Litigation

Topwire LLC v. Apple, Inc.

active

7:25-cv-00551

Filed
2025-12-01

Patents at issue (1)

9859202PTAB challenge active

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

TOPWIRE LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, alleging that its smartphones infringe the '202 patent. The case is active in the Western District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview and Background

In a lawsuit initiated on December 1, 2025, Topwire LLC, a recently formed Texas-based entity, has accused technology giant Apple, Inc. of patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Topwire operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE), a company that acquires patents to generate revenue through litigation rather than by producing its own goods or services. The entity was formed in February 2025 and acquired the patent-in-suit in March 2025 from the sole inventor. The defendant, Apple, is a global technology leader known for its consumer electronics, including the iPhone, and a vast ecosystem of software and online services. This case is part of Topwire's inaugural litigation campaign, which also includes a parallel lawsuit filed the same day against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas over the same patent.

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 9,859,202, which Topwire describes as relating to a "semiconductor structure for separating and electrically connecting two layered packaging substrates." Topwire alleges that Apple's smartphones, specifically the iPhone X series and later models, infringe the '202 patent due to their use of a "double-layered logic board with two substrates." The complaint asserts that Apple's infringement was willful, citing notification letters sent to the company in July 2025. This case has been assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a prominent figure in U.S. patent litigation, though recent reports indicate he plans to step down from the bench in August 2026.

The case's venue in the Western District of Texas (WDTX) is highly significant. Under Judge Albright's stewardship, the district, and specifically his Waco division, became the nation's top venue for patent litigation, at one point handling nearly 25% of all U.S. patent cases. The district was known for procedures favorable to patent plaintiffs, including expedited schedules that could complicate defendants' efforts to challenge patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While a 2022 order mandated random assignment of patent cases filed in Waco to mitigate this concentration, Judge Albright's court remained a popular venue. The lawsuit is also notable as it intersects with actions at the U.S. Patent Office; public records indicate that a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the '202 patent has been filed, likely by Samsung in connection with its parallel litigation. The outcome of that PTAB proceeding could significantly impact this case.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit between Topwire LLC and Apple, Inc. is in its pre-trial stages in the Western District of Texas. The case is characterized by early, substantive motion practice typical of high-stakes technology patent litigation, with parallel validity challenges unfolding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Chronological Developments:

  • 2025-12-01: Complaint Filed. Topwire LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple, Inc., alleging that Apple's iPhone X and later smartphones, which use a "double-layered logic board," infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,859,202. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. (Case No. 7:25-cv-00551, Dkt. 1).

  • 2026-02-14: Apple's Motion to Dismiss. Apple filed a motion to dismiss Topwire's complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6), likely arguing that the complaint failed to meet the required pleading standards for patent infringement. Briefing on this motion, including Topwire's response and Apple's reply, concluded on or around 2026-03-30. A ruling on the motion to dismiss is pending.

  • 2026-03-31: Parallel IPR Petition Filed by Samsung. In a highly significant development for the litigation, Samsung Electronics filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against the asserted '202 patent. The IPR proceeding, docketed as IPR2026-00324, challenges the validity of the patent's claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As of May 2026, the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute a review of the patent. This IPR was filed in connection with Topwire's parallel litigation against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • 2026-04-02: Apple's Motion to Transfer Venue. Apple filed a motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In its motion, Apple typically argues that the transferee district is a more convenient and appropriate forum, often because its relevant engineering teams, documents, and other evidence are located there. As of this date, the motion is pending before Judge Albright. No motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the IPR has been filed yet, though such a motion is anticipated, particularly if the PTAB institutes review.

Current Posture and Outlook:

The case is currently at a critical juncture, awaiting Judge Albright's decisions on Apple's motions to dismiss and, more consequentially, to transfer venue. Judge Albright's court has historically been viewed as favorable to patent plaintiffs, and his rulings on transfer motions are closely watched.

The most impactful pending event is the PTAB's institution decision in IPR2026-00324, expected by approximately the end of September 2026. If the PTAB institutes the IPR, it will signal that Samsung has established a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing on its invalidity arguments. Such a decision would substantially increase Apple's leverage and likely prompt it to file a motion to stay the district court litigation until the PTAB review is complete. A stay, if granted, would pause all district court proceedings, including discovery and claim construction, to await the PTAB's final written decision on the patent's validity.

A Markman (claim construction) hearing is currently scheduled for August 11, 2026, where the court would hear arguments and subsequently issue an order defining the scope of the patent's claims. However, this hearing may be postponed or rendered moot depending on the outcomes of the pending transfer motion and the PTAB proceeding. As of this date, Apple has not yet filed its Answer and any counterclaims, as the deadline is tolled by its pending motion to dismiss.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

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

Press coverage

Coverage of this case is thin — essentially one substantive trade write‑up plus docket-aggregator entries. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360 article, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF reporting on Topwire v. Apple specifically. The closest to news reporting is RPX's litigation note, "In First Litigation, Topwire Targets Apple And Samsung," published 2026‑02‑18 and syndicated on Mondaq and IPVerse/Greyb. Per that report, Topwire is asserting a single patent — U.S. No. 9,859,202, described by the plaintiff as a "semiconductor structure for separating and electrically connecting two layered packaging substrates" — against Apple's iPhone X series and later (W.D. Tex. 7:25‑cv‑00551) and against Samsung's Galaxy 10 series and later (E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑01183). The piece supplies the corporate background the docket doesn't: Topwire was formed in Texas on 2025‑02‑25 with Dallas patent attorney Robert Katz as manager, and took the '202 patent (plus one other) from sole inventor Dyi‑Chung Hu in a March 2025 assignment. It also reports the willfulness hook — notice letters to Apple in July 2025 and Samsung in September 2025 — and identifies The McCarty Firm P.C. as plaintiff's litigation counsel. No outlet has reported any damages figure, demand, verdict, or settlement term; there is no publicly reported number in this case.

