Vampire Labs LLC v. Apple Inc.

Vampire Labs LLC, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated patent infringement litigation against Apple Inc., a global technology operating company known for its consumer electronics and software. Vampire Labs LLC, founded in Austin, Texas in 2008, states its focus is on developing advanced power management technology to eliminate "Vampire Energy Loss" and holds patents related to mobile device battery chargers and microprocessor cores. The lawsuit asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103, which generally covers inductive wireless charging technology, specifically targeting wireless power transfer systems compliant with the widely adopted Qi Specification. While specific accused Apple products were not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, the nature of the asserted patent points to Apple's Qi-compliant wireless charging devices and potentially its MagSafe accessory ecosystem.

The case, 1:24-cv-01377, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue notably popular for patent litigation, especially by NPEs, largely due to the practices of District Judge Alan D. Albright, to whom the case was eventually reassigned. Judge Albright's court has been sought after by patent plaintiffs for its fast-paced schedules and approach to certain defensive motions, although recent changes in the district's case assignment rules aim to distribute patent cases more broadly. The litigation commenced on November 12, 2024, and concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on January 9, 2026, following a joint stipulation of dismissal by both parties, strongly indicating a confidential settlement.

This case is notable as it reflects a continuing trend of NPEs targeting companies producing Qi-compliant wireless charging products. The dismissal with prejudice provides Apple with finality against re-assertion of these specific claims by Vampire Labs. Furthermore, the parallel dismissal of a similar case filed by Vampire Labs against Anker Innovations Ltd. on the same date suggests a coordinated strategy by the NPE to pursue settlements across the MagSafe accessory ecosystem. Concurrently, Apple Inc. had filed an inter partes review (IPR2025-00341) petition challenging the validity of US Patent No. 8,358,103 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, demonstrating a multi-front defense strategy against patent assertions.

Vampire Labs LLC v. Apple Inc. (1:24-cv-01377 W.D. Texas) was a patent infringement case that concluded with a dismissal with prejudice due to a confidential settlement. Key legal developments unfolded as follows:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Case Filing: Vampire Labs LLC initiated the lawsuit against Apple Inc. on November 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
• Parties: The plaintiff, Vampire Labs LLC, is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting patent rights related to inductive wireless charging technology. The defendant was Apple Inc.
• Patents Asserted: The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103 B2, and some sources also indicate U.S. Patent No. 8,575,917 B2. Both patents cover inductive wireless charging technology relevant to Qi-compliant devices.
• Accused Products: Apple's MagSafe charging system and other Qi-compliant devices were the accused products.
• Judicial Assignment: The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman and later reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Specific dates for Apple's answer or any counterclaims were not publicly detailed, but the case's trajectory suggests these were superseded by settlement discussions.

Pre-Trial Motions:

• Motions to Extend Deadlines: The parties jointly sought and were granted extensions to scheduling order deadlines.
• Joint Motion to Stay: A significant development occurred when Vampire Labs, LLC, Apple Inc., and Anker Innovations, Ltd. (involved in a parallel case, 1:24-cv-01378) filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines. This motion was granted, staying all deadlines through January 8, 2026, as the parties informed the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
• No substantive motions to dismiss (other than the final stipulation), transfer, or for summary judgment were fully litigated due to the eventual settlement.

Claim Construction & Discovery:

• The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage, and no public record of such rulings exists.
• No strategic discovery milestones were publicly reported, which is typical for cases that settle relatively early.

Trial Events & Post-Trial Motions:

• The litigation did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal & Outcome:

• Joint Stipulation of Dismissal: On January 8, 2026, both Vampire Labs LLC and Apple Inc. filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
• Case Termination: The court formally closed the case on January 9, 2026, terminating all pending motions.
• Effect of Dismissal: The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Vampire Labs from re-filing the same claims against Apple concerning the asserted patents.
• Confidential Settlement: The terms of the settlement, including any damages or injunctive relief, were not publicly disclosed.
• Parallel Case Settlement: A parallel case filed by Vampire Labs LLC against Anker Innovations Ltd. (1:24-cv-01378), also asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103, was dismissed with prejudice on the same date, suggesting a unified settlement strategy by Vampire Labs across the MagSafe accessory ecosystem.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Filing: Apple Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 8,358,103 B2 (IPR2025-01215) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Key Dates: The petition for IPR was filed on June 27, 2025, and the institution decision was made on December 1, 2025.
• IPR Outcome: This IPR proceeding was subsequently terminated as "Settled," indicating it was resolved as part of the broader settlement agreement between Vampire Labs and Apple. Apple's use of IPRs is a common strategy to challenge patent validity in parallel with district court litigation.

The plaintiff, Vampire Labs LLC, was represented by counsel from DiNovo Price LLP and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. The attorneys of record include:

DiNovo Price LLP

• Andrew G. DiNovo

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
  • Note: Co-founded DiNovo Price LLP, focusing on intellectual property litigation. He has extensive experience representing patent holders in federal courts across Texas.

• Gregory S. Donahue

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
  • Note: Specializes in patent litigation and has appeared for Vampire Labs LLC in this and related cases.

• Michael Damian French

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (Austin, Texas)
  • Note: Appeared on behalf of Vampire Labs LLC in this case and a related action.

Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

• Scott Lamar Cole
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Note: Identified as counsel for Vampire Labs, LLC in this case and other related patent litigation matters.

Here is the counsel of record representing defendant Apple Inc. in Vampire Labs LLC v. Apple Inc.:

Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.

Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP

• Madeline R. Thompson
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant
  • Firm & Office: Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL (primary office, likely lead counsel)
  • Experience Note: Details on specific patent litigation experience for this attorney in this role for Apple were not immediately available in public search results for this case.
• Michael Pieja
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant
  • Firm & Office: Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL (primary office, likely lead counsel)
  • Experience Note: Details on specific patent litigation experience for this attorney in this role for Apple were not immediately available in public search results for this case.
• Xaviere N. Giroud
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant
  • Firm & Office: Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL (primary office, likely lead counsel)
  • Experience Note: Details on specific patent litigation experience for this attorney in this role for Apple were not immediately available in public search results for this case.
• Alan Littmann
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant
  • Firm & Office: Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL (primary office, likely lead counsel)
  • Experience Note: Details on specific patent litigation experience for this attorney in this role for Apple were not immediately available in public search results for this case.

Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

• Stephen Burbank
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant (likely local counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Stephen Burbank is listed among the attorneys at Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, an Austin-based boutique litigation firm known for its trial and appellate experience.
• Steven J. Wingard
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant (likely local counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Scott, Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Scott Douglass & McConnico is an Austin-based litigation firm. Specific patent litigation experience for Mr. Wingard was not detailed in the provided search results.
• Robert Pierce Earle
  • Role: Attorney for Defendant (likely local counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Robert Pierce Earle is listed as an attorney with Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, a firm recognized for its trial and appellate work.

The PacerMonitor docket for this case (1:24-cv-01377) explicitly lists these attorneys and their respective firms as representing Apple Inc.. The case was terminated due to a joint stipulation of dismissal, suggesting a confidential settlement.