Xythonic LLC filed Xythonic LLC v. Transputec Limited, No. 2:26-cv-00991 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), on November 3, 2026. The complaint describes Xythonic as organized under New Mexico law with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Transputec Limited as organized under the laws of the United Kingdom with an established place of business in Wembley, London, United Kingdom. Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) for a foreign corporation. The court's docket record lists the case as assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The same plaintiff filed complaints the same day as Nos. 2:26-cv-00989 and 2:26-cv-00990 (E.D. Tex.).
The patent
The complaint asserts one patent, U.S. Patent 10,375,560, "Personal safety network," which it says issued August 6, 2019 from an application filed June 1, 2018. The patent names Cynthia Goodenough Welch and Keith C. Welch as inventors and describes a network in which authorized members communicate rapidly about threats, emergencies, or other circumstances through mobile devices running an application, an administrative server, and a push notification server. Xythonic pleads that it is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in the patent, including the rights to enforce and prosecute infringement.
What the complaint alleges
The single count alleges direct infringement by making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in attached claim charts, and by internal testing and use, and alleges, on information and belief, that numerous other devices that infringe have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by the defendant and/or its customers. It pleads that service of the complaint with the claim charts gives the defendant actual knowledge, and alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant has continued to sell the exemplary products and distribute product literature and website materials that induce end users to use them in a manner the complaint says infringes. It alleges induced infringement at least since service of the complaint and claim charts, by sales of the exemplary products to customers for use in end-user products. The complaint incorporates the Exhibit 2 claim charts by reference and seeks damages adequate to compensate for the alleged infringement; the claim charts are not available.
Relief requested
The prayer asks for a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable and that the defendant has infringed directly and indirectly; an accounting of damages not presented at trial; damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 with interest and costs; and, if necessary to compensate for infringement, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 with reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and further relief. The complaint demands a jury under Rule 38(b).
Where the case stands
Through November 4, 2026, the docket shows the complaint, a notice of appearance, the plaintiff's disclosure statement, the patent and trademark form, and a summons issued as to Transputec Limited. Watch for proof of service, the defendant's answer, counterclaims, or a Rule 12 motion. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.