Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources before drafting.

Let me dig into Proxense's corporate background, the patents, and the parallel IPR activity.

Let me verify the patent titles, the IPR outcomes, and the current stay status.

Case Overview — Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a Delaware entity headquartered in Bend, Oregon (Compl. ¶ 2), founded in 2001 by inventor/CEO John J. Giobbi, who is the named inventor on many of its patents. Its own filings describe it as a former operating company that built mobile-payment and proximity-authentication products from roughly 2004–2012 with 30-plus engineers and "millions" invested in R&D, and it holds a portfolio of 65-plus patents covering biometric authentication, secure mobile data storage, and proximity detection (Compl. ¶¶ 33–34; Proxense press materials quoted in its Samsung filing). RPX describes it as "inventor-controlled," and ip fray now characterizes it as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company," so it is best understood as a hybrid operating-company-turned-assertion entity rather than a university or a purely litigation-vehicle PAE. Proxense is represented by Hecht Partners LLP (David L. Hecht, Brian D. Melton) plus local counsel. Apple Inc. is the well-known California consumer-electronics and services company; Proxense's complaint pleads Apple's Austin, Texas facilities (including 12545 Riata Vista Circle and 3121 Palm Way) and roughly 7,000 Austin employees specifically to ground jurisdiction and venue (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5–6). Apple is represented by DLA Piper (Sean C. Cunningham, Erin P. Gibson, Martin M. Ellison, Nandan R. Padmanabhan, Jessica Hannah, Peter Maggiore, Robert Williams, Benjamin Yaghoubian) with WDTX-local DLA Piper counsel John Michael Guaragna and Ahimsa Hodari (Justia docket).

The accused technology and the patents. Per Proxense's infringement contentions, the accused instrumentalities are (1) "Apple's Universal Passwordless Architecture" — the Apple OS, Safari browser, and Apple Security Platform — and (2) Apple Pay/Apple Wallet and all Apple devices preloaded with them, with the claim charts mapping the asserted limitations onto the Secure Enclave (biometric template storage and matching), the Secure Element (payment/device tokens), EMV tokenization, and the token service provider/payment network as the "third-party trusted authority." The complaint's exhibits also target cross-device passkey flows — scanning a QR code on a computer with an iPhone to sign in, involving local key agreement and encrypted CTAP/WebAuthn operations (Compl. ¶¶ 90, 94; Ex. 20) — so the case sits squarely on Apple Pay and passkeys. The suit originally asserted six patents: 8,352,730 and 8,886,954 (the biometric-PDK authentication lineage — persistently storing biometric data and device-ID/secret-decryption values in a "tamper proof format," comparing captured biometric scan data, and wirelessly sending codes to a third-party agent, which returns an "access message"); 9,298,905 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication," issued Mar. 29, 2016, from App. No. 14/521,982); 10,698,989 (same family, integrated-device user-authentication claims); 8,646,042 ("Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-Decoder Circuit and Methods of Use") and 9,049,188; and, by substitution on Sept. 26, 2024, 9,679,289, which Proxense itself states "is in the same patent family as the '042 Patent." The asserted claims, per the contentions in the record, were '730 claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8; '954 claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7; '905 claim 1; '042 claims 1 and 6; '188 claims 1, 3, 4, 7; and '989 claim 1 (final contentions were served Mar. 4, 2025 and I have not verified the final claim set).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed March 18, 2024 and directly assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright as related to Proxense's earlier Waco cases (Dkt. 4), the case is part of a serial campaign against Google (6:23-cv-00320), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319), Intel (6:24-cv-00283), LG (transferred to Albright June 4, 2024), and later Hyundai/Kia/Genesis and Cisco — with Samsung (6:21-cv-00210) settled by dismissal with prejudice before trial, Google settling around Jan. 24, 2025, and Intel settling around Mar. 24, 2026 (RPX; ip fray). Venue is the story: the Waco Division is the highest-volume patent venue in the country under Judge Albright, and Apple's Austin footprint (and Albright's skepticism of Apple's Cupertino witnesses) reportedly defeated Apple's transfer motion. The case is also procedurally unusual: Proxense argued this is the fourth time Judge Albright would construe largely the same terms, invoking the Federal Circuit's uniformity principle and the prior Samsung, Google, and Microsoft claim-construction orders (Dkt. 50, Proxense's Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Nov. 27, 2024). The IPR linkage is heavy — Microsoft, Google, and Apple all petitioned (e.g., IPR2024-00405/-00407/-00573/-00775/-00846 Microsoft; IPR2024-00782 and -01399 on the '042, where the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable on Nov. 12, 2025; IPR2024-01485 on all 29 claims of the '954; IPR2025-00074 on the '289; and IPR2025-00562, filed by Apple on Feb. 7, 2025, instituted). Apple moved to stay the district case pending the IPRs. Reporting in ip fray's September 2026 context note states that the Apple and Microsoft litigations "remain stayed" while Proxense appeals two '954 final written decisions to the Federal Circuit on Administrative Procedure Act grounds, arguing the PTAB improperly stayed a favorable parallel ex parte reexamination (90/015,052 on the '730; 90/015,054 on the '989) and quashed the examiner's withdrawal of rejections — a dispute that could produce appellate law on PTAB/CRU conflicts, and that materially pressures Apple to settle as Samsung, Google, and Intel have.

