Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Piney Woods Mobility LLC, a likely Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc., a major American telecommunications conglomerate providing a wide array of wireless, broadband, and other communication and entertainment services to consumers and businesses globally. The plaintiff appears to be an NPE, given the lack of readily available information on its operating business and its pattern of asserting patents against large technology companies in patent-friendly venues. The core of the dispute revolves around Verizon's location-sharing programs and services, specifically accusing products such as "Verizon Family" of infringing the asserted patent.

The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, titled "Techniques for Communication Within Closed Groups of Mobile Devices." This patent broadly covers methods and apparatuses designed for communication within defined groups of mobile devices, with claims detailing processes for defining user groups, obtaining agreement from other users for inclusion, and displaying location information on a map through a user interface and device-side logic. This litigation is part of a broader campaign by Piney Woods Mobility LLC, which has concurrently filed similar patent infringement lawsuits against other major telecommunications providers like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Samsung, all targeting their respective family location-sharing services.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under the purview of Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, particularly favored by patent plaintiffs and NPEs, owing to its historically high volume of patent case filings, active juries, and established reputation for setting credible trial timelines that can drive settlement discussions. The multi-defendant nature of Piney Woods Mobility's litigation campaign, targeting key location-sharing features offered by major wireless carriers, makes this case notable as it highlights ongoing patent assertion trends against widely adopted consumer services within the telecommunications industry.

The following is a summary of the key legal developments and current posture of Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00124, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Piney Woods Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 13, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that Verizon's location-sharing programs and services, such as Verizon Family, infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, titled "Techniques for Communication Within Closed Groups of Mobile Devices." This patent is part of a family of patents related to two-way position information sharing technology. Piney Woods Mobility also filed similar lawsuits against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Samsung Electronics around the same time. The complaint asserts at least independent claims 7 and 21, and dependent claims 12 and 22 of the '204 patent.

As of the current date (June 4, 2026), the initial answer and any counterclaims by Verizon Communications, Inc. are likely pending or have recently been filed. For a related case filed by Piney Woods Mobility LLC against AT&T Inc. et al. (2:2026cv00121) on the same day, an unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint was granted, with a new answer date set for May 4, 2026. This suggests a similar timeline might be expected for the Verizon case.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Given the relatively recent filing date (February 13, 2026), extensive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR are unlikely to have reached a conclusive stage or public reporting. In patent cases, motions to transfer venue are common, especially in the Eastern District of Texas. Courts generally have discretion in deciding intra-district transfer motions and may not stay proceedings pending such motions until closer to trial.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

It is highly improbable that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage given its early posture. Claim construction typically occurs later in the litigation process after initial discovery.

Discovery Milestones

No specific strategic discovery milestones have been publicly reported for this nascent case. General discovery practices in the Eastern District of Texas often involve initial disclosures and a discovery order outlining the process.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is in its very early stages, and there have been no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

As of June 4, 2026, the case remains active litigation. There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, or judgment in this specific case. Verizon has recently seen voluntary dismissals without prejudice in other patent infringement suits, such as Voip-Pal.com v. Verizon in October 2024, and a settlement with Fractus in March 2026. However, these are separate cases and do not directly reflect on the outcome of Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

As of the current date, no parallel PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204 asserted against Verizon have been publicly reported. IPRs are a common defense strategy in patent litigation, often filed by defendants to challenge patent validity at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Parties can search the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for such proceedings.

I'll search for press coverage from several angles.

Press coverage of this case is thin. After searching the case caption ("Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc."), the plaintiff's name, the asserted patent numbers ('204, plus the related '441 and '618), and the wider campaign against AT&T, T-Mobile, Samsung and Apple, I found no Reuters, Bloomberg News, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF or JD Supra article dedicated to the Verizon action. Major-outlet coverage of this docket does not appear to exist as of today. What follows is the trade, library-index and industry-newsletter coverage I could actually locate.