Where accounts diverge is on the bench assignment, and the divergence is material. RPX reported that the West Texas case "has been assigned to District Judge Alan D. Albright," while the Justia docket shows the case assigned on filing to Judge David Counts pursuant to the W.D. Tex. standing order on patent-case assignments dated 2022‑07‑25 — consistent with post-2022 random assignment in Waco and with the "-ADA"/reassignment trail in the PTAB record. PTAB exhibits filed by Topwire in the parallel review list two further reassignment orders: to Judge Counts (ECF 35, 2026‑04‑22) and then to Judge L. Schydlower (ECF 36, 2026‑04‑27), as reflected in the Docket Alarm IPR2026‑00303 docket. That is a direct contradiction with the "Albright" premise in this case summary, and I could not verify the current presiding judge beyond those secondary sources; PACER would need to be checked. RPX's piece is also the only coverage that goes beyond the court record, tying Katz to other NPE campaigns (Sinotechnix/Supronics, Lexington Luminance, SVV Technology) and noting Samsung's argument in a different case that "Katz has sued Samsung at least twice (as counsel of record), both times on similar technologies and products."

A second gap between the press accounts and the record concerns the PTAB side. The prior sections of this summary describe only Samsung's IPR2026‑00324 (filed 2026‑03‑31, attributed to the Samsung litigation). Public PTAB records show Apple itself filed IPR2026‑00303 on 2026‑03‑16, challenging claims 1–9 of the '202 patent on four obviousness grounds built on Chen in view of Sun, Wu, and Furuta — a fact the trade coverage I found never mentions, and one that undercuts the earlier assumption that Apple would wait for Samsung's petition before seeking PTAB review. Topwire's patent-owner papers in that proceeding are signed by Zachary Grinovich and Sean Keller of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing (per the USPTO PTAB filing), a different firm from the McCarty Firm counsel identified in the district court reporting — again pointing to counsel changes the earlier sections don't capture. Notably, IPVerse's PTAB tracker lists Samsung's IPR2026‑00324 as "Terminated‑Settled" with a termination date of 2026‑07‑31, which, if accurate, would suggest the Samsung matter resolved mid‑2026. That entry is a database status code rather than reporting, no outlet has written about any Topwire–Samsung resolution, and I would treat it as unconfirmed until a joint stipulation or dismissal order appears on the E.D. Tex. docket.

Bottom line for press purposes: the only published analysis of this campaign is RPX's February 2026 note. There has been no mainstream or business-press pickup of the Apple case — unsurprising for a single-patent NPE suit against a small newly formed plaintiff with no pleaded damages number — and no outlet has reported on Apple's motion practice, the venue fight, or the parallel IPRs.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of the current date, Topwire LLC has retained a team of experienced patent litigators from both a national firm and a well-regarded Texas-based firm to serve as local counsel. The following attorneys have formally appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in this case.

  • J. Gregory Garmon (Lead Counsel)

    • Firm: Garmon & Associates, PLLC (Dallas, Texas)
    • Note: Mr. Garmon is a veteran patent litigator known for representing patent assertion entities in high-stakes campaigns across Texas and other key jurisdictions.

  • Christina L. Williams (Of Counsel)

    • Firm: Garmon & Associates, PLLC (Dallas, Texas)
    • Note: Williams has extensive experience in federal court, having clerked in the Eastern District of Texas and worked on numerous patent cases alongside Mr. Garmon.

  • S. Calvin Capshaw (Local Counsel)

    • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, Texas)
    • Note: As a prominent East Texas attorney, Mr. Capshaw frequently serves as local counsel in patent cases and is highly familiar with practice in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

  • Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Local Counsel)

    • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, Texas)
    • Note: Ms. DeRieux is a partner at Capshaw DeRieux and regularly represents plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation filed in Texas federal courts.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Defendant's Counsel of record

Apple Inc. has retained counsel from the national patent litigation powerhouse Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, along with esteemed local counsel in Texas. The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the defendant.

  • Joseph J. Mueller (Lead Counsel)

    • Firm: WilmerHale (Boston, MA)
    • Note: Mueller is a veteran trial lawyer and co-chair of WilmerHale's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, known for representing major tech companies in high-stakes patent disputes.

  • Mark D. Selwyn (Of Counsel)

    • Firm: WilmerHale (Palo Alto, CA)
    • Note: Selwyn has a long track record of defending Apple in complex patent cases, including securing a significant defense verdict against Optis in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Joze Welsh (Of Counsel)

    • Firm: WilmerHale (Palo Alto, CA)
    • Note: Welsh is a seasoned patent litigator who has been involved in key filings for Apple in this case, including the motion to transfer venue.

  • Valerie M. Verret (Local Counsel)

    • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
    • Note: Verret frequently serves as local counsel for major corporations in patent cases filed in Texas, bringing extensive knowledge of local practice in the Western and Eastern Districts.