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.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel for AutoConnect Holdings in this case.

I found the key opinion listing plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify details and roles with additional searches.

Let me gather individual attorney profiles and confirm roles.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:24-cv-01327-JCG (D. Del.)

The authoritative source for plaintiff-side appearances is the caption block of the Court's April 16, 2026 Opinion and Order granting in part Ford's motion to stay (D.I. 72), published at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1327_0.pdf and mirrored at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01327/87578/72/. That caption identifies every attorney appearing "for Plaintiff AutoConnect Holdings LLC." I've grouped them by role below; individual experience notes are sourced from firm/Chambers profiles where available and otherwise flagged as unverified.

Lead / merits counsel — Avantech Law, LLP (80 S. 8th St., Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402)

Local counsel — Farnan LLP (919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801)

Farnan LLP signed plaintiff's opposition to Ford's motion to dismiss (dated February 28, 2025) together with the Avantech team. The pro hac vice motion at D.I. 10 was filed by Brian Farnan, consistent with Farnan's local-counsel role.

Additional plaintiff-side counsel — Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)

Given the Longview, TX base, this firm most plausibly functions as regional/Texas-side counsel coordinating with the Texas AutoConnect actions (the Toyota and GM suits were both filed in E.D. Tex.), but nothing in the available record states their role, and I won't speculate further.

Parallel PTAB representation (for cross-reference, not district-court counsel of record)

In the parallel IPRs, AutoConnect's lead PTAB counsel is Eric A. Zelepugas (Reg. No. 73,302), Avantech Law, Minneapolis, with Robert A. Conley (Reg. No. 55,846) as backup — per the certificate of service in Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, IPR2025-01342/-01383/-01524 and IPR2026-00172 (e.g., Paper filed Feb. 9, 2026, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558314](/patent/1558314)/download-documents). Zelepugas leads Avantech's PTAB practice and was lead counsel in the AutoConnect/Toyota PTAB matters; his firm bio notes that the Board's May 12, 2026 decision in these IPRs (vacating institution after he raised Ford's inconsistent indefiniteness positions) was designated informative on May 13, 2026 — see https://www.avantechlaw.com/team/eric-zelepugas/. Note the mismatch: Zelepugas does not appear in the district-court caption, so the district and PTAB teams are staffed separately (with Woodford/Werner/Zucchi/Jonas cross-listed on PTAB backup counsel papers).

Caveats and flags

• Verification method: Names above are taken directly from the court's own caption (D.I. 72 / 24-1327 opinion) and from PTAB filings. I did not have direct PACER access; the docket snapshot at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01327/87578 is only current through January 23, 2025, so it shows only the D.I. 10 PHV admissions (Woodford, Werner, Zucchi) plus Farnan. Jonas, Thomsen, Quisenberry, Fair, and Parish evidently entered later via separate pro hac vice motions; I could not locate those individual PHV docket entries, so their precise admission dates are unconfirmed, though their appearance is confirmed by the April 2026 opinion caption.
• Judge reassignment flag: The D.I. 10 pro hac vice order (1/22/2025) was issued by Judge Colm F. Connolly, whereas D.I. 72 (4/16/2026) is signed by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves (USCIT, sitting by designation), as reflected in the case metadata. This indicates the case was reassigned at some point in 2025. The prior case sections do not mention the reassignment — worth correcting there.
• Patent-count discrepancy (restating prior flag): The case metadata lists only U.S. Pat. No. 9,020,697, but the complaint asserts thirteen patents and D.I. 72 confirms "ten of the thirteen patents" are under USPTO review. The '697 patent is one of them.
• No in-house counsel identified: No AutoConnect in-house attorney appears on the district-court docket; all appearances are outside counsel.

I'll research Ford's counsel of record in this case through docket-focused searches.

Good — the April 16, 2026 opinion gives the defense team. Let me verify and add detail on each attorney, and check for any change of local counsel (an earlier filing was signed by a different Delaware firm).

Defendant representatives (Ford Motor Company)

Sourcing note: This section is built on the two Court opinions that list defense counsel of record — the September 24, 2025 motion-to-dismiss opinion (AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:24-cv-01327-JCG (D. Del. Sept. 24, 2025), D.I. 24, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01327/87578/24/) and the April 16, 2026 stay opinion (No. 1:24-cv-01327-JCG (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2026), https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1327_0.pdf) — plus the signature block on Ford's reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss (D.I. 13, dated March 7, 2025, as posted to the PTAB record at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558472](/patent/1558472)/download-documents). Ford's counsel appear to have changed Delaware local counsel mid-case; see the flag below.

Lead counsel — Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak / Southfield, MI)

Brooks Kushman is Ford's long-standing outside IP litigation firm (Chambers lists Ford among the firm's clients and notes the firm prosecutes a global Ford patent family: https://chambers.com/department/brooks-kushman-pc-intellectual-property-usa-5:34:12728:1:[152074](/patent/152074)).

Delaware local counsel — Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP (Wilmington, DE)

⚠️ Flag — apparent change of Delaware local counsel

The March 7, 2025 reply brief supporting Ford's motion to dismiss was signed "OF COUNSEL: /s/ Helena C. Rychlicki … Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, 2 Mill Road, Suite 204, Wilmington, DE", with Brooks Kushman listed as the filing attorneys, and the Unified Patents docket shows Ford's Answer (entered Oct. 8, 2025) was filed by "(Rychlicki, Helena)" (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:24-cv-01327). By the time of the April 16, 2026 stay opinion, Ford's Delaware counsel is listed as Belgam and Taylor (Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins) — Rychlicki is no longer listed.

• Interpretation: this looks like a substitution of Delaware local counsel during 2025–2026 (Rychlicki of Pinckney Weidinger → Smith Katzenstein). Both are experienced Delaware patent local counsel; Rychlicki is a registered patent attorney and a D. Del. Special Master (https://www.martindale.com/attorney/helena-c-rychlicki-[2099461](/patent/2099461)/).
• Caveat: I could not retrieve a docket entry confirming a formal motion to withdraw/substitute counsel, and I did not have direct PACER docket access. The change is inferred from the divergence between the March 2025/October 2025 filings and the April 2026 opinion caption. If precision matters, confirm via the D.I. docket in the CM/ECF run.

In-house counsel

No Ford in-house attorney appears on the docket or in the opinions I reviewed. The complaint was directed to Ford's Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel for pre-suit notice purposes (Compl. ¶34), but that is a notice recipient, not an appearance. If in-house counsel participated, they are not reflected in the public filings I could access.

Parallel PTAB representation (same dispute, related proceedings)

Ford's IPR challenges (IPR2025-01342, -01383, -01524, IPR2026-00171/-00172) are also being handled by the Brooks Kushman team; PTAB correspondence in those proceedings is directed to a Brooks Kushman address ("kkonz@brookskshman," Feb./Dec. 2025 correspondence at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558472/download-documents). A third-party PTAB database lists the petitioner's counsel in IPR2025-01342 as "Turner, Andrew, et al." (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01342) — I could not independently verify Andrew Turner's firm or confirm he is on the Ford team from a primary source (PTAB paper or firm bio), so treat that name as unconfirmed; it is plausible he is additional Brooks Kushman PTAB-side counsel or another firm's attorney. On the patent-owner side, the respondent counsel listed in the same database is Eric Zelepugas (AutoConnect side, not Ford).

Summary of Ford's team

• Lead (liability/validity and IPR strategy): John S. LