Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation was initiated by Longhorn Automotive Group LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and an entity of Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC, known for asserting patents previously held by Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV). The defendant in this specific case is Mazda Motor Corporation, an operating company in the automotive industry. The asserted patent is US Patent 8,265,353, titled "Forming an Image of a Mobile Object," which describes a method for creating an image of a moving object by using two distinct imaging techniques and two independent sensor systems to capture both images and movement data. Longhorn Automotive Group's broader campaign targets a variety of automotive products, including driver assistance systems and headlights, suggesting that the accused products in this case likely fall within these categories, specifically those related to automotive imaging systems.

The case, numbered 2:24-cv-00686, was filed on August 20, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas and was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for a patent-friendly environment and a fast-paced docket. Notably, this case was consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, 2:24-cv-00933, on February 18, 2025. The litigation concluded relatively quickly, as the case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gilstrap on November 20, 2025.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily due to the plaintiff's nature as an NPE asserting patents from a significant portfolio acquired from Intellectual Ventures, with apparent backing from a litigation funder. The patent-at-issue, US 8,265,353, has also been a subject of interest for Unified Patents, which has publicly identified prior art for it and filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. While an IPR petition concerning this patent was filed by Volkswagen Group of America Inc. against Longhorn Automotive Group LLC (IPR2025-01064), it ultimately reached a settlement and was terminated on April 2, 2026. The relatively swift dismissal with prejudice in the district court, less than a year after filing, suggests an early resolution or settlement between the parties.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation (2:24-cv-00686)

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Longhorn Automotive Group LLC against Mazda Motor Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, concerned U.S. Patent 8,265,353. The case was filed on August 20, 2024, and was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. It was designated as a "Member Case," indicating it was part of a larger, consolidated litigation for pre-trial purposes, with related cases against other automotive manufacturers, including Volkswagen AG (Lead Case 2:24-cv-00933-JRG) and Hyundai Motor Company (Lead Case 2:24-cv-00554-JRG).

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Longhorn Automotive Group LLC initiated the lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corporation on August 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent 8,265,353, which generally relates to forming an image of a mobile object.
• Specific details regarding Mazda's answer or any counterclaims are not publicly available in the provided snippets. However, given the nature of patent litigation, it is highly probable that Mazda filed an answer denying infringement and asserting invalidity counterclaims.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• While specific motions to dismiss or transfer for the Mazda case (2:24-cv-00686) are not explicitly detailed in the search results, the consolidated nature of the litigation suggests that common pre-trial motions, such as motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR), would have been considered across the related cases.
• A document from December 11, 2025, references a "Fourth Amended Docket Control Order" for the Mazda case, indicating active case management prior to its closure. This document also mentions guidelines for motions for continuance, suggesting active scheduling.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• The available information does not specify if a Markman hearing or claim construction order was issued specifically for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation (2:24-cv-00686) before its closure. Given the case's closure date of November 21, 2025, it is possible that claim construction was either not reached, was ongoing, or was rendered moot by a settlement or dismissal.

Discovery Milestones

• A document dated December 11, 2025, from a related Volkswagen case (2:24-cv-00933-JRG), which consolidated the Mazda case for pre-trial purposes, discusses discovery deadlines and contentions, suggesting discovery was progressing across the consolidated cases.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The case did not proceed to trial. The docket indicates that Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation (2:24-cv-00686) was closed on November 21, 2025.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – The Final Disposition

• The case was closed on November 21, 2025. While the specific reason for closure (e.g., dismissal with prejudice, settlement) is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, the closure of a case prior to trial often points to a settlement between the parties.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-01064: Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a defendant in a related district court case (2:24-cv-00933-JRG) and an automotive company, filed an inter partes review petition against U.S. Patent 8,265,353 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Petition Filed: May 30, 2025.
  • Institution Decision: The PTAB instituted review on December 8, 2025.
  • Outcome: The IPR proceeding reached a settlement on April 2, 2026.
• Effect on Litigation: The existence of an IPR challenging the validity of the asserted patent could have influenced the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay or contributing to a settlement. Although the district court case against Mazda closed prior to the IPR settlement, the IPR against Volkswagen concerning the same patent suggests a broader strategy by the automotive industry to challenge the patent's validity. Unified Patents also ran a prior art contest for U.S. Patent 8,265,353, with prior art found and announced on December 2, 2024, which could have also impacted the litigation strategy.

