Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation

2:26-cv-00198

Patents at issue (1)

8156360

Summary

This is a patent infringement suit involving US patent 8156360, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit, Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00198, was filed on March 12, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Integral Wireless Technologies LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), though further details on its specific business model are not immediately available. The defendant, Lucid Group, Inc., is an American electric vehicle manufacturer known for its luxury electric cars.

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 8,156,360, titled "System and method for remote monitoring and control of energy consumption." This patent generally relates to technologies for wirelessly monitoring and controlling energy usage. The specific products, services, or technologies offered by Lucid Group, Inc. that are accused of infringing this patent are not detailed in the immediately available public docket information, but given Lucid's business, it is likely related to the wireless communication and energy management systems within their electric vehicles or associated charging infrastructure.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for rapid trial schedules, plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, and a perceived inclination towards patent holders in jury verdicts. While Supreme Court decisions like TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC aimed to restrict venue options in patent cases, plaintiffs have since explored strategies such as suing foreign affiliates to maintain jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas. The specific judge assigned to this case is not readily apparent from the initial public docket information. The case is notable as part of a broader trend of NPEs asserting patents against operating companies, particularly in the high-tech and automotive sectors, as electric vehicles increasingly integrate advanced wireless and energy management technologies. Integral Wireless Technologies LLC has been identified in other dockets as an NPE.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The patent infringement suit, Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00198, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on March 12, 2026. The case involves US patent 8156360.

Key Legal Developments:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings:

    • March 12, 2026: Integral Wireless Technologies LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against Lucid Group, Inc. in the Texas Eastern District Court.
    • December 31, 2025: Summons was originally served on Teltonika IoT Group.
    • April 28, 2026: Integral Wireless Technologies LLC filed a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Teltonika IoT Group and Teltonika Networks, UAB.
    • May 12, 2026: Teltonika IoT Group filed an Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint.
    • May 13, 2026: The Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint filed by Teltonika IoT Group was granted, making their answer due by May 26, 2026.

  • Pre-trial motions of substance:

    • May 1, 2026: An order was issued regarding a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Under Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed in a related case (Case No. 2:25-cv-00945-JRG).
    • April 29, 2026: An order was issued regarding a Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Venue Discovery and to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Transfer Venue, also in a related case (Case No. 2:25-cv-00945-JRG).

  • Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings:
    There is no specific information available from the provided search results about parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for US patent 8156360 directly related to this case. IPR (Inter Partes Review) and PGR (Post-Grant Review) are proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the patentability of claims in an issued U.S. patent. An IPR petition can be filed nine months after a patent's grant date or after a PGR proceeding terminates, with grounds limited to prior art patents and printed publications. A PGR petition must be filed within nine months of the patent's issuance and allows for broader challenges to patentability. The outcome of such proceedings can significantly impact district court litigation, as a final written decision from the PTAB can estop a petitioner from raising the same invalidity grounds in district court. However, without specific docket information, the existence and effect of any such proceedings on patent 8156360 in this case remain unknown.

Current Posture:

The case is currently in the early stages of litigation, with the defendant Teltonika IoT Group having been granted an extension to file their answer by May 26, 2026. No information regarding claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, settlement, or appeal is available at this early stage.## Patent Infringement Lawsuit: Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc. Progresses in Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL, TX – A patent infringement lawsuit filed by Integral Wireless Technologies LLC against Lucid Group, Inc. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00198) is currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit, initiated on March 12, 2026, centers on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,360.

Key Legal Developments:

March 12, 2026: Complaint Filed
Integral Wireless Technologies LLC officially filed its patent infringement complaint against Lucid Group, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.

December 31, 2025: Summons Served on Teltonika IoT Group
Prior to the formal complaint filing against Lucid Group, Inc., summons was served on Teltonika IoT Group.

April 28, 2026: Second Amended Complaint Filed, Adding Defendants
Integral Wireless Technologies LLC filed a Second Amended Complaint, expanding the scope of the lawsuit to include Teltonika IoT Group and Teltonika Networks, UAB, as defendants for patent infringement.

April 29, 2026: Order on Motion for Expedited Venue Discovery
In a related case (2:25-cv-00945-JRG), District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued an order concerning a motion for leave to conduct expedited venue discovery and to extend time to respond to the defendant's motion to transfer venue.

May 1, 2026: Order on Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
An order was issued in the related case (2:25-cv-00945-JRG) regarding a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

May 12, 2026: Teltonika IoT Group Seeks Extension to Answer
Defendant Teltonika IoT Group filed an unopposed application requesting an extension of time to file its answer to the complaint.

May 13, 2026: Extension Granted for Teltonika IoT Group's Answer
The court granted Teltonika IoT Group's unopposed application, extending the deadline for their answer to May 26, 2026.

Current Posture:

As of May 29, 2026, the litigation is in its nascent stages, primarily focused on initial pleadings and procedural matters. The defendants are in the process of responding to the amended complaint. There have been no reported developments concerning claim construction (Markman) hearings, significant discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or any final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

No information regarding any parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, such as Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) or Post-Grant Reviews (PGR), specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,156,360 in connection with this litigation, was found in the public records reviewed. IPRs and PGRs offer administrative avenues to challenge patent validity and can influence district court proceedings, but their presence or absence in this case cannot be confirmed at this time.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The plaintiff in Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc. (2:26-cv-00198) is represented by attorneys from Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff, Integral Wireless Technologies LLC, includes:

  • Carey Matthew Rozier (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, Houston, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Carey Rozier is a founding partner of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC and has extensive experience in patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various technology sectors.
  • Jonathan Lloyd Hardt (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, Houston, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Jonathan Hardt is a founding partner of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC and focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases.
  • James Francis McDonough, III (Lead Counsel)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, Houston, Texas.
    • Experience Note: James McDonough is a founding partner of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC and has a background in intellectual property disputes, often representing technology companies in patent infringement matters.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The defendant in Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc. (2:26-cv-00198) is Lucid Group, Inc.. Counsel of record representing Lucid Group, Inc. are from the firm Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC.

The following attorneys have appeared for the defendant:

  • James Francis McDonough, III

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, given the firm name and his listing)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
    • Office Location: Specific office location for Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC is not immediately available through the initial search, but it is a Texas-based firm.
    • Experience Note: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC is noted for intellectual property litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Carey Matthew Rozier

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, given the firm name and his listing)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
    • Office Location: Not specified in initial search.
    • Experience Note: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC focuses on intellectual property litigation and has experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Jonathan Lloyd Hardt

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely, given the firm name and his listing)
    • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
    • Office Location: Not specified in initial search.
    • Experience Note: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC is actively involved in patent infringement defense and is familiar with the local practices of the Eastern District of Texas.