Untitled case

AutoConnect Holdings LLC, identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is AutoConnect Holdings LLC, while the defendants are Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc.. General Motors LLC is also a defendant in a member case consolidated with this lead case. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a patent assertion entity that has been actively litigating against major automotive manufacturers like Toyota, GM, and Ford, asserting patents related to vehicle ecosystems and connected car technologies.

The accused products and technologies are a wide array of automobiles, vehicle systems (e.g., in-vehicle multimedia systems), mobile apps, and related hardware and software components provided by Toyota. Specifically, the infringement allegations cover features such as Toyota's Digital Key, face identification, and User Profiles, as well as support for Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto platforms. The patent asserted in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 9,147,296. This patent broadly relates to components that enable User Profiles in Toyota vehicles, particularly for 2022 model year and later vehicles. AutoConnect Holdings LLC's portfolio, from which these patents are drawn, is described as including nearly 100 issued U.S. patents and pending applications related to new and improved vehicle technologies.

The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, particularly for plaintiffs, due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules, though the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 sought to restrict venue options. Despite TC Heartland, the Eastern District of Texas continues to see significant patent filings, sometimes through strategies involving targeting foreign affiliates to circumvent venue restrictions. Judge Gilstrap, who presides over many patent cases in the district, is known for his expeditious handling of these matters. This case is notable due to AutoConnect Holdings LLC's pattern of asserting a large portfolio of patents against major automotive industry players, leading to challenges like ex parte reexaminations filed by Unified Patents against some of AutoConnect's other patents in an effort to identify prior art and challenge validity. Toyota has also filed motions to amend invalidity contentions, indicating active challenges to the asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00802, was filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,147,296, among others. The defendants in this case are Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively "Toyota"), along with General Motors LLC ("GM"). The case is presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-10-03 – Complaint Filed: AutoConnect Holdings LLC initiated the lawsuit against Toyota, alleging infringement of 11 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,147,296. The asserted patents relate broadly to network-connected vehicle technologies, such as digital key features, face identification, user profiles, Apple CarPlay, and Google Android Auto platforms.
• 2024-12-06 – Consolidation Order: The case was consolidated for all pretrial issues with a related case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC (2:24-cv-00877), with 2:24-cv-00802 designated as the lead case.
• 2025-02-13 – First Amended Docket Control Order: A First Amended Docket Control Order was issued by Judge Gilstrap.
• 2025-04-01 – Invalidity Contentions Served: Toyota and GM served their invalidity contentions on AutoConnect.
• 2025-12-19 – Infringement Contentions Served: AutoConnect served its infringement contentions for the '296 patent, which were identified as being against Ford model years 2020 and later, specifically targeting systems combining "Phone As A Key (PaaK)" with "Personal Profiles" features (this was mentioned in the context of a separate, related case against Ford, 1:24-CV-01327, but provides insight into the asserted claims for the '296 patent).
• 2026-01-20 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A Markman (claim construction) hearing was scheduled before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The outcome of this hearing is not yet publicly detailed in the available search results.
• 2026-03-30 – Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Denied: Defendants' (Toyota) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 63) was denied by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This decision adopted Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation, rejecting the defendants' objections.
• 2026-05-18 – Pretrial Conference Scheduled: A Pretrial Conference is set before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• 2026-07-20 – Jury Selection Scheduled: Jury selection is scheduled to begin before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

While no specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been found for U.S. Patent No. 9,147,296 directly related to this case, other patents owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC have been challenged by Ford Motor Company in separate IPR proceedings. These include:

• IPR2025-01342 (U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697 B2) and IPR2025-01383: Initiated by Ford Motor Company against AutoConnect Holdings LLC. Initially, the PTAB Director instituted these IPRs on January 16, 2026, denying AutoConnect's request for discretionary denial based on settled expectations. However, on May 12, 2026, the Director vacated the institution decisions and denied institution for IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, and IPR2025-01524. The Director found that Ford's inconsistent claim construction positions between the PTAB petitions and parallel district court proceedings warranted the discretionary denial.
• IPR2026-00171 (U.S. Patent No. 9,082,239 B2), IPR2026-00172 (U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297 B2), and IPR2026-00173 (U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100 B2): These IPRs were also initiated by Ford Motor Company against AutoConnect Holdings LLC. It is important to note that IPR2026-00172 challenges patent 9,147,297 B2, which is a different patent than the 9,147,296 patent central to this case.

Current Posture:

The litigation is active and proceeding through its pre-trial stages in the Eastern District of Texas. The denial of the defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the scheduling of a Markman hearing, pretrial conference, and jury selection indicate that the case is moving towards a potential trial.

AutoConnect Holdings LLC is represented by the following counsel in this patent infringement case:

Lead Counsel

• William R. Woodford (Partner)

  • Firm: Avantech Law LLP (Minneapolis, MN)
  • Note: Has over 20 years of patent litigation experience and is a partner and founder at Avantech Law LLP. He has been involved in numerous patent litigations in federal court and represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in related district court actions and PTAB proceedings.

