AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit represents a classic clash between a drone technology operating company and a suspected non-practicing entity (NPE). The plaintiff, AF Holdco, LLC, is asserting a patent related to website user interface features against Aloft, LLC, a prominent provider of drone fleet and airspace management software. The case is notable as it appears to be part of a broader litigation campaign by a patent monetization firm, targeting a high-growth industry with a patent that is seemingly unrelated to the core technology of the accused infringer.

The plaintiff, AF Holdco, LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity. While corporate records for this specific plaintiff are not readily available, the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, is owned by Aloft Media, LLC, which has been identified in other lawsuits and by industry intelligence firms as a non-practicing entity and an affiliate of Oso IP, LLC. Oso IP describes itself as a firm that secures capital to "supercharge" patents for licensing and financial returns. This pattern strongly suggests AF Holdco, LLC is a special purpose vehicle for this litigation, possibly to create a jurisdictional hook in Tennessee or to obscure the ultimate party of interest. The defendant, Aloft, LLC (formerly known as Kittyhawk), is a major operating company that provides the "Aloft Air Control" platform, an FAA-approved application used by commercial and recreational pilots to manage drone operations, check airspace, and obtain flight authorizations (LAANC).

The lawsuit alleges that Aloft's Air Control platform infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793. The '793 patent, titled "Hyperlink with graphical cue," generally describes a method for displaying a secondary set of hyperlinks (like a drop-down menu) when a user interacts with a first hyperlink. The infringement claim is not directed at Aloft's core drone or airspace technology, but rather at the user interface of its software platform. This tactic is common among NPEs, who apply broadly written software patents to common web and application features across various industries. The '793 patent has been asserted by Aloft Media, LLC in numerous other cases against companies in diverse sectors, indicating a widespread assertion campaign.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division) and has been assigned to District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., with a referral to a Magistrate Judge for case management (Docket No. 9). This venue is not one of the most popular for patent litigation but has handled such cases. The selection of a Tennessee venue may be strategic, although the reasons are not yet clear from the public record. The case's significance stems from its place within the broader trend of NPEs targeting the growing and well-funded drone industry. Furthermore, the validity of the asserted patent has been questioned; Unified Patents, an anti-NPE organization, sponsored a prior art contest seeking to invalidate claims of the '793 patent, suggesting that defendants like Aloft may have strong invalidity arguments. No Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have been identified as of this date.

As of May 13, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between AF Holdco, LLC and Aloft, LLC is in its initial stages. Key developments are limited, but the broader context surrounding the asserted patent suggests potential future challenges regarding its validity.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint (2026-03-29): AF Holdco, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793.
• Case Referral (2026-04-01): The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for case management.
• Current Pleading Status: As of mid-May 2026, information regarding the defendant Aloft, LLC's answer, potential counterclaims, or any early motions to dismiss is not yet publicly available. Given the filing date, the deadline for such a response is likely imminent.

Substantive Motions, Discovery, and Claim Construction

Given the early stage of the litigation, there have been no substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to stay or for summary judgment. The parties have not yet reached significant discovery milestones or the claim construction (Markman) phase.

Parallel Proceedings & Broader Context

While no parallel inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated by the defendant, Aloft, LLC, has been identified, the patent-in-suit has been the subject of significant attention, which will likely influence the trajectory of this case:

• Parent Company Litigation: The plaintiff, AF Holdco, LLC, appears to be related to Aloft Media, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) that has filed numerous lawsuits asserting the '793 patent and related patents against various companies.
• Declaratory Judgment Actions: Several other companies have preemptively filed lawsuits seeking declaratory judgments that they do not infringe the '793 patent and/or that the patent is invalid. These actions suggest a common defense strategy among accused infringers.
• Prior Art Search (2026-03-29): Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs, has initiated a public "PATROLL" contest seeking prior art to invalidate at least claim 23 of the '793 patent. This effort, which expired on May 2, 2026, indicates that patent validity is a key point of contention and that a significant body of potential prior art may exist.

Outcome and Present Posture

The case remains open and is in its preliminary phase. The next significant development is expected to be the defendant's response to the complaint, which will likely include an answer and potential counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793. Given the litigation history of the patent owner and the active challenges to the patent's validity, a motion to dismiss or a future petition for IPR are plausible defensive strategies for Aloft, LLC.

Based on a review of the docket for AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00374, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the following counsel has been identified representing the plaintiff, AF Holdco, LLC.

As of May 13, 2026, filings indicate that only one attorney has formally appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. It is common in patent infringement cases for a larger team, including specialized patent litigators, to be involved, and additional counsel may file notices of appearance as the case progresses.

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: Rachel L. Sodée
  • Role: Given her location in Nashville and her filing of the initial complaint documents, she is likely serving as local counsel. Her specific role as lead or co-counsel has not yet been designated in the docket.
  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Nashville, TN office).
  • Note on Experience: Ms. Sodée is an associate in the firm's Litigation Practice Group. Her firm profile indicates a broad litigation practice that includes representing technology companies, though it does not specify a focus on patent litigation. She is a 2020 graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School.

As of May 13, 2026, no counsel has formally filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for the defendant, Aloft, LLC, in AF Holdco, LLC v. Aloft, LLC, case number 3:26-cv-00374, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case is in its early stages, and the deadline for the defendant to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint may not have passed.

However, analysis of parallel litigation involving the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793) and a related entity, Aloft Media, LLC, provides a strong indication of likely counsel.

Probable Lead Counsel (Anticipated)

Based on appearances in other recent patent cases where Aloft Media, LLC is a party, the following firm is anticipated to serve as lead counsel for the defendant.

• Name: Brian E. Farnan
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Anticipated)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note on Experience: Brian Farnan is a partner at a prominent Delaware litigation boutique founded by a former U.S. District Judge and has extensive experience serving as counsel, often for plaintiffs, in high-stakes patent litigation in the District of Delaware and other venues. He has recently appeared for Aloft Media, LLC in Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media, LLC et al, 1:26-cv-00193 (D. Del.).

Local Counsel (Anticipated)

Should Farnan LLP appear as lead counsel, they would be required to associate with a Tennessee-barred attorney to serve as local counsel. The specific local counsel is unknown at this time.

It is important to note that while Aloft, LLC, is the named defendant in this specific case, the patent-in-suit is owned by Aloft Media, LLC. Numerous recent declaratory judgment actions have been filed against Aloft Media, LLC across various jurisdictions, suggesting it is the primary entity directing the patent assertion campaign. This pattern of litigation makes it highly probable that the legal representation for Aloft, LLC, will be consistent with that of Aloft Media, LLC.

This analysis will be updated as soon as a notice of appearance is filed on the official court docket.