Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc.

Piney Woods Mobility LLC, identified as a frequent filer and likely a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), has initiated patent infringement litigation against Apple Inc.. Apple Inc. is a well-known operating company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, software, and online services. While the specific accused products in this case against Apple are not explicitly detailed in the immediately available search results, Piney Woods Mobility LLC has filed parallel lawsuits against other major technology and telecommunications companies, alleging infringement related to location-sharing services and "family mode" ecosystems. This suggests that Apple's similar location-sharing or family-tracking services (such as Find My or Family Sharing) are the likely accused infringing technologies. The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204. A search of the USPTO database reveals that U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204 is titled "Apparatus and method for obtaining content on a cellular wireless device based on proximity to other wireless devices," broadly relating to systems and methods for delivering content to mobile devices based on their proximity to other devices or locations.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which has been a highly popular venue for patent litigation, particularly due to the practices of Judge Alan D. Albright. Although the Western District of Texas implemented a new rule in July 2022 to randomly assign judges to patent cases to address concerns about Judge Albright's historical dominance, this specific case was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings after initially being assigned to Judge David Counts. Judge Albright, a former patent litigator, is known for his fast-moving dockets, patent-specific standing orders, and extensive experience, which plaintiffs often perceive as favorable.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. The plaintiff, Piney Woods Mobility LLC, is recognized as an active patent assertion entity, indicative of an ongoing strategy to monetize its patent portfolio through litigation. The choice of the Western District of Texas, and the reassignment to Judge Albright, highlights the continued attractiveness of this venue for patent plaintiffs seeking efficient resolution and a judge well-versed in patent law. Given Apple's prominence in the consumer electronics and services market, the outcome of this case, particularly concerning location-based technologies, could have broader industry implications regarding the use and licensing of such features.

Piney Woods Mobility LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on February 26, 2026. The case, assigned number 7:26-cv-00068, involves U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, titled "Techniques for Communication Within Closed Groups of Mobile Devices," which issued on April 4, 2017. This patent pertains to methods and apparatuses for communication within closed groups, focusing on the user interface and device-side logic for defining groups, seeking agreement, and displaying location information.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2026-02-26): Piney Woods Mobility LLC filed the initial complaint against Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas. This is part of a broader litigation strategy by Piney Woods Mobility LLC, which filed similar patent infringement lawsuits against other major telecommunication companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Samsung Electronics, in the Eastern District of Texas around February 2026. These lawsuits generally allege infringement related to location-sharing programs and services. The patent family asserted by Piney Woods Mobility LLC in these cases, including the '204 patent, relates to two-way position information sharing technology, a foundational concept for "find-my-friends" and family safety applications.

• Declaratory Judgment Action by Apple (2026-06-01): Apple Inc. proactively filed a separate declaratory judgment action against Piney Woods Mobility LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 1, 2026. This case, 5:26-cv-05219, includes U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, along with several other patents (8,712,441; 9,031,581; 9,185,522; 9,253,616; 9,736,618).

As of the current date (2026-06-04), the litigation in the Western District of Texas is active. No information regarding the filing of an answer, counterclaims, specific pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or final disposition has been publicly reported or identified in the provided search results for case 7:26-cv-00068. Similarly, no specific parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for patent 9,615,204 have been identified, though the USPTO has recently implemented new interim processes for IPR and PGR petition consideration, effective March 26, 2025, and a new institution policy effective October 20, 2025, which impacts how such challenges are handled.

News and analysis coverage of Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc. (7:26-cv-00068) highlights the plaintiff's broader patent assertion campaign and key procedural developments, including a failure to serve the initial complaint. RPX Empower reported on February 28, 2026, that Piney Woods Mobility LLC initiated the Western District of Texas case against Apple on February 26, 2026, as part of a larger campaign that saw the plaintiff file separate lawsuits against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas that same month. These lawsuits, including the one against Apple, assert patents described as "foundational" to "two-way position information sharing technology," targeting location-sharing services within carrier networks and various mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and earbuds, from companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung. The specific patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, is described as relating to methods and apparatuses for communication within closed groups of mobile devices, focusing on the user interface and device-side logic for defining groups, seeking agreement, and displaying location information.