• Daniel R. Scardino (Partner)

  • Firm: Scardino LLP (Austin, TX)
  • Note: Continues to represent clients in patent litigation matters, including serving as lead trial counsel in competitor patent infringement disputes. He secured a nearly $25 million jury verdict against Apple in 2014 and has secured recoveries for his clients in excess of $150 million.

• Eric A. Zelepugas (Lead Counsel for Patent Owner)

  • Firm: Avantech Law LLP (Address not specified in snippets, but firm is based in Minneapolis, MN for Woodford)
  • Note: A registered practitioner with the USPTO and experienced in inter partes proceedings before the USPTO, acting as lead counsel for AutoConnect Holdings LLC in related PTAB matters.

Of Counsel/Backup Counsel

• Todd S. Werner (Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney / Backup Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law LLP (Minneapolis, MN)
  • Note: Represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in connection with pending district court actions and PTAB proceedings, and has considerable working knowledge of the patents at issue.

Local Counsel

It is highly probable that AutoConnect Holdings LLC also has local counsel from the Eastern District of Texas. While direct appearances for this specific case were not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, the following firm is frequently mentioned in the context of East Texas patent litigation and for representing AutoConnect Holdings LLC:

• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A firm with attorneys focusing on patent litigation and regularly appearing before federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas. The firm has a national reputation in high-stakes claims involving complex commercial litigation and intellectual property law. Johnny Ward and Wesley Hill were recognized for intellectual property litigation. Note: Effective October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith were to end their trial practices, with remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry. Given the case filing date in 2024, the original firm or its successor, Miller Fair Henry PLLC, would be the likely local counsel.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. 2:24-cv-00802 counsel of record", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. 2:24-cv-00802 docket", "Fish & Richardson AutoConnect Holdings LLC Toyota", "Snell & Wilmer AutoConnect Holdings LLC Toyota", "Bradley Arant Boult Cummings AutoConnect Holdings LLC Toyota"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the specified patent infringement case.
I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience.
I will use web search with the case name and number, focusing on docket information and firm websites.

First, I'll search for "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. 2:24-cv-00802 counsel of record" to get a broad overview.
Then I will refine my search based on the initial results, looking for specific attorney names and their affiliations.
I will look for "lead counsel", "of counsel", "local counsel", and "in-house" roles.
I will also try to find information on their patent litigation experience.

Let's start by searching the case number and parties for counsel information.Here is the identified counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00802 in the Eastern District of Texas:

For Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc.

While a complete docket sheet with all counsel of record was not directly accessible via the provided search, references within related PTAB filings indicate that Toyota is actively represented in this district court case and has filed invalidity contentions.

• Attorneys: The specific attorneys of record for Toyota in the district court case are not explicitly named in the provided search results; however, documents from a related PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-00106), where Toyota Motor Corp. is the Petitioner against AutoConnect Holdings LLC, refer to Toyota having "counsel of record" in the district court case 2:24-cv-00802. This same PTAB document confirms that Toyota served Invalidity Contentions in the district court case on April 1, 2025.
• Firm: Based on common practice for large defendants in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, and the strong patent litigation practices of certain firms in the region, it is highly probable that a prominent intellectual property firm represents Toyota. Firms like Fish & Richardson P.C. have a top-ranked patent litigation practice and a significant presence in Dallas, Texas, handling a large number of district court patent cases. Snell & Wilmer also has a Dallas office with attorneys focused on intellectual property and patent litigation. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP also has a litigation practice including intellectual property and offices in Dallas and Houston. Without direct access to the district court docket, the exact firm and individual attorneys cannot be definitively named from the provided results.
• Role: Lead Counsel, Local Counsel (likely for Eastern District of Texas).
• Relevant Experience Note: The attorneys representing Toyota would be experienced in patent litigation, particularly in defending against claims from Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) and handling complex technology issues related to automotive systems and connected car technologies. Their work includes drafting and asserting invalidity contentions, as evidenced by Toyota's filing of such contentions on April 1, 2025.

For General Motors LLC

General Motors LLC is a defendant in a member case consolidated with this lead case. However, the provided search results do not explicitly name the counsel of record for General Motors LLC in this specific consolidated case (2:24-cv-00802) or its member case. Information from related PTAB proceedings involving Ford Motor Company mentions Charles J. Monterio, Jr. as counsel for Ford Motor Company in other district court actions involving AutoConnect Holdings LLC, but does not provide details for GM in this case.

• Counsel: Not explicitly identified in the provided search results. Filings for General Motors LLC would need to be reviewed to determine counsel.
• Firm: Not explicitly identified in the provided search results.
• Role: Not explicitly identified.
• Relevant Experience Note: Counsel for General Motors would be expected to have significant experience in patent litigation, particularly concerning automotive and connected vehicle technologies.

If court filings were sealed or counsel has not yet appeared for a specific defendant, this cannot be confirmed without direct access to the sealed docket entries. The provided search results do not indicate any sealed filings regarding counsel appearance.