Avant Location Technologies v. Apple: Seven-Patent Location Tech Suit Transferred from E.D. Texas
Avant Location Technologies, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting seven location and wireless communication patents against Apple’s ecobee smart home product line. After 381 days, Judge Gilstrap granted Apple’s venue challenge and transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), finding that Apple Shop locations within Best Buy stores did not qualify as ‘places of Apple’ for venue purposes.
E.D. Texas venue play fails: Apple’s Shop-in-Shop strategy defeats plaintiff’s foothold
Avant Location Technologies, LLC (‘ALT’) filed this patent infringement action on September 13, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven U.S. patents — including US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — covering location-awareness, wireless communication, and smart-device technologies. The accused products span Apple’s ecobee smart home ecosystem, including the SmartThermostat with voice control, SmartCamera, SmartSensor variants, and related mobile applications and bundles.
Apple moved to dismiss for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), or alternatively to transfer to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Judge Gilstrap applied the Federal Circuit’s In re Cray Inc. framework and found that while Apple Shop locations within Best Buy stores are ‘regular and established places of business’ in the district, they have not been adequately shown to be ‘places of Apple’ — a distinct prong of the patent venue test. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as modified and transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) rather than to California.
The 381-day duration reflects that the dispute was resolved entirely on a threshold venue question, with no merits ruling on infringement or validity. The transfer to N.D. Texas — rather than Apple’s preferred N.D. California — is notable and suggests the Court determined Texas remained an appropriate forum, just in a different district. The public record does not disclose whether ALT intends to continue litigating in N.D. Texas or whether a settlement is being pursued in parallel.
Filing to Case Transferred in 381 days
381 days — resolved at venue stage before any merits ruling
Case transferred to N.D. Texas: what the venue ruling means for both parties
§ 1406(a) transfer: improper venue, case survives in new district
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court must dismiss or transfer a case filed in the wrong district. Judge Gilstrap chose transfer over outright dismissal ‘in the interest of justice,’ meaning ALT’s claims are not extinguished — they continue before a new court. This is distinct from a § 1404(a) convenience transfer: § 1406(a) transfers follow a finding that venue was legally improper, not merely inconvenient.
Venue corrected, not case endedALT’s E.D. Texas strategy fails, but seven-patent suit lives on
The transfer preserves ALT’s infringement claims against Apple across all seven asserted patents — no claim has been dismissed on the merits. However, ALT loses the procedural advantages of the Eastern District of Texas, including its historically fast docket under Judge Gilstrap. The case now proceeds in the Northern District of Texas, where scheduling and case management norms differ and Apple’s venue preference (N.D. California) was denied.
Claims intact, forum advantage lostApple wins venue battle but faces continued litigation in Texas
Apple successfully dismantled ALT’s venue hook — the In re Cray argument that Best Buy Apple Shop locations constitute ‘places of Apple’ in the district. This is a meaningful defensive win that blocks the E.D. Texas forum. However, Apple did not secure its preferred transfer to N.D. California; the case moves to N.D. Texas instead. Apple must now defend on the merits in the transferee court, with no merits rulings yet entered.
Venue won; merits battle remainsShop-in-shop venue theory rejected: precedent matters for retail footprint cases
Judge Gilstrap’s ruling that Apple Shop installations within Best Buy stores are not ‘places of Apple’ for patent venue purposes is commercially significant for any tech company with branded retail presences in third-party stores. It narrows the scope of venue hooks available to NPEs seeking E.D. Texas jurisdiction. Companies maintaining shop-in-shop arrangements across the country should assess whether those footprints create unintended venue exposure under In re Cray.
Shop-in-shop ≠ venue anchorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Avant Location Technologies, LLC | Company | Location-technology patent assertion entity — holder of US10009720B2 and six related wireless/location patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Apple, Inc. — global consumer electronics company; accused via ecobee smart home product lineSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Michael Mercadante | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justine Minseon Park | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rudolph Fink , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William E. Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC (Longview) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew J. Danford | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph F Haag | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph J. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark D. Selwyn | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP – Boston | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP(Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s ruling is procedural rather than substantive: no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope has been made. The grant of the motion to dismiss ‘as modified’ reflects a nuanced application of In re Cray — the Court accepted that Best Buy Apple Shop locations satisfy the ‘regular and established place of business’ prong, but found ALT failed to establish these are legally ‘places of Apple.’ The § 1406(a) transfer, chosen over dismissal, indicates the Court found sufficient basis for the litigation to continue in Texas — just not in the Eastern District. Apple’s preferred N.D. California venue was denied, which may affect settlement leverage dynamics going forward.
