AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.

AutoConnect Holdings LLC, the plaintiff, is a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that has been actively acquiring and asserting patents related to automotive technologies. Its patent collection activities became notable in recent years, with transfers of numerous assets, many originally from Flextronics (now Flex), recorded with the USPTO. AutoConnect's co-founder, identified on social media, describes the firm as a "Stealth-mode IOT / Connected Car company" focused on "bringing cutting edge technology to the connected car market via API integration, autonomous vehicle, navigation, infotainment, ADAS and security breakthroughs". The defendant, Ford Motor Co., is a multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, known for producing a wide range of vehicles under the Ford and Lincoln brands. Ford is a major operating company in the global automotive industry, with a long history of innovation, including the introduction of the moving assembly line.

The litigation centers on allegations that Ford's vehicles infringe on thirteen of AutoConnect's patents involving automotive technologies and vehicle computer control systems. While the provided information specifically lists U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697 ('697 patent) as at issue, court documents indicate that AutoConnect initially asserted thirteen patents in this case. The '697 patent, titled "VEHICLE-BASED MULTIMODE DISCOVERY," broadly relates to systems and methods for vehicle-based multimode discovery in an automobile environment, potentially involving how devices communicate with and within a vehicle network. The accused products are Ford's automotive technologies, particularly its infotainment systems, referred to as "SYNC," and features such as Phone As A Key (PaaK) and Personal Profiles. AutoConnect's infringement contentions specifically accuse Ford's infotainment systems for each asserted patent and highlight the SYNC module, which Flextronics has supplied to Ford.

The case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01327), is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, who is a judge of the United States Court of International Trade sitting by designation. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, consistently ranking among the top districts for patent filings nationwide. The case is currently stayed pending the issuance of final written decisions in inter-partes and ex-parte review proceedings at the USPTO concerning the asserted patents. This IPR linkage is notable, as multiple patents asserted by AutoConnect against Ford and other automotive manufacturers like Toyota and GM have been challenged by Unified Patents and Ford itself through ex parte reexaminations and inter-partes reviews. The assertion pattern of AutoConnect against major automotive manufacturers suggests a broad licensing or enforcement campaign targeting connected car technologies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.

Case Caption: AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.
Case number: 1:24-cv-01327
Court: Delaware District Court
Filed: 2024-12-06
Status: Stayed pending USPTO proceedings.
Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Defendant(s): Ford Motor Co.
Patents at issue: 9020697 (among others)

This patent infringement litigation, filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC against Ford Motor Co., is currently stayed in the District of Delaware pending the outcome of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Legal Developments:

• 2024-12-06 – Complaint Filed: AutoConnect Holdings LLC filed a complaint against Ford Motor Co. in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of thirteen of its patents relating to automotive technologies and vehicle computer control systems, including U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697. AutoConnect sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees.

• 2025-02-14 – Ford Files Motion to Dismiss: Ford Motor Co. filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), targeting claims related to seven of the thirteen asserted patents, including the '697 patent.

• 2025-07-23 – IPR Petition Filed (IPR2025-01342): Ford Motor Co. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697 at the PTAB (IPR2025-01342).

• 2025-08-13 – IPR Petition Filed (IPR2025-01383): Ford Motor Co. filed another IPR petition at the PTAB (IPR2025-01383).

• 2025-09-24 – Motion to Dismiss Denied: The District Court, through Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, denied Ford's motion to dismiss the claims related to the seven patents. The court found that AutoConnect plausibly alleged infringement. Following this, the parties were ordered to meet and confer to file a joint proposed scheduling order.

• 2025-10-27 – Scheduling Order Issued: A scheduling order was issued in the district court case.

• 2025-12-19 – Infringement Contentions Served: AutoConnect served its infringement contentions, identifying specific vehicles corresponding to the accused instrumentalities for at least the '296 patent.

• 2026-01-16 – PTAB Institutes IPRs: The PTAB instituted two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025-01342 and IPR2025-01383) initiated by Ford and denied AutoConnect's request for discretionary denial in a third proceeding (likely IPR2025-01524). The PTAB's Director denied AutoConnect's requests for discretionary denial, citing Ford's "well-settled expectation" that the patents would not be asserted against it, based on a decade-long business relationship with the original patent owner.