The most substantive item is a Bloomberg Law IP Law News piece by Ufonobong Umanah, "AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Hit by Location Sharing Patent Suits (1)," published 2026-02-17 at pp. 8–9 of that issue, according to the article's record in the NSTL national science and technology library index. That index abstracts the reporting as follows: Verizon Communications Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. and AT&T Inc. "were sued separately for infringing patents owned by Texas-based Piney Woods Mobility LLC that facilitate location sharing programs." I could not retrieve the full Bloomberg Law text (paywalled and not surfaced in open search), so I cannot report what additional detail—damages figures, claim counts, or analyst commentary—the article contains. Notably, Bloomberg Law framed the story as a multi-defendant campaign, not as a Verizon-specific dispute, which matches the docket: the four complaints (2:26-cv-00121 through -00124) were all filed on 2026-02-13 and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Two other outlets have mentioned the campaign in passing, both treating Piney Woods as a data point in NPE-filing statistics rather than as a story. The Retail Patent Litigation blog and the Illinois Lawyer Now "February 2026 Retail Patent Litigation Report" both list "Piney Woods Mobility" among the "frequent filers" that kept NPEs "active in February, with several cases targeting major retailers and their supply chains," alongside VDPP, AML IP, Andra Group, Portus Singapore, DataCloud Technologies and Calibrate Networks. Neither publication discusses the Verizon suit's merits or the '204 patent. Separately, a Taiwan-based industry newsletter, IPIC's 產業聯盟季刊 2026Q1, presents the campaign in a table captioned "Piney Woods Mobility vs AT&T, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon," reporting that the NPE was formed in Texas on 2025-11-21, acquired eight mobile-communications patents from X One, Inc. on 2025-11-24, and then sued the carriers and Samsung in February 2026. The newsletter's editorial take—which is analysis, not court record—is that the case illustrates how fast an operating company's divested assets can become "attack ammunition," because the entity went from formation to patent acquisition in three days and from acquisition to litigation in under six months.

Reporting has also gone beyond the Verizon docket in a direction the case summary should note: press and docket-tracking coverage of Apple's defensive response. Docket records show Apple filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Piney Woods Mobility in the Northern District of California (Apple, Inc. v. Piney Woods Mobility LLC, 3:26-cv-05219), attaching as exhibits six patents including U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204, plus Piney Woods' certificate of formation and the X One assignment and a 2026-03-18 "corrective assignment" (PACER Monitor). Piney Woods had separately sued Apple in W.D. Tex. (7:26-cv-00068) on 2026-02-26. This is docket and complaint-allegation material, not press characterization, but it is the most-cited public development flowing from the campaign.

Two contradictions to flag against the case metadata. First, the metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 9,615,204 for this case, but docket-aggregator records for 2:26-cv-00124 list the patents in suit as '441, '204 and '618 (Ex Parte case page; party page), and the earlier generated sections of this summary themselves disagree on asserted claims (claim 1 and dependents per one complaint analysis, versus claims 7, 21, 12 and 22 per another). Second, the metadata names only Verizon Communications, Inc., while the docket lists the defendants as "Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless" (Justia docket search). Both discrepancies should be resolved against the actual complaint and docket rather than treated as settled.

Sources

• NSTL国家科技图书文献中心 - 外文文献 中文文献
• IP community, Prior Art Search, Patent Search, and Patent Litigation
• Complaint analysis | 2:26-cv-00124 | Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc | Ex Parte
• </...

  項目	內容說明
  案件名稱	Piney Woods Mobility vs AT&T, Samsung, T-Mobile, Verizon

• Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc.
• Intellectual Property Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• 13/02,B60L 5/04
• Complaint analysis | 5:26-cv-05219 | Apple Inc v. Piney Woods Mobility LLC | Ex Parte
• Complaint analysis | 2:26-cv-00121 | Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc | Ex Parte
• 2:26-cv-00121 | Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. AT&T Inc | Ex Parte
• Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
• Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2:26-cv-00123), Texas Eastern District Court

Counsel Identified for Piney Woods Mobility LLC in Patent Infringement Case Against Verizon

Piney Woods Mobility LLC is represented by attorneys from the firm Garteiser Honea, PLLC in its patent infringement lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2:26-cv-00124). While specific docket entries for this exact case are not publicly accessible through the provided search results to definitively list appearances, information from closely related cases filed by Piney Woods Mobility LLC against other defendants, such as T-Mobile and Apple, by the same plaintiff, in the same timeframe and for similar patent infringement claims, consistently names Garteiser Honea, PLLC as plaintiff's counsel.