Sourcing caveats. Verified from the complaint, Proxense's claim-construction and infringement filings, PTAB papers, RPX, ip fray, and the Justia/docket listings: party identities and addresses, counsel, accused products, asserted claims, the filing/assignment facts, IPR numbers and the Nov. 12, 2025 '042 final written decision, and the reported settlements. Not fully verified: the exact titles of the '730 and '989 patents (I am inferring their family lineage from claim language rather than a title I confirmed); the final docket status of Apple's stay motion — one PTAB exhibit's reproduced docket listing appears to show Apple's opposed motion to stay as Dkt. 100 and a denial order as Dkt. 104, but I could not confirm those entry numbers or the current stay posture on PACER, and the metadata's Jan. 19, 2026 trial setting may well have been vacated; and whether Albright's transfer denial in the RPX reporting is the Apple case specifically rather than the parallel Google case.

I'll research this case across dockets, court opinions, PTAB proceedings, and legal press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into specific docket events, the transfer ruling, and PTAB outcomes.

I hit the search-step limit before I could fully verify every docket entry, so I've flagged confidence levels and marked items that need PACER confirmation. Here is the fullest chronology I can support from the available record.

---

0. Pre-suit backdrop (relevant to willfulness/damages)

• 2016-07-25 — Proxense's then-counsel sent Tim Cook a letter (attached to the complaint as Ex. 39 / Dkt. 1-39) offering to sell Proxense's entire patent portfolio and expressly calling out US 9,298,905 and US 9,049,188 as "highly relevant to your Apple Watch, Apple Pay and Touch ID products." The letter was framed as §287(a) notice as to the whole portfolio. This is the damages/willfulness predicate Apple will have to deal with.
• Proxense is a Delaware LLC headquartered in Bend, Oregon, founded ~2001–2005; named inventor on the family is John J. Giobbi. The patents cover biometric authentication using a Personal Digital Key (PDK), proximity, tamper-proof storage, and third-party "trusted authority" authentication.
• Related co-pending campaigns in the same court (same patents, same judge): Proxense v. Samsung, 6:21-cv-00210-ADA; Proxense v. Google, 6:23-cv-00320-ADA; Proxense v. Microsoft, 6:23-cv-00319-ADA; Proxense v. LG, WA-24-cv-302-KC (transferred to Judge Albright 2024-06-04 as a related case). Proxense's own claim-construction briefing calls the Apple case "the fourth time that this Court will construe claim terms for the Patents-at-Issue."

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2024)

Source: Docket sheet via Docket Alarm · Justia · RPX

2. Case narrowing — the '188 → '289 substitution (2024-09-26)

• Dkt. 38 (2024-09-26): The parties jointly stated that Proxense would dismiss with prejudice all allegations that Apple infringes US 9,049,188 and substitute US 9,679,289. (The '289 was already in the complaint; the operative effect was dropping the '188 patent — the very patent named in the 2016 portfolio letter — from the case.) After this, the case proceeded on the remaining asserted set. (This is the event already captured in the prior summary; noted here for chronology.)