In summary, the patent infringement case filed by Longhorn Automotive Group LLC against Mazda Motor Corporation (2:24-cv-00686) in the Eastern District of Texas was filed in August 2024 and subsequently closed in November 2025, likely due to a settlement, before reaching trial. This case was part of a larger, consolidated litigation involving multiple auto manufacturers, and the asserted patent was also challenged in parallel PTAB inter partes review proceedings, one of which (filed by Volkswagen) settled in April 2026.

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC is represented by a team of attorneys from several firms in the patent infringement case 2:24-cv-00686, which has been consolidated for pretrial issues with lead case 2:24-cv-00933. The counsel of record representing Longhorn Automotive Group LLC include:

• Enrique William Iturralde

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Mr. Iturralde is listed as lead counsel for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in an associated PTAB IPR proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353, the patent at issue in this district court litigation. He filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in the district court case on February 12, 2025.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III

  • Role: Back-up Counsel (in IPR), Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York and Rubino Law LLC
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubino is identified as back-up counsel for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in an IPR proceeding related to the '353 patent. He has filed various documents in related Longhorn Automotive cases.

• John Andrew Rubino

  • Role: Back-up Counsel (in IPR), Counsel
  • Firm: Rubino IP, Short Hills, New Jersey
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubino is also listed as back-up counsel for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in an IPR proceeding for the patent at issue. He has filed notices of appearance for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in related patent infringement cases.

• Alfred Ross Fabricant

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fabricant has appeared on behalf of Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in this case and related patent infringement actions.

• Peter Lambrianakos

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lambrianakos has filed notices of appearance for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in this and other associated patent infringement cases.

• Michael Mondelli, III

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Rubino Law LLC
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mondelli has entered appearances for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in multiple related patent infringement suits.

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm: Truelove Law Firm
  • Experience Note: Mr. Truelove has a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in a related consolidated case (2:24-cv-00397) in the Eastern District of Texas, indicating a local counsel role.

The case 2:24-cv-00686, initially filed against Mazda Motor Corporation, was consolidated with other cases asserting the same patent, 8,265,353, into lead case 2:24-cv-00933, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Volkswagen AG, et al. on February 18, 2025. The case was later dismissed with prejudice on November 20, 2025.

In the patent infringement case Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation, case number 2:24-cv-00686 in the Eastern District of Texas, the defendant is Mazda Motor Corporation.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing Mazda Motor Corporation includes attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Sidley Austin LLP, along with local counsel.

Here are the details for the identified attorneys:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Jeanne Heffernan
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Heads the firm's Texas IP litigation group, experienced trial attorney with a track record in high-stakes patent disputes across industries including technology, life sciences, and automotives.
• Christopher Buxton
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret matters before U.S. Federal Courts and the PTAB, with experience in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, telecommunications, and automotive technologies.
• Emily Sheffield
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Practices intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent infringement and trade secret litigation, and has a background in mechanical engineering.

Sidley Austin LLP

• Aimee Fagan
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Sought after by clients in the energy, technology, and medical industries for patent litigation.
• Julia M. Chester
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: A lawyer in the IP Litigation practice, focusing on brand development, trademark protection, and copyright enforcement, with experience in IP transactions and technology matters.

Further PACER access would be needed to confirm specific "lead counsel" or "local counsel" designations as of the most recent docket entries. The information above is based on firm websites and legal industry profiles which often highlight active patent litigators in the relevant practice groups and office locations for large corporate defendants like Mazda.