Unified Patents v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Unified Patents against Avant Location Technologies LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring frivolous patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) and improving patent quality, primarily through challenging patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) via IPRs. Avant Location Technologies LLC is identified as an NPE, or "patent troll," operating as an entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC, which monetizes patents through assertion against operating companies rather than practicing the technology itself.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040, generally describes methods for monitoring the presence of a mobile station and a system for providing "presence related services" to a designated "special area" through a linked mobile station. This patent, along with others, has been asserted by Avant Location Technologies LLC in district court litigation against major technology companies such as Apple, Samsung, Fibar Group, Nice Group, and Generac Holdings. Specifically, Avant accused Apple products implementing the "Find My" feature and Samsung devices supporting "SmartThings Find" of infringing these patents, which relate to location-based services and tracking lost devices.

The procedural posture of this case is an IPR (IPR2025-01256) before the PTAB, which concluded with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. This outcome is significant as it indicates that the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patent's validity for procedural reasons, rather than on the merits of whether the patent claims were unpatentable. The PTAB serves as a critical venue for challenging patent validity, often offering a more efficient alternative to district court proceedings. This IPR is notable because it is part of a broader pattern of NPE assertion in the highly competitive and valuable market of mobile location technologies, prompting defensive actions like this IPR by organizations such as Unified Patents. The procedural non-institution of this IPR suggests a nuanced outcome within Unified Patents' broader strategy of challenging patents asserted by NPEs.

The IPR filed by Unified Patents against Avant Location Technologies LLC concerning US patent 8,738,040 (IPR2025-01256) concluded with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. However, this IPR is part of a broader litigation campaign by Avant Location Technologies LLC, which has asserted this patent, among others, against several major technology companies.

Here's a chronological overview of key legal developments related to U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 and the ongoing litigation campaign by Avant Location Technologies LLC:

District Court Litigation Filings & Initial Pleadings:

• July 2023: Avant Location Technologies LLC initiated its litigation campaign by suing Generac (ecobee) in the Eastern District of Texas.
• March 2, 2024: Avant Location Technologies LLC sued Samsung (case number 2:24-cv-00133) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents, including 8,738,040. Samsung was targeted over devices supporting its "SmartThings Find" feature. This case was later dismissed with prejudice after a settlement was noticed.
• March 8, 2024: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed a lawsuit against Fibar Group S.A. and Nice S.p.A. (case number 2:24-cv-00165) in the Eastern District of Texas. Fibar Group filed an answer to the complaint on August 28, 2024.
• September 13, 2024: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed a new complaint against Apple Inc. (case number 2:24-cv-00757) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents, including 8,738,040. The accused products are Apple products implementing the "Find My" feature. This filing occurred on the same day the case against Samsung was dismissed.
• September 30, 2025: Avant Location Technologies LLC filed another suit against Apple Inc. (case number 3:2025cv02642) in the Northern District of Texas.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• January 17, 2025: Unified Patents announced that prior art had been found for U.S. Patent 8,738,040.
• September 11, 2025: Apple Inc. filed multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the patentability of all asserted claims of the seven patents, including IPR2025-01256 for U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040. Apple's petitions argued that the asserted patents claim "location services" technologies that were well-known by the mid-2000s and presented strong prior art grounds based on fifteen references.
• Prior to December 8, 2025: Unified Patents' IPR2025-01256, along with other IPRs filed by Apple against Avant Location Technologies, reached a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. This indicates the PTAB declined to initiate a full review for procedural reasons rather than on the merits. The specific procedural reason for the non-institution of IPR2025-01256 is not explicitly stated in the provided information, but a common reason for procedural denial around this time was the USPTO Director's new centralized review policy, which sometimes led to discretionary denials based on factors like the likelihood of a final written decision before a parallel district court trial or inconsistent positions between district court and USPTO proceedings.
• March 2026 (expected): Institution decisions for Apple's IPR petitions were expected by this date. If instituted, final written decisions were expected by March 2027.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• December 8, 2025: In the Western District of Texas case (Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00445-ADA), Apple Inc. filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of its IPR petitions for the asserted patents. Apple argued that a stay would simplify the case, as the IPRs could be case-dispositive, and that the case was still at an early stage. Apple also moved to dismiss Avant's indirect infringement and willfulness claims concurrently. Avant had voluntarily dismissed a prior lawsuit against Apple involving the same patents after it was transferred from Avant's preferred judicial district, which Apple cited as evidence that Avant would not be prejudiced by a stay.