• 2026-04-16 – Case Stayed Pending PTAB Proceedings: The District Court granted, in part, Ford's motion to stay the case. The case is stayed pending the issuance of a final written decision in each of the respective inter-partes and ex-parte review proceedings. The court reasoned that a stay was warranted given that reviews had already been instituted against ten of the thirteen asserted patents, making it likely that the USPTO proceedings would simplify the issues and conserve judicial resources. At the time of the stay, fact discovery was not yet complete, and a jury trial was scheduled for October 25, 2027. The claim construction hearing, previously scheduled for September 3, 2026, is implicitly postponed by this stay.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

Ford Motor Co. has been actively challenging AutoConnect's asserted patents at the PTAB. Key IPRs include:

• IPR2025-01342 (U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697): Filed July 23, 2025, by Ford Motor Co. against AutoConnect Holdings LLC. The PTAB instituted this IPR on January 16, 2026, after denying AutoConnect's request for discretionary denial.
• IPR2025-01383: Filed August 13, 2025, by Ford Motor Co. against AutoConnect Holdings LLC. This IPR was also instituted by the PTAB on January 16, 2026, with the Director denying discretionary denial based on Ford's settled expectations.
• IPR2025-01524: Ford also filed this IPR, and AutoConnect's request for discretionary denial was denied on January 16, 2026, leading to institution.
• IPR2026-00172 (U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297): Filed December 5, 2025, by Ford Motor Company against AutoConnect Holdings LLC. This IPR was subject to a discretionary denial which terminated on April 1, 2026.

The district court explicitly noted that IPRs had been instituted against ten of the thirteen asserted patents, signifying a broad challenge to AutoConnect's patent portfolio.

Current Posture:

The case remains open but is stayed in the District of Delaware, with the court awaiting the final written decisions from the ongoing PTAB proceedings. Once these decisions are issued, the parties are required to file a joint status report within ten business days to inform the court how they wish to proceed. The claim construction hearing and jury trial dates will be revisited after the stay is lifted.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co. 1:24-cv-01327 Delaware counsel", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC patent litigation counsel", "Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP patent litigation", "Stamoulis & Butash, LLC patent litigation", "Shaw Keller LLP patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, in the case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01327) in the District of Delaware. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney. I will use web search with specific queries focusing on the case name, number, court, and plaintiff's counsel. I'll prioritize PACER/docket sheet information if accessible via search results, and then look at law firm websites and legal news outlets.The plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, is represented by a team of attorneys from three law firms, encompassing both lead and local counsel roles in the District of Delaware. The counsel of record, as identified in court documents from April 16, 2026, and September 24, 2025, are:

Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE) – Local Counsel

• Michael J. Farnan: Partner. Farnan LLP is a Wilmington, Delaware-based firm. Delaware firms often serve as local counsel in patent infringement cases filed in the District of Delaware.
• Brian E. Farnan: Partner. Farnan LLP is a Wilmington, Delaware-based firm. Delaware firms often serve as local counsel in patent infringement cases filed in the District of Delaware.

Avantech Law, LLP (Minneapolis, MN, and other offices) – Lead Counsel

• William R. Woodford: Attorney. He represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action.
• Todd S. Werner: Attorney. He represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in connection with pending district court actions, including this case and a similar action against Toyota, where U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697 has been asserted. He was also designated as proposed backup counsel for AutoConnect in a PTAB inter partes review proceeding related to the '697 patent.
• Jason M. Zucchi: Attorney. He represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action.
• Julianne Thomsen: Attorney. Based in New York, N.Y., she represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action.
• Kathryn A. Quisenberry: Attorney. Based in Houston, TX, she represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX) – Lead Counsel

• Andrea Fair: Attorney. She represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action. Miller Fair Henry PLLC has also been noted for representing AutoConnect Holdings LLC in similar patent infringement cases against other automotive manufacturers, such as Toyota, in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Garrett Parish: Attorney. He represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this district court action.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co. 1:24-cv-01327 Delaware District Court defendant counsel", "Ford Motor Co. intellectual property litigation counsel", "Ford Motor Company in-house counsel intellectual property", "Morgan Lewis intellectual property litigation attorneys", "Finnegan Henderson intellectual property litigation attorneys", "Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell intellectual property litigation attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant, Ford Motor Co., in the case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01327) in the Delaware District Court. I need to identify the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney. I will use web search to find this information, specifically looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Here's a plan:

1. Search for the docket to identify counsel who have appeared for Ford.
2. For each identified attorney, research their firm, office location, and relevant experience.
3. Categorize their role (lead, local, in-house, of counsel).The following counsel represent Ford Motor Co. in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co.:

Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI) - Lead Counsel

• John S. LeRoy: Principal and Chair of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings practice group, focusing on patent litigation, inter partes review, and patent prosecution. He has experience representing automotive clients.
• Christopher C. Smith: Principal, specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent and trade secret cases, with experience in the automotive industry.
• Reza Roghani Esfahani: Senior Counsel, whose practice includes patent litigation, patent prosecution, and post-grant proceedings.

Smith, Katzenstein, & Jenkins LLP (Wilmington, DE) - Local Counsel

• Neal C. Belgam: Partner, with a practice in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes in the District of Delaware.
• Daniel A. Taylor: Partner, focusing on intellectual property and corporate litigation in Delaware's federal and state courts.

No specific in-house counsel for Ford Motor Co. have been identified as appearing on the docket for this specific case in the provided search results. While Ford Motor Company does have in-house attorneys, the search results only indicate external counsel appearing on the court documents for this case.