US10009720B2 — location-awareness and wireless communication for smart devices
The seven asserted patents — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — form a portfolio spanning location-awareness, wireless communication protocols, and smart-device interaction technologies. Application dates across the portfolio range from the 2008–2015 period, placing their priority in the foundational era of smartphone-enabled IoT and location-based services. The patents cover methods and systems for detecting device location, enabling presence-based triggers, and coordinating wireless communication between mobile devices and fixed smart home infrastructure.
This patent family is strategically positioned to capture value across the ecobee smart home ecosystem — including connected thermostats, occupancy sensors, smart cameras, and mobile applications. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning seven granted patents with staggered filing dates, suggests deliberate coverage of multiple technical layers of smart home communication. For companies operating in the connected home, building automation, or IoT sensor markets, this portfolio represents a live enforcement risk: all seven patents remain in suit and the case is actively proceeding in N.D. Texas.
Should you run an FTO against US10009720B2 and the Avant Location Technologies portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising smart home devices, IoT sensors, connected thermostats, or location-aware mobile applications should treat this seven-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. The accused products in this case — smart thermostats, occupancy sensors, smart cameras, and bundled smart home systems — represent product categories with broad market participation. The patents cover foundational wireless location-awareness and device-presence detection methods that could read on a wide range of architectures beyond ecobee-specific implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical claims against each of the seven asserted patents, identify claim element overlaps, and surface design-around opportunities before litigation risk materialises. Eureka’s citation and family analysis will also reveal any continuation or divisional applications in the Avant Location Technologies portfolio that may not yet be in suit — a critical step for companies assessing long-term freedom to operate in the smart home and location-tech space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10009720B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: location technology and smart home IP in Texas federal courts
Cases involving location-awareness, smart home IoT, and wireless communication patent assertions in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas — benchmarked against Avant v. Apple.
What this case signals for the smart home and location-tech IP landscape
Seven patents, a shop-in-shop venue gambit, and a transfer ruling that reshapes NPE forum strategy in E.D. Texas.
E.D. Texas venue via retail shop-in-shop arrangements is now harder to sustain
Judge Gilstrap’s application of In re Cray to Apple’s Best Buy shop-within-a-shop model sets a meaningful precedent. Patent plaintiffs who rely on branded third-party retail presences as venue anchors in E.D. Texas face heightened scrutiny. Tech companies with similar shop-in-shop arrangements — Google, Samsung, Microsoft — should audit their retail footprint’s legal exposure as both a venue attack vector and a defense.
Seven-patent smart home assertions signal continued NPE pressure on ecobee-class products
The breadth of the assertion — seven patents spanning location awareness, wireless communication, and smart-device interaction — against the full ecobee ecosystem suggests ALT is pursuing a portfolio licensing play rather than a narrow infringement claim. Companies commercialising connected thermostats, smart sensors, and IoT mobile applications should conduct FTO analysis across this patent family, as the underlying claims survive venue transfer and remain active.
Avant v Apple — key questions answered
The case was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. Judge Gilstrap found that Apple Shop locations inside Best Buy stores did not qualify as ‘places of Apple’ under the In re Cray venue test, making venue improper in E.D. Texas. The case was transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) rather than dismissed, preserving ALT’s seven-patent infringement claims.
ALT asserted seven patents: US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2. These cover location-awareness, wireless communication, and smart device interaction technologies. The accused products include Apple’s ecobee smart thermostats, SmartCamera, SmartSensor products, and related mobile applications.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer rather than dismiss a case filed in the wrong district ‘in the interest of justice.’ Judge Gilstrap exercised that discretion here, finding that transferring to the Northern District of Texas — rather than outright dismissal — was appropriate. This preserves ALT’s claims on the merits. Apple’s preferred transfer to N.D. California was denied.
The Federal Circuit’s In re Cray Inc. test requires a defendant’s place of business to be a ‘regular and established place of business’ that is also a ‘place of the defendant.’ Judge Gilstrap found the Best Buy Apple Shop locations satisfied the first prong — they are regular and established — but ALT failed to show they are legally ‘places of Apple,’ which is a distinct requirement. This ruling suggests branded shop-in-shop installations do not automatically create patent venue in that district.
The Avant Location Technologies portfolio — seven patents covering location-awareness and smart device communication — remains active and in suit in N.D. Texas. Companies commercialising connected thermostats, occupancy sensors, IoT mobile applications, and smart home bundles should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio. The venue ruling also signals that shop-in-shop retail arrangements are unlikely to serve as reliable venue anchors in E.D. Texas, which may affect NPE forum strategy more broadly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.