Current Posture:

• The IPR2025-01256 was "Not Instituted - Procedural."
• Litigation against Generac and Fibar Group appears to be active, with Fibar Group having filed an answer.
• The lawsuit against Samsung was dismissed with prejudice after a settlement.
• The lawsuits against Apple in both the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas are ongoing, with Apple having filed a motion to stay the Western District of Texas case pending IPR decisions and a motion to dismiss certain claims.
• The Federal Circuit has confirmed that the PTAB has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents, which could be relevant if any of the asserted patents expired during the IPR process.

Unified Patents, as a non-profit organization dedicated to challenging questionable patents, typically utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and often external law firms specializing in PTAB proceedings.

For IPR2025-01256, a search for the specific counsel of record was not immediately available in the general search results. However, based on Unified Patents' typical operational model and publicly available information regarding their legal team and partnerships, the following can be inferred regarding their representation in PTAB cases:

Likely Counsel for Unified Patents (Petitioner):

• Unified Patents In-House Counsel: Unified Patents has a team of in-house Senior Patent Counsel who are actively involved in drafting, filing, and litigating patent office proceedings, including IPRs. These individuals often manage patent office proceedings internally and support senior attorneys.
  • Jonathan Stroud: COO & CLO (Chief Legal Officer) at Unified Patents. Jonathan Stroud is frequently involved in webinars and discussions related to PTAB practice and patent quality, indicating a leading role in Unified Patents' legal strategy.
  • Roshan Mansinghani: Head of Operations at Unified Patents and frequently listed as Legal Head-NPE. He has been identified as in-house counsel for Unified Patents in other reexamination requests.
  • Other Senior Patent Counsel: Unified Patents employs several Senior Patent Counsel, including Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, Kelly Hughes, T.J. Murphy, Vinu Raj, Jordan Rossen, Andrea Shoffstall, and David Seastrunk. These attorneys have experience in PTAB proceedings and ex parte reexaminations. Andrea Shoffstall has also been identified as in-house counsel in other reexamination requests.
• External Law Firms: Unified Patents frequently partners with external law firms that specialize in PTAB litigation. Duane Morris LLP, for example, is ranked as a top firm representing petitioners before the PTAB, according to Unified Patents' institutional success index (2018-2025). These firms often bring extensive trial and USPTO experience to IPR proceedings. While specific attorneys from Duane Morris (or other firms) for IPR2025-01256 were not found, it is common for Unified Patents to engage such specialized counsel.

Note on Public Availability:
Information on specific counsel for every IPR case, particularly for a non-instituted case, may not be as readily publicized as for instituted or litigated cases. Access to the full docket details on the PTAB E2E system would provide the most precise and complete list of counsel of record for IPR2025-01256.

The IPR in question (IPR2025-01256) was filed by Unified Patents against Avant Location Technologies LLC and concerns US patent 8,738,040. The IPR was not instituted due to procedural reasons.

While the specific counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in IPR2025-01256 is not explicitly detailed in the search results, information regarding Avant's representation in related PTAB proceedings and district court cases provides strong indications of their legal team for patent-related matters.

Based on an examination of related IPR proceedings and district court cases involving Avant Location Technologies LLC, the following attorneys and firm appear to represent Avant in patent litigation:

• Peter Lambrianakos (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Office Location: Rye, New York
  • Note: Peter Lambrianakos is identified as Lead Counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in a Power of Attorney filing for IPR2025-01257, which challenged a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030) owned by Avant. This IPR is part of a series of IPRs filed by Apple Inc. against Avant patents, including IPR2025-01256. His firm, Fabricant LLP, is consistently listed in these filings.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III (Back-up Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Office Location: Rye, New York
  • Note: Vincent J. Rubino, III is also listed as back-up counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Power of Attorney filing for IPR2025-01257.

• Julian G. Pymento (Back-up Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Office Location: Rye, New York
  • Note: Julian G. Pymento is listed as back-up counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Power of Attorney filing for IPR2025-01257.

• Jacob Ostling (Back-up Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Office Location: Rye, New York
  • Note: Jacob Ostling is listed as back-up counsel for Avant Location Technologies LLC in the Power of Attorney filing for IPR2025-01257.

It is common for the same legal team to represent a patent owner across multiple, related IPR challenges, especially when the patents are part of a common assertion campaign. The IPRs IPR2025-01256 and IPR2025-01257 both target patents asserted by Avant Location Technologies LLC in district court litigation against Apple, among other companies, and are part of a group of IPRs filed in close succession.

Regarding district court litigation, Avant Location Technologies LLC has been represented by counsel in cases such as Avant Location Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. (2:24-cv-00757) in the Eastern District of Texas. In this case, attorneys William Ellsworth Davis, III, Rudolph Fink, IV, and Ty William Wilson filed notices of appearance on behalf of Avant. While these appearances are for district court proceedings rather than directly for the IPR, it provides additional insight into Avant's broader litigation counsel.

No information explicitly sealed or indicating counsel has not appeared yet was found for IPR2025-01256.