Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al.

Piney Woods Mobility LLC, identified as a Texas-based Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against telecommunications giants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc. The plaintiff's business model appears to involve asserting patents against major players in the mobile industry, as evidenced by simultaneous filings against T-Mobile, Verizon, Samsung, and Apple concerning similar location-sharing technologies. The core of the dispute centers on AT&T's location-sharing programs and services, specifically accusing the "AT&T Secure Family" app of infringement. AT&T Secure Family is a comprehensive family safety application that provides real-time location tracking, location history, arrival/departure alerts for saved places, content filtering, screen time management, and emergency alerts, enabling parents to monitor and manage their children's device usage and physical location.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, titled "Techniques for communication within closed groups of mobile devices." This patent generally describes a system and methods for enabling communication and the exchange of GPS or other position data among wireless devices within defined groups, facilitating activities such as child location monitoring, work group coordination, and dispatching employees. The litigation is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, known for its judicial experience in patent cases and procedural efficiencies that often favor patent plaintiffs, contributing to its resurgence as a top patent litigation forum for NPEs.

This case is notable as part of a broader patent assertion campaign by Piney Woods Mobility LLC against prominent mobile carriers and device manufacturers, highlighting ongoing litigation risks associated with widely adopted location-based services. The plaintiff's pattern of asserting the patent across multiple defendants suggests a strategy to target core functionalities within the mobile ecosystem. While defendants in such cases often challenge asserted patents through inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), no publicly available records of IPRs specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204 were identified in the conducted searches.

The patent infringement litigation Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00121, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) was filed on February 13, 2026. The lawsuit centers on allegations of infringement related to location-sharing programs and services, specifically naming AT&T Secure Family. As of June 4, 2026, the case is in its early stages of active litigation, and detailed legal developments beyond the initial filing are not yet publicly available through the conducted searches.

Here's a chronological summary of the key developments to date:

• Filing of Complaint (2026-02-13): Piney Woods Mobility LLC filed a complaint against AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit. The complaint alleges infringement of patent 9615204, related to location-sharing services.

As the case is still active and recently filed in February 2026, information regarding answers, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition is not yet available in the public records accessed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search for parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for patent 9615204 did not yield any immediate results. The USPTO's P-TACTS system is the official means for tracking IPR, PGR, CBM, and DER proceedings. As of the current date, no such challenges for patent 9615204 have been identified.

Piney Woods Mobility LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc. (2:26-cv-00121) is part of a broader "foundational" patent assertion campaign targeting major wireless carriers and device manufacturers over "two-way position information sharing technology." The case, filed on February 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, names U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, among others in related lawsuits, which generally describes methods and apparatuses for communication and location sharing within closed groups of mobile devices.

Legal intelligence platform RPX Empower reported in February 2026 that Piney Woods Mobility LLC simultaneously filed separate lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against AT&T (AT&T Mobility), T-Mobile (Deutsche Telekom), Verizon (Verizon Wireless), and Samsung. An additional suit was filed against Apple in the Western District of Texas. These complaints target the provision of location-sharing services within the carriers' mobile networks, as well as various mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and earbuds from companies like Alphabet (Google), Apple, or Samsung. The plaintiff alleges that T-Mobile, in a parallel case, had notice of the patent family for over 10 years, forming the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

While specific details on damages sought or industry reaction directly related to the AT&T case are not yet publicly reported due to its early stage, the extensive nature of Piney Woods Mobility's campaign suggests a significant strategic effort. RPX also noted a separate instance where a motion by Piney Woods Mobility to extend a service deadline in a case against Apple was denied, with the court citing the "prompt service of 17 other complaints by the same counsel" as a factor preventing a finding of good cause, indicating the high volume of litigation activity undertaken by the plaintiff's legal team.

Sources

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

The plaintiff, Piney Woods Mobility LLC, is represented by attorneys from the firm Garteiser Honea, PLLC, which has an office in Tyler, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas.

The counsel of record identified for the plaintiff includes:

• Christopher A. Honea
  • Role: Partner, likely serving as lead counsel.
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience: Christopher Honea is a Partner and co-chairs the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation Group. He has extensive experience in patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright litigation. Notably, he spent three years in the Eastern District of Texas while at McKool Smith, representing i4i, Inc. in a patent infringement action against Microsoft, which resulted in a jury award of over $290 million and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. He is listed as representing Piney Woods Mobility LLC in the docket for this case.

While not explicitly listed as appearing in this specific case's docket, other partners at Garteiser Honea, PLLC, such as Randall Garteiser and M. Scott Fuller, are also experienced patent litigators and likely involved in the firm's intellectual property cases. The firm emphasizes handling complex intellectual property disputes as lead counsel and frequently serving as local counsel in East Texas.

Randall Garteiser

• Role: Partner.
• Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
• Experience: Randall Garteiser is a trial attorney with experience from Quinn Emanuel. He has handled disputes for clients involving various technologies, including smartphones, tablets, and software, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

M. Scott Fuller

• Role: Partner.
• Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
• Experience: M. Scott Fuller is a patent litigator who has represented both Fortune 500 defendants (such as Microsoft and Huawei) and individual inventors as plaintiff's counsel. He previously co-chaired the Texas IP Litigation Practice Group at Locke Lord LLP. His experience spans various technologies and he has argued before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al. 2:26-cv-00121 Eastern District of Texas defendant counsel", "AT&T Inc. patent litigation counsel", "AT&T Services Inc. patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendants (AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc.) in the case Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00121).

I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles (lead, of counsel, local, in-house), their law firms and office locations, and a brief note on their patent litigation experience if available.

I will use web search, prioritizing PACER/docket sheet information if available, then firm websites, and legal news sites.

Given the case was filed in February 2026, it's relatively new, so the initial appearances of counsel should be on the docket.I do not have specific information about the counsel of record representing AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc. in Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00121).

General web searches regarding AT&T's patent litigation strategy and past cases indicate that AT&T works with a network of specialized law firms for patent matters. For example, Susman Godfrey LLP and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC have represented AT&T or parties adverse to AT&T in previous patent infringement suits, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. AT&T also has in-house counsel for intellectual property matters, such as Brian J. Gaffney, who is listed as Counsel - IP Litigation for AT&T Services, Inc..

However, without direct access to the PACER docket for this specific case (2:26-cv-00121), the counsel who have made appearances on behalf of the defendants cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings are typically publicly available through PACER, but my current tools do not allow for direct, real-time PACER access. Therefore, I cannot provide names, roles, firms, office locations, or specific experience notes for the counsel of record in this active litigation.