue was notably popular for patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities, due to Judge Albright's specific procedural rules designed to accelerate patent litigation and his high rate of retaining cases in his court. However, the case was terminated on October 18, 2022, prior to the July 2022 chief judge order that randomized patent case assignments within the Western District of Texas, thereby diluting the certainty of appearing before Judge Albright.

This case is notable as it reflects a common strategy by patent assertion entities like Lone Star SCM Systems to assert their RFID-related patents against various operating companies. While this specific lawsuit against Medline was terminated, the '182 patent, along with other related patents held by Lone Star SCM Systems, was simultaneously challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, specifically by Zebra Technologies. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims of the '182 patent unpatentable, a decision later affirmed by the Federal Circuit on December 12, 2025, effectively extinguishing the patent's enforceability. This IPR outcome, though from a separate proceeding against a different defendant, indicates the eventual invalidation of the patent central to Lone Star SCM Systems' enforcement efforts.

Patent Infringement Case: Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Medline Industries, Inc. (6:21-cv-00842)

Case Caption: Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Medline Industries, Inc.
Case Number: 6:21-cv-00842
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Filed: 2021-08-11
Terminated: 2022-10-18
Plaintiff(s): Lone Star SCM Systems, LP
Defendant(s): Medline Industries, Inc.
Patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182

Legal Developments and Outcome:

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Lone Star SCM Systems, LP against Medline Industries, Inc., was active for just over a year in the Western District of Texas before its termination. Detailed docket entries and specific filings for this case are not publicly accessible through general web searches, making it challenging to provide a granular chronological account of every legal development, such as the exact dates of initial pleadings, specific substantive motions, or discovery milestones. Access to the PACER system would be required for such detailed information.

However, based on the provided metadata, the key legal developments and outcome are as follows:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: The case was initiated on August 11, 2021, when Lone Star SCM Systems, LP filed its complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182 by Medline Industries, Inc. Without direct PACER access, the specific dates for Medline's answer or any potential counterclaims are not available.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: Publicly available information does not detail any significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: There is no public record indicating that the case proceeded to a Markman hearing or that any claim construction order was issued.
• Discovery Milestones: Information regarding specific discovery milestones with strategic significance is not publicly available.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: The case was terminated before reaching trial, so there were no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case was terminated on October 18, 2022. While the specific nature of the termination (e.g., settlement, voluntary dismissal, or stipulated dismissal) is not detailed in public summaries, the relatively short duration of the case often suggests a settlement or early resolution between the parties.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182 found no instituted or filed IPR or PGR challenges. Therefore, no parallel PTAB proceedings affected this district court litigation.

In summary, the litigation between Lone Star SCM Systems, LP and Medline Industries, Inc. in the Western District of Texas concluded approximately 14 months after its filing without reaching the advanced stages of litigation such as claim construction or trial, and without any associated PTAB challenges to the asserted patent. The termination likely resulted from a private agreement or voluntary dismissal.

Unfortunately, a direct search for the counsel of record representing "Lone Star SCM Systems, LP" in the specific case of Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Medline Industries, Inc. (Case number: 6:21-cv-00842) within the publicly available search results did not yield definitive information for this exact plaintiff entity and defendant. Without direct access to the PACER docket for this precise case, it is not possible to confirm the counsel of record for Lone Star SCM Systems, LP.

However, related cases involving "Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd." (a closely named entity, which sometimes can be a variation of the same patent assertion entity) in the Western District of Texas and concerning the same patent (9,646,182) provide insight into legal representation for similar parties.

Attorneys who have represented "Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd." in other patent litigation, particularly in the Western District of Texas, include:

• Steven Nelson Williams

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in related Federal Circuit appeal).
  • Firm: Munsch Hardt Kopf and Harr PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Represented Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. in an appeal before the Federal Circuit concerning inter partes reviews of patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182.

• Randall Miller

  • Role: Counsel (in related Federal Circuit appeal).
  • Firm: Unspecified in available results, but associated with Steven Nelson Williams in the appeal.
  • Note: Also represented Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. in the Federal Circuit appeal for patents including 9,646,182.

• Winston Oliver Huff

  • Role: Counsel (in related Federal Circuit appeal).
  • Firm: Griffith Barbee PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Associated with the representation of Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. in the Federal Circuit appeal involving patent 9,646,182.

It is important to note that while these attorneys represented "Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd." in patent disputes involving the same patent, their specific appearance as counsel for "Lone Star SCM Systems, LP" in the case against Medline Industries, Inc., could not be confirmed with the available public information. The slight difference in the plaintiff's entity name ("LP" versus "Ltd.") may indicate distinct legal representation.

The counsel of record representing Medline Industries, Inc. in Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Medline Industries, Inc. (6:21-cv-00842) cannot be definitively identified through publicly available web searches without direct access to the court's PACER docket. Exhaustive searches for docket entries, legal news, and firm announcements related to this specific patent infringement case and the parties involved have not yielded a clear list of the defendant's attorneys.