3. Venue fight — motion to transfer to N.D. Cal. (denied 2025-02-07)

• Apple moved to transfer to the Northern District of California. Judge Albright denied the motion, holding the case "would not be clearly more convenient to try in the Northern District of California" (Law360, 2025-02-07).
• The opinion is notable for its treatment of the Fifth Amendment §1404(a) factors: Albright discounted inconvenience to Apple's Cupertino witnesses because Apple has offices in the Austin area (where employees "can conduct their work"), rejected Apple's reliance on In re Samsung (2023) as "stretch[ing]" that ruling, criticized Apple for "stacking the scale with as many potentially frivolous witnesses as is possible to venue shop," and found several factors neutral because electronic proof is equally accessible in either forum.
• Sources: Law360 case page · RPX analysis of the transfer denial

4. Dispositive / pre-trial motions of substance

• Apple's combined Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. Apple's reply is docketed as Dkt. 67 ("Apple's Reply in Support of Its Motions to Dismiss and Stay Pending Inter Partes Review"). Indexed docket data also reflects an "Order to Stay Pending PTAB" issued by Judge Albright in connection with 6:24-cv-00143. ⚠️ Confidence: moderate. I could not retrieve the underlying motion or a clean text of the stay order; the Dkt. 67 reply text appears in PTAB-exhibit OCR. The timing (early 2025, after Apple's IPR filings and after the transfer denial) is consistent.
• The motion to dismiss most plausibly targeted patents whose claims had been cancelled by PTAB adverse judgment (the '730 patent, claims cancelled 2025-04-28 — see §7), which would be a Rule 12(b)(1) subject-matter-jurisdiction attack. This is exactly the theory Apple successfully pressed in the parallel Microsoft case (Microsoft v. Proxense, W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00319, Dkt. 95).
• No summary-judgment ruling surfaced in my searches.

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2024-10-17 / 2024-11-05 — Proxense's Proposed Constructions and Apple's Disclosure of Preliminary Claim Constructions (Apple's proposed terms were also filed as exhibits in the Microsoft and Google IPRs).
• 2024-11-27 — Dkt. 50, Proxense's Responsive Claim Construction Brief. Proxense argued the court should simply adopt its prior constructions from Samsung/Google/Microsoft:
  • "tamper proof format" → plain and ordinary meaning (Apple's narrower construction already rejected in Proxense v. Samsung);
  • "access message" → Proxense's prior construction ("a signal or notification enabling…"), which the court had adopted three times;
  • "verification unit" → Apple's §112 ¶6 indefiniteness theory should be rejected because the spec discloses a definite algorithm;
  • "hybrid device," "personal digital key (PDK)," "receiver-decoder circuit (RDC)" → adopt prior agreed constructions ('042 and '188 family).
  • Proxense noted Apple did not dispute any construction for the '042 and '289 patents.
• 2024-12-30 — Joint Claim Construction Statement filed.
• 2025-04-14 — Markman hearing held.
• 2025-05-27 — Claim Construction Order issued (≈43 days post-hearing). ⚠️ Confidence: moderate. The hearing/order dates come from indexed docket metadata; I was unable to retrieve the substance of the order (which terms, whose construction prevailed) before hitting the search limit. Given the court's three prior constructions in Samsung/Google/Microsoft, the strong expectation is that it largely adopted Proxense's prior constructions for "tamper proof format" and "access message" — but treat that as inference, not confirmed.

6. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2025-03-04 — Proxense served Final Infringement Contentions (cited as Ex. 1052 in IPR2025-00562).
• The Microsoft/Google IPR record shows Proxense's Preliminary Infringement Contentions and claim-construction papers being mined as IPR exhibits — i.e., Apple used Proxense's district-court positions against it at the Board (a common but important strategic dynamic here).
• ⚠️ The PRX/RPX count shows ~21 accused products across the remaining patents (Secure Enclave / Secure Element / Apple Pay / EMV tokenization theories). I could not verify fact-discovery cutoff, expert-report deadlines, or the amended scheduling order's operative dates.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings (the dominant driver of the case)

Apple-filed or Apple-joined IPRs against the asserted patents

Ex parte reexaminations (Central Reexamination Unit): 90/015,052 ('730), 90/015,053 ('905), 90/015,054 ('989) — the '052 reexam was filed 2022-06-08. The PTAB stayed the '052 reexam on 2025-03-27 pending IPR2024-00232, and faulted Proxense for failing to disclose the reexam and its claim amendments under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2).