A significant development reported by PacerMonitor and detailed in an Ex Parte complaint analysis is that Piney Woods Mobility LLC failed to serve its complaint on Apple within the required 90-day period for the Western District of Texas action. In response to this, Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the Texas case. Concurrently, on June 1, 2026, Apple proactively filed its own declaratory judgment action against Piney Woods Mobility LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (5:26-cv-05219). This action by Apple seeks a judicial declaration that its products, including the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirTag, do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204 and several other patents (8,712,441; 9,031,581; 9,185,522; 9,253,616; 9,736,618). Apple's defense in the declaratory judgment action specifically targets its "Find My" service, contending that its implementation differs from the patented technology, particularly regarding how user groups are established and how location sharing occurs.

The Ex Parte analysis further notes a critical detail: all patents asserted in Apple's declaratory judgment action, including the '204 patent, are now expired. This expiration of the patents suggests that any potential damages would be limited to past infringement up to the expiration date, and no future injunctions could be sought. While specific damages sought or awarded, settlement terms, or broader market impact related directly to this case have not been widely reported beyond the initial filings, the procedural misstep by Piney Woods Mobility and Apple's subsequent pre-emptive action in a different venue underscore the strategic maneuvering common in patent litigation between Non-Practicing Entities and large operating companies.

Sources

• rpxcorp.com
• exparte.com
• exparte.com
• pacermonitor.com

The plaintiff, Piney Woods Mobility LLC, is represented by the following counsel in Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 7:26-cv-00068:

• Randall T. Garteiser

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Randall Garteiser is a founding partner of Garteiser Honea, PLLC, a firm frequently involved in patent litigation. He is listed as representing Piney Woods Mobility LLC in this and other related patent infringement cases, including those against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Samsung, concerning location-sharing technology.

• Christopher A. Honea

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Christopher Honea is a founding partner of Garteiser Honea, PLLC and has appeared on behalf of Piney Woods Mobility LLC in this patent infringement case. He is also listed as counsel in other similar patent infringement lawsuits filed by Piney Woods Mobility LLC.

• M. Scott Fuller

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: M. Scott Fuller is an attorney with Garteiser Honea, PLLC, and is listed as representing Piney Woods Mobility LLC in this litigation.

To identify the counsel of record for Apple Inc. in Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 7:26-cv-00068, a review of public dockets and legal news sources is necessary. As of June 4, 2026, specific appearances for this case are not readily available through general web searches, and direct access to PACER for this newly filed case is not provided in the search results.

However, based on common practices in the Western District of Texas and appearances in other recent Apple patent cases in the same district, certain firms and attorneys are frequently involved. For example, in PEER GLOBAL INC. v. APPLE INC. (7:26-cv-00033), a related case filed in the same district and year, counsel for Apple included:

• Roger S. Denning (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Austin, TX
  • Note: Regularly appears as local counsel for Apple in patent infringement cases in the Western District of Texas.

Additionally, in other Western District of Texas cases, Apple often engages national patent litigation firms who then associate with local counsel. For instance, Joy B. Kete was granted a motion to appear pro hac vice for Apple in PEER GLOBAL INC. v. APPLE INC., indicating her role as out-of-state counsel. Her firm and specific role (lead counsel or other) would typically be detailed in the pro hac vice motion.

Without direct access to the docket for 7:26-cv-00068, a definitive and comprehensive list of all counsel for Apple Inc. in Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc. cannot be provided at this moment. Filings may be sealed, or counsel may have only recently appeared. It is highly probable that similar counsel to those in PEER GLOBAL INC. v. APPLE INC., including local counsel from firms like Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., are representing Apple in this matter.