FedEx Supply Chain v. Apkudo: Six-Patent Infringement Action Transferred to Dallas Division
FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics Inc filed a six-patent infringement suit against Apkudo Inc in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas, asserting patents covering device evaluation, reconditioning, and AI-powered robotics platforms. The court sua sponte transferred the case to the Dallas Division within 30 days of filing, finding Fort Worth an improper venue.
Six-Patent Device Reconditioning Suit Rerouted Before Merits Heard
On April 1, 2026, FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics Inc filed a patent infringement action against Apkudo Inc in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 4:26-cv-00396), before Judge Mark Pittman. The suit asserts six US patents — US9341662B2, US9575973B2, US9998239B2, US9921923B2, US9487357B1, and US9335360B2 — covering device evaluation, reconditioning, and AI-powered robotics technologies. The accused product is Apkudo's Device Passport Platform and related AI-powered robotics device evaluation and reconditioning products and services.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred.' The docket order states that the Court sua sponte determined Fort Worth was an improper venue because neither party has citizenship connected to the Fort Worth Division — FedEx Supply Chain is a citizen of Delaware and Tennessee, and Apkudo is a citizen of Delaware and Maryland — and because the underlying facts described in the complaint relate to Coppell, Texas, which sits primarily in Dallas County. The Court therefore transferred the case to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, where venue is proper.
The transfer was ordered within 30 days of filing, before any substantive merits proceedings. The specific status of the litigation in the Dallas Division following transfer is not reflected in the available record from this docket entry. No ruling on the merits, claim construction, or costs was issued in the Fort Worth proceedings.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 30 days
Case resolved by venue transfer in 30 days — before substantive merits proceedings began
US9341662B2 and five further patents — device evaluation and reconditioning technology
Any company operating a device evaluation platform, AI-powered reconditioning service, device grading robotics system, or device passport data product should treat this six-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The active enforcement in federal court against Apkudo's Device Passport Platform signals that FedEx Supply Chain is prepared to litigate. Trade-in programme operators, reverse logistics providers, and circular economy platform builders are the most exposed categories.
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order reflects a straightforward venue correction: the court found no connection between the Fort Worth Division and the parties or underlying facts, all of which relate to Coppell, Texas (Dallas County). The order is procedural and carries no merits implication for either party. The six asserted patents and all infringement claims against Apkudo's Device Passport Platform remain live and will be adjudicated in the Dallas Division.
Venue transfer ends Fort Worth proceedings — litigation continues in Dallas
A sua sponte transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 means the court itself determined — without a motion from either party — that Fort Worth was an improper venue. No merits ruling was issued. The case does not end; it moves to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, where proceedings begin afresh before a new assigned judge. All claims and defences carry over.
No merits ruling issuedDallas Division: what the venue change means in practice
The Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas is where the court found the underlying facts — centred on Coppell, Texas (Dallas County) — are properly adjudicated. Parties should expect a new judge assignment and potentially different scheduling norms. Neither party objected to the transfer on the available record; the court acted on its own initiative based on the Joint Report filed by the parties.
Dallas Division, N.D. Tex.FedEx Supply Chain's six-patent case proceeds — venue corrected, not dismissed
FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics Inc retains all six asserted patents and all claims against Apkudo's Device Passport Platform. The transfer to Dallas does not affect the validity or scope of the asserted patents. Plaintiff's counsel — Fish & Richardson LLP — will continue representation in the new division. No adverse merits finding has been recorded against FedEx Supply Chain.
All claims preservedApkudo faces continued litigation in Dallas — no substantive relief yet
Apkudo Inc has not obtained any ruling on invalidity, non-infringement, or any other substantive defence. The venue transfer is procedural and does not resolve the underlying infringement allegations concerning the Device Passport Platform and AI-powered reconditioning services. Apkudo's counsel from Law Offices of David G Gamble PLLC and Ness PLLC will continue in the Dallas proceedings.
No defence ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics Inc | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apkudo Inc | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ahmed J. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Michael Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Riley James Green | Attorney | Counsel for FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing FedEx Supply Chain Logistics and Electronics IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alanna Brallier | Attorney | Counsel for Apkudo IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David G Gamble | Attorney | Counsel for Apkudo IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eliyahu Ness | Attorney | Counsel for Apkudo IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Law Offices of David G Gamble PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Apkudo IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ness PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Apkudo IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark Pittman | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in device evaluation and AI reconditioning IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the device reconditioning, AI-powered grading, and circular economy technology space — surfaced from this FedEx Supply Chain v. Apkudo dispute.
