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.

I'll research defense counsel of record in this case through multiple searches.

Good leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific district court appearances for Toyota and GM.

Let me confirm firms and roles, and find local counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants

Important sourcing note: PACER's full docket sheet was not directly retrievable in this session; the roster below is reconstructed from (a) an Eastern District of Texas docket/appearance listing surfaced in the PTAB record, (b) PacerMonitor's party-representation list for 2:24-cv-00802, and (c) PTAB filings in the parallel Toyota–AutoConnect proceedings (which identify the same firms). Where I could not confirm a role (e.g., who signed the notices of appearance, or Toyota/GM's EDTX local counsel), I say so rather than guess.

---

A. Toyota Defendants

(Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.)

1. Michael E. Kudravetz — Lead trial counsel (district court)

• Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — Washington, DC (also listed in Finnegan's Boston office directory).
• Docket confirmation: The EDTX appearance listing in the record shows "Michael E Kudravetz representing Toyota Motor Corporation (Defendant), Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (Defendant), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Defendant), Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Defendant)."
• Note: ITC Section 337 and district court patent litigator (Gamevice v. Nintendo, 337-TA-1197; DJI, 337-TA-1133); secured a jury verdict of invalidity for CosMX in ATL v. CosMX, 2:22-cv-00232 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap) — i.e., he has tried patent cases in this exact venue and before this judge.

2. Aidan C. Skoyles — Counsel (district court and PTAB)

• Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — Washington, DC.
• Docket confirmation: Same EDTX appearance listing shows Skoyles representing the Toyota entities.
• Note: Named backup counsel on Toyota's PTAB petitions against AutoConnect (IPR2025-00890/00891), giving him continuity between the district case and the AIA challenges.

3. Joshua L. Goldberg — Lead PTAB counsel (not confirmed as district court counsel)

• Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — Washington, DC.
• Note: Listed as lead counsel for Petitioner Toyota Motor Corp. in IPR2025-00890 and IPR2025-00891 and as Toyota's Finnegan lead counsel of record in AutoConnect's § 42.8 mandatory notices (served May 20, 2025). Long-standing Toyota PTAB counsel (e.g., IPR2017-01539 power of attorney).

4. James R. Barney — Backup PTAB counsel

• Firm: Finnegan, Washington, DC. Named backup counsel alongside Goldberg/Skoyles in the Toyota IPRs and on the service list for AutoConnect's mandatory notices.

5. Patrick Colsher — Lead counsel for Toyota in PGR2025-00041 (different forum, related patent family)

• Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320, New York, NY.
• Note: Filed Toyota's April 2025[?] post-grant review against AutoConnect's U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 (PGR2025-00041), served via the firm's dedicated rj_toyota-autoconnect@reichmanjorgensen.com service address. This indicates Reichman Jorgensen, not Finnegan, handles Toyota's post-grant work while Finnegan handles the IPRs.

6. Matthew G. Berkowitz — Backup counsel, PGR2025-00041

• Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP — Redwood Shores, CA.

Not confirmed: Toyota's E.D. Tex. local counsel. The December 6, 2024 consolidation order (in AutoConnect v. Toyota, No. 2:24-cv-00802-JRG-RSP) directs the Clerk to "add the consolidated Defendants into the Lead Case and their corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only," which confirms local counsel exist of record, but the name/firm did not surface in the material I could retrieve. I also could not confirm any Toyota in-house attorney appearing.

---

B. General Motors LLC (consolidated defendant, member case 2:24-cv-00877)

PacerMonitor's representation list for 2:24-cv-00802 identifies GM's counsel as five attorneys at Jenner & Block:

1. Reginald J. Hill — Lead counsel

• Firm: Jenner & Block LLP — Chicago, IL.
• Note: Listed first in the GM representation block; Jenner & Block is GM's principal outside patent/appellate litigation firm. (Specific GM patent matters were not verified in this session.)

2. Mitchell L. Denti — Counsel

• Firm: Jenner & Block LLP — Chicago, IL (per PacerMonitor entry).

3. Peter J. Brennan — Counsel

• Firm: Jenner & Block LLP (PacerMonitor lists him in the GM block).

4. Benjamin J. Bradford — Counsel

• Firm: Jenner & Block LLP (PacerMonitor lists him in the GM block).

5. Nicole Keenan — Counsel

• Firm: Jenner & Block, LLP (PacerMonitor lists her in the GM block).

Not confirmed: Individual role designations (lead vs. of counsel vs. local) for GM and GM's E.D. Tex. local counsel. PacerMonitor's page does not break out roles, and I could not retrieve the actual notices of appearance. Per the consolidation order, GM's lead and local counsel were added to the lead case by the Clerk, but the individual entries were not retrievable here.

---

C. Cross-check: the parallel PTAB proceedings

The same defense-side teams appear in the post-grant challenges, which is useful for confirming who really holds the file:

---

D. Corrections / caveats relative to the previously generated sections

1. Plaintiff-side vs. defense-side mix-up risk flagged: PacerMonitor's single-page listing for 2:24-cv-00802 groups names loosely. The names William Woodford, Julianne Thomsen, Todd Stephen Werner, Jason Zucchi, Shelleaha L. Jonas are plaintiff-side (Avantech Law / local counsel) and must not be listed as defense counsel. A separate name, Andrea Leigh Fair (Miller Fair Henry PLLC), appears in that same block — I could not confirm from the retrieved text which party she represents, so it should not be treated as Toyota local counsel without a docket check. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section's suggestion that Ward, Smith & Hill/Miller Fair Henry serve as AutoConnect's local counsel remains unconfirmed speculation.
2. Case-name confusion in one source: A PTAB-hosted transcript/exhibit snippet from the record also displays the caption "Toyota Motor Corp. v. Autoconnect Holdings LLC" in a deposition context (witness Scott Denning, deposition taken January 5, 2026, Veitext ref. 7812832, AutoConnect Ex. 2023, Toyota v. AutoConnect PGR2025-00041). That is a PTAB proceeding caption, not the district court caption — worth keeping distinct.
3. Docket entry dates for the notices of appearance themselves were not retrievable. If you need document numbers (e.g., "Notice of Appearance, Dkt. __"), that requires a PACER pull of the 2:24-cv-00802 docket sheet, which I could not complete here.

Bottom line: The defense side of this case is a two-firm structure — Finnegan (Kudravetz leading in E.D. Tex., with Skoyles, Goldberg, and Barney on the parallel Toyota IPRs) for the Toyota entities, plus Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Colsher/Berkowitz) on Toyota's PGR work, and Jenner & Block (Reginald J. Hill et al.) for GM; local counsel for both defense groups exist of record per the consolidation order but were not identifiable from the sources available.