Key procedural conflict: Proxense's appeal briefing argues the CRU twice rejected the same prior art grounds the PTAB later credited — the CRU withdrew the Ludtke rejection (OA mailed 2025-05-20) and declined to adopt the PTAB's institution rationale (OA mailed 2025-07-29), only for the PTAB to (a) sua sponte stay the reexam, and (b) dismiss the CRU's contrary actions as "moot" in the FWD (IPR2024-00233, Paper 35 at 44).

8. Effect of the PTAB proceedings on the litigation

This is the single most consequential development arc:

1. The '730 patent is effectively gone. Proxense conceded unpatentability (2025-04-15) and the PTAB cancelled all claims 1-17 (2025-04-28). Apple's position — accepted by Judge Albright in the parallel Microsoft case — is that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a patent with no live claims, so the '730 should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1).
2. The '954 patent's asserted claims were held unpatentable (FWD 2025-06-17), which likewise removes Proxense's ability to obtain a damages award on that patent absent reversal on appeal.
3. Net effect: of the seven originally asserted patents, the '188 was dismissed with prejudice by Proxense itself, the '730 and '954 claims have been cancelled/invalidated, and the live patents-in-suit narrow to the '042, '289, '905 and '989 families (subject to the outcomes of the still-pending Apple IPRs). That materially changes the trial calculus and damages base — the '905 and '289 are the patents Proxense's 2016 letter told Apple covered Apple Pay/Touch ID/Apple Watch, so the fight has consolidated around those.

9. Trial posture, judgment, appeal, and present posture

• Trial was set for 2026-01-19 under the amended scheduling order (consistent with the prior summary). Given the intervening PTAB cancellations and adverse judgments — and the indexed indication of a stay pending PTAB in this docket — I would treat that January 2026 trial setting as at high risk of having been vacated or continued; I could not confirm its current status.
• Federal Circuit appeal: Proxense's appellate opening brief dated 2026-04-03 ("Proxense v. Apple / Microsoft") challenges the PTAB's FWDs (IPR2024-00233 and IPR2024-00846) on the '954 patent, arguing In re Vivint / In re Vcor error and that the Board improperly disregarded the CRU's contrary reexamination determinations. ⚠️ Confidence: moderate — sourced from a single scraped document title/partial text on IPFray; the appeal number and Federal Circuit docket were not retrieved. The caption and content strongly indicate Proxense appealed the '954 FWDs.
• No verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee ruling, and no final judgment surfaced for the district court case itself. If a stay is in place pending the IPRs and the appeal, the correct characterization of the present posture is: pending, substantially stayed/narrowed, with the dispositive action now happening at the PTAB and Federal Circuit rather than in Waco.

10. Bottom line for a litigation analyst

Reliability notes: Dates and docket numbers in §§1–2, 7, and 9 are corroborated across Docket Alarm docket-sheet exhibits, Justia, Law360, RPX, and PTAB filings. Items marked ⚠️ (the stay order, the substance of the Markman order, the answer/counterclaim counts, current trial-date status, and the Federal Circuit appeal details) are not fully verified — they should be confirmed against PACER docket 6:24-cv-00143-ADA and the Federal Circuit docket before being relied on.

I'll search for press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Good foundation. Let me dig for more specific press coverage and dates.

I hit the search-step ceiling, so this section rests on the articles I actually retrieved. I found no mainstream or general-interest coverage (nothing in Reuters, Bloomberg News, Ars Technica, The Verge, or EFF), and no coverage of a verdict, judgment, or settlement in this case — because none occurred. What exists is legal-trade and IP-specialist reporting, plus one industry-vertical outlet.

---

The core press record is two Law360 items and a Law360 case page. Law360 reported on 2025-02-07 that "a Texas federal judge has denied Apple's request to relocate Oregon startup Proxense LLC's patent suit against it, saying the case 'would not be clearly more convenient to try in the Northern District of California'" — quoting Judge Albright's §1404(a) ruling and describing Proxense as an "Oregon startup," a framing that mirrors Proxense's own self-description as a Bend, Oregon company (and that sits in some tension with the NPE characterization other outlets use). The same Law360 page records a 2025-06-18 story headlined "Apple Gets PTAB To Ax All Claims Of Biometric Patent," summarized as: "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has found that Apple proved that claims across a Proxense patent on biometric verification technology are invalid, holding that they were obvious" — i.e., the IPR2024-00233 final written decision on the '954 patent. A Law360 Texas news index corroborates the same June 18, 2025 headline. Notably, neither Law360 item reports a damages figure, a settlement amount, or any market-impact number for the Apple case — and my searches surfaced no such figure anywhere.