Based on these related filings, the following attorneys from Garteiser Honea, PLLC are inferred to be representing Piney Woods Mobility LLC:

• Randall T. Garteiser

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, based in Tyler, Texas, with additional offices.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Garteiser is a named partner at Garteiser Honea, PLLC, a firm frequently involved in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. He has extensive experience representing patent owners in infringement disputes.

• Christopher A. Honea

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, based in Tyler, Texas, with additional offices.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Honea is a named partner at Garteiser Honea, PLLC and regularly appears in patent infringement cases in Texas federal courts. He was explicitly listed as filing documents for Piney Woods Mobility LLC in a related case.

• M. Scott Fuller

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, based in Tyler, Texas, with additional offices.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fuller is an attorney with Garteiser Honea, PLLC, and has been identified as counsel for Piney Woods Mobility LLC in other patent infringement actions.

It is common practice for firms specializing in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas to have attorneys admitted to practice in that court and to handle numerous cases concurrently for the same patent assertion entities. The Eastern District of Texas does not have a specific local counsel requirement beyond attorney admission and pro hac vice admission for out-of-state attorneys.

Verizon Communications, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigation counsel, including national and local firms. Based on recent patent infringement cases involving Verizon in the Eastern District of Texas, the following firms and attorneys are likely representing Verizon in Piney Woods Mobility LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.:

National Counsel (Lead Counsel)

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

  • Attorneys:
    • Josh Krevitt (Lead Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY (and other offices).
      • Note: Known for extensive patent litigation, including representing major technology and telecommunications companies. He was lead counsel for Verizon in the recent Headwater v. Verizon case in the Eastern District of Texas.
    • Michelle Zhu (Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Allen Kathir (Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Andrew William Robb (Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Katherine Dominguez (Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Brian Ashley Rosenthal (Counsel)
      • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.

• Hogan Lovells

  • Attorneys:
    • Celine Jimenez Crowson (Lead Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells, Houston, TX.
      • Note: Has represented Verizon in significant patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Jiaxing (Kyle) Xu (Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Yi (Sally) Zhang (Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Gurtej Singh (Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Jaysen S. Chung (Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.
    • Joseph J. Raffetto (Counsel)
      • Firm: Hogan Lovells.
      • Note: Appeared for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.

• Duane Morris LLP

  • Attorneys:
    • Christopher Joseph Tyson (Lead Counsel)
      • Firm: Duane Morris LLP.
      • Note: Represented Verizon in the recently settled Fractus v. Verizon case in the Eastern District of Texas.
    • Holly Elin Engelmann (Counsel)
      • Firm: Duane Morris LLP.
      • Note: Represented Verizon in Fractus v. Verizon.
    • Jayla Grant (Counsel)
      • Firm: Duane Morris LLP.
      • Note: Represented Verizon in Fractus v. Verizon.
    • John DiBaise (Counsel)
      • Firm: Duane Morris LLP.
      • Note: Represented Verizon in Fractus v. Verizon.
    • Kevin Paul Anderson (Counsel)
      • Firm: Duane Morris LLP.
      • Note: Represented Verizon in Fractus v. Verizon.

Local Counsel

• The Dacus Firm, P.C.

  • Attorney:
    • Deron R. Dacus (Local Counsel)
      • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX.
      • Note: Frequently serves as local counsel for defendants, including Verizon, in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, appearing in both Fractus v. Verizon and Headwater v. Verizon.

• Gish PLLC

  • Attorney:
    • Ryan Iwahashi (Local Counsel)
      • Firm: Gish PLLC.
      • Note: Appeared as local counsel for Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon.

While the Eastern District of Texas does not have a strict local counsel requirement, it is common practice for out-of-state firms to associate with local counsel familiar with the court's specific procedures and patent rules. The attorneys listed above have recently appeared on behalf of Verizon in other patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas. As direct PACER filings are not publicly available through the search, a definitive list for this specific case could not be found, but these represent the likely counsel given Verizon's consistent litigation strategy in the district.