FedEx Supply Chain's device reconditioning patent portfolio signals sustained R&D
Six patents asserted across multiple application windows suggest FedEx Supply Chain has been systematically building IP in device evaluation and reconditioning workflows. Mapping the full portfolio beyond these six asserted patents may reveal additional coverage in AI grading, logistics automation, and device data management — relevant for any company in the reverse logistics or circular economy space.
Active enforcement portfolioAI-powered device grading and passport platforms: a crowded and contested IP space
The Device Passport Platform concept — linking AI evaluation, robotics, and data provenance for refurbished devices — sits at the convergence of several active patent filing trends. Monitoring claim language around device condition scoring, automated grading robotics, and device lifecycle data management will help identify where the next enforcement actions in this space are likely to emerge.
Converging tech domainsApkudo's own patent position in device evaluation and AI robotics
Understanding Apkudo's own patent filings in device evaluation, AI robotics, and device passport data management reveals whether it holds defensive IP or is primarily a product-led company without significant patent protection. This analysis is directly relevant to assessing the litigation risk balance and whether cross-licensing or IPR petitions are likely strategies.
Defensive IP assessmentAdjacent innovation gaps in circular economy device management
The six asserted patents collectively cover device testing, data profiling, AI evaluation, lifecycle management, robotic handling, and condition assessment. Identifying claim-scope white space in adjacent areas — such as battery health AI diagnostics, blockchain-based device provenance, or automated cosmetic grading — may reveal R&D and filing opportunities not currently covered by the asserted portfolio.
Circular economy white spaceSimilar patent cases: device reconditioning and AI evaluation platforms in N.D. Texas
Cases involving device evaluation, reconditioning, and AI-powered logistics patents in the Northern District of Texas — including Dallas and Fort Worth Divisions.
What this case signals for the device reconditioning IP landscape
Six patents, 30 days, and a sua sponte transfer: FedEx Supply Chain's assertive IP posture in device reconditioning is just beginning.
FedEx Supply Chain is actively enforcing a broad device reconditioning patent portfolio
Six patents asserted in a single complaint signals that FedEx Supply Chain views its IP in device evaluation and reconditioning as commercially significant and defensible. Companies in the reverse logistics, refurbishment, and AI-powered device grading space should treat this portfolio as active enforcement risk, not merely defensive holdings.
Venue selection matters: Fort Worth Division scrutiny is real and fast
The court's sua sponte transfer within 30 days — before any scheduling order — highlights that the Northern District of Texas will scrutinise venue even without a defendant motion. Plaintiffs filing in Fort Worth without a clear nexus to that division should expect rapid reassignment to Dallas, affecting timeline and judge assignment strategy.
FedEx v Apkudo — key questions answered
The court found Fort Worth an improper venue sua sponte. Neither FedEx Supply Chain (Delaware/Tennessee citizen) nor Apkudo (Delaware/Maryland citizen) had a connection to the Fort Worth Division, and the underlying facts related to Coppell, Texas — which sits in Dallas County. The court transferred the case to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas.
FedEx Supply Chain asserted six patents: US9341662B2, US9575973B2, US9998239B2, US9921923B2, US9487357B1, and US9335360B2. These patents cover device evaluation, AI-powered reconditioning, device passport data management, and related technologies. The accused product is Apkudo's Device Passport Platform and AI-powered robotics device evaluation and reconditioning services.
No. The transfer is procedural. All six patent infringement claims against Apkudo's Device Passport Platform are preserved and will be adjudicated in the Dallas Division. No merits ruling, claim construction, or costs order was issued in the Fort Worth proceedings.
According to the complaint, Apkudo's Device Passport Platform and AI-powered robotics device evaluation and reconditioning products and services are accused of infringing FedEx Supply Chain's six asserted patents. The specific claim-level infringement allegations are not detailed in the available transfer order.
The case proceeds in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. A new judge will be assigned and scheduling will restart. The specific status of proceedings in the Dallas Division following transfer is not reflected in the available record from this Fort Worth docket entry. All claims and defences carry over.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.