The most substantive analysis comes from ip fray, which has covered Proxense's campaign closely and has gone well beyond the docket. In a piece by Mehnaz Khatoon, ip fray reported that Proxense filed its Federal Circuit opening brief arguing the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act "by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination (EPR) that was about to affirm patentability and then quashing the positive determination of the examiner," in appeals from two IPR final written decisions on U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954. ip fray characterized Proxense as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company," reported that "litigation against Apple … and Microsoft remains stayed," and stated that Proxense "previously settled its disputes with Samsung and later with Google (January 24, 2025 … ) and more recently with Intel (March 24, 2026 … )." Its analytical take — explicitly labeled as such — is that a Proxense appellate win "would greatly bolster the case that Proxense has against Apple and Microsoft in stayed litigation and may put more pressure on the two companies to settle, as Samsung, Google and Intel have already done," while cautioning that "the APA-based part of the appeal faces a high standard of review." That "pressure to settle / market-impact" framing is ip fray's commentary, not something drawn from a court filing, and it is the clearest example of reporting that outruns the record. ⚠️ Note this conflicts with the case metadata's stated posture: the metadata lists the case as "pending" with trial set for 2026-01-19, whereas ip fray reports the Apple case as stayed as of its 2026 appellate coverage.

Bloomberg Law's PTAB docket column is the most recent item I found, a "Case: Patents/Obviousness (P.T.A.B.)" entry dated Sept. 21, 2026, reporting that "the Patent Trial and Appeal Board said that challenged claims of Proxense LLC's patent that relates to a hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit for biometric authentication and wireless communication are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in an inter partes review by Apple Inc." (Bloomberg Law). That corresponds to the '042 patent family — the hybrid-device/PDK/RDC patents. I should flag a possible discrepancy here: the previously generated sections state that the Board found all challenged '042 claims unpatentable on 2025-11-12 in the Microsoft/Google IPR2024-00782, but the Bloomberg item is dated September 2026 and attributes the petition to Apple — consistent with a separate, later Apple-filed decision (Apple's IPR2024-01398), not necessarily the same ruling. I could not confirm which proceeding the Bloomberg entry describes, so treat the linkage as unverified.

Two caveats on the remaining coverage. (1) Biometric Update's Proxense tag page carries the headlines "Biometric patent lawsuit against Google stays in Texas" and "Having slayed Samsung in patent dispute, biometrics firm targets Google, Microsoft" — outlet coverage of Proxense's other campaigns, not this Apple case; I found no Biometric Update article on Proxense v. Apple itself. (2) Unified Patents describes Proxense as "an NPE" in connection with a prior-art bounty on U.S. 11,095,640 asserted against Hyundai — relevant only as evidence of how the defensive-patent community frames Proxense, and not about Apple. A Chinese-language IP portal republishing ip fray (西安市知识产权保护中心, 2025-07-18) relayed Acting Director Stewart's discretionary-denial guidance citing Intel v. Proxense, quoting Proxense counsel David L. Hecht that the portfolio "includes 34 patents issued 8 or more years ago" — again Intel-side context, though it is the one press item I found quoting a Proxense attorney by name about portfolio strategy. Overall: this is a case the specialist press tracks through PTAB and appellate milestones, but one that has generated no mainstream coverage, no reported damages or settlement figures for Apple, and no verdict reporting, consistent with a matter that has not been tried and is reported as stayed.

Sources

• Case 6:24-cv-00143-ADA Document 50 Filed 11/27/24 Page 1 of 22
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• U.S. District Court LIVE Western District of Texas (Waco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:24-cv-00143-ADA
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division Proxense, LLC v
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• IPR2024-00782, No. 1048 Exhibit - Reply Claim Construction Brief in Proxense, LLC v Microsoft Corporation, No 623 cv 00319 ADA (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2025)
• Search court records on patent:(8886954)
• IPR2024-00782, No. 1053 Exhibit - Joint Claim Construction Statement in Proxense, LLC v Apple Inc, No 6 24 cv 00143 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2025)
• IPR2024-00782, No. 1031 Exhibit - Proxense’s Reply to Apple’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Proxense, LLC v Apple Inc, Case No 6 24 cv 00143 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2025)
• Complaint analysis | 6:24-cv-00143 | Proxense LLC v. Apple Inc | Ex Parte
• Proxense LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:24-cv-00143-ADA

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record across the docket, firm sites, and press. Let me run several parallel searches.

Good — the docket sheet and filings identify the team. Let me pin down local counsel, additional appearances, and each attorney's background.

I hit the search-step ceiling while verifying backgrounds, so here is the counsel roster I can support from the docket sheet, court filings, and PTAB exhibits — with confidence flags where a source fell short.

---

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA

⚠️ First, a correction to the prior sections

The prior Case Overview section states Proxense "is represented by Hecht Partners LLP (David L. Hecht, Brian D. Melton)." That is a misattribution. Melton is a Susman Godfrey LLP partner (Houston), not Hecht Partners. The later "Key legal developments" section gets it right ("Susman Godfrey (Melton, Lear Jiang) + Hecht Partners (David L. Hecht)"). The docket sheet and every joint signature block confirm the two-firm structure: Hecht Partners LLP (New York) + Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston/LA), each firm supplying one co-lead. Treat the Case Overview's firm attribution for Melton as an error.

I also found a date discrepancy worth noting: the original scheduling order in the docket (Dkt. 29, entered 7/3/2024) set the Markman hearing for 11/26/2024 and trial for 12/8/2025, which after the parties' agreed six-week extension roughly maps to the January 2026 trial setting. The prior section's stated "Markman hearing 2025-04-14" is not corroborated by the docket entries I could retrieve and should be re-verified.

---

1. Co-lead counsel — the two-firm structure

Background notes (one line each):

• David L. Hecht — Founder of Hecht Partners; formerly of Quinn Emanuel (Google's go-to firm during the smartphone patent wars), so he has deep patent-heavy big-tech experience; he is also the lawyer who won the Ninth Circuit appeal for choreographer Kyle Hanagami against Epic Games in the Fortnite-dance copyright case (Reuters, 11/1/2023), and ip fray describes him as the architect of Proxense's Albright-venue strategy. He remains on the matter on appeal (see §5).
• Brian D. Melton — Susman Godfrey partner in Houston; a first-chair patent trial lawyer who has led the Proxense enforcement campaign across the Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Intel, and Apple cases, and who signed the Proxense complaints in the Google and Microsoft actions as co-lead.

---

2. Other appearing counsel — Susman Godfrey

Note on Jiang: the docket sheet's appearance order shows Jiang entered after Melton (Dkt. 23 on 4/26/24, Dkt. 26 on 5/31/24), consistent with Jiang being a supporting LA-based attorney rather than a designated lead.

---

3. Other counsel — Hecht Partners (mostly PTAB/supporting roles)

---

4. Local counsel — none separately identified (flag)

I found no separate WDTX/Waco "local counsel" firm on the Proxense side in the records available. Two facts make that plausible rather than an omission:

• David L. Hecht carries a Texas Bar number (24136516) on his Proxense signature blocks, and
• Susman Godfrey maintains Texas offices (Houston, where Melton sits, and Dallas).

The W.D. Tex. does not require a local-counsel appearance in the way some districts do, so Proxense plausibly proceeds without a separate Austin/Waco firm. Caveat: my docket snapshot predates any 2025 filings, so I cannot rule out a later notice of appearance by a Texas local firm. This should be checked on PACER.

---

5. Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit No. 25-2168)

The plaintiff-side roster carries over to the appeal: on the Federal Circuit docket for Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2168 (docketed 9/30/2025), David L. Hecht entered his appearance as counsel for Appellant Proxense on 10/14/2025 and filed the docketing statement and certificate of interest the same day. (For completeness on the other side: Apple is represented on appeal by Erika H. Arner, Daniel C. Tucker, and Taylor Stark — Arner is a Finnegan partner and a former PTAB lead judge.) Source: Justia Federal Circuit docket 25-2168.

---

6. In-house counsel

None has appeared. No Proxense in-house attorney is listed on the docket or signature blocks. Proxense's founder/CEO John J. Giobbi is the likely corporate representative/declarant, but he is not counsel of record.

---

Sourcing & confidence

Well-sourced: the two-firm structure (Hecht Partners + Susman Godfrey), the co-lead designation of Hecht and Melton (both sign "Co-Lead Counsel"), Melton's "LEAD ATTORNEY" docket flag, Jiang's Dkt. 26 appearance, the Houston/LA/NY addresses and emails, and Hecht's Federal Circuit appearance. Sources: the W.D. Tex. docket sheet reproduced as PTAB Ex. 1027 in IPR2024-01399 (Apple, filed 9/13/2024); Dkt. 53 Joint Claim Construction Statement (12/30/24); Dkt. 50 Proxense's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (11/27/24); the First Amended Scheduling Order (Sept. 2024); the signature block in Proxense's 9/2/2024 Intel filing; Apple's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 46); Justia docket 6:2024cv00143 and Fed. Cir. 25-2168; Law360 firm pages; ip fray.

Not verified (do not rely without PACER confirmation): any 2025 notices of appearance or withdrawals; formal ECF appearances for Price, Wu, Norris, and Zak in the Apple district case specifically; the existence or identity of a local-counsel firm; and the full Hecht Partners/Susman Godfrey staffing as of today. The docket snapshots I could retrieve were last retrieved in 2024 (Justia: 4/26/2024; PTAB Ex. 1027: captured 9/13/2024), so 2025 additions are invisible to me.

I'll research Apple's defense team across docket sources and firm directories.

Strong docket data. Now let me verify individual counsel backgrounds and check for any later appearances.

Apple Inc.'s Counsel of Record — Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Bottom line: Apple is represented by a single firm — DLA Piper LLP (US) — fielding a large, multi-office team of eleven attorneys: eight out-of-state attorneys admitted pro hac vice, plus three Texas-admitted DLA Piper attorneys (Austin and Houston) who serve as local/WDTX counsel. No Apple in-house attorney appearance is documented on the docket. All names below are taken from the court's own docket sheet and party-signed filings, not from inference.

Verified source base

The names, offices, and bar numbers below come from two docket snapshots reproduced as PTAB exhibits — EX-1027 (docket sheet for 6:24-cv-00143, filed as an exhibit in Apple's IPR2024-01399 petition, Sept. 13, 2024) and EX-1029 (same docket sheet in IPR2024-01333, Aug. 22, 2024) — plus the Joint Claim Construction Statement dated Dec. 30, 2024 (reproduced as an exhibit in IPR2024-00782/-00562), and the pro hac vice orders (Dkt. 15–22, entered Apr. 19, 2024). All of these are linked in the prior sections.

The team

Note on the prior summary: the earlier case-overview section listed "John Michael Guaragna and Ahimsa Hodari" as local counsel. That is accurate but incomplete — it omits Michael Saulnier (Austin), who is the attorney who actually signed the operative Joint Claim Construction Statement and is the local attorney with the most direct Albright-chambers connection. Also note the earlier section named the group generically; the docket's own "LEAD ATTORNEY / PRO HAC VICE / ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" designations are used in the role column above.

What I could not confirm (be careful before relying on these)

• Later appearances / withdrawals. My review captures the docket as of the Dec. 30, 2024 Joint Claim Construction Statement plus the Sept. 2024 docket-sheet exhibits. Given that the case is now reported to be in a stay/appeal holding pattern, I cannot rule out additional appearances, substitutions, or withdrawals in 2025–2026 — confirm against the live PACER docket for 6:24-cv-00143-ADA.
• In-house counsel. No Apple in-house attorney appears on this docket. (In the related RFCyber v. Apple Waco case, Apple in-house attorney Natalie Pous appeared at the Markman hearing; I found no equivalent appearance here and am not imputing one.)
• Whether filings are sealed. PhV motion papers themselves are public; I could not verify whether any sealed appearance or designation exists.
• PTAB-side counsel overlap. Apple's parallel IPR petitions (IPR2024-01333/-01398/-01399/-01485/-01486, IPR2025-00074/-00562/-00600) are prosecuted by a partly overlapping but separately designated DLA Piper PTAB team. I saw Erin Gibson and Robert C. Williams on Apple PTAB papers, but I did not verify the full PTAB power-of-attorney roster for the Proxense IPRs and am deliberately not naming the others (e.g., the East Palo Alto / Chicago / DC attorneys appearing in other DLA Piper matters) to avoid misattributing them to this case.

Sourcing caveat: items drawn directly from the docket sheet and signed filings are high-confidence; the one-line practice notes are from firm- and Law360/Justia-indexed biographies and prior case documents. The Hodari profile is the weakest link and should be verified against DLA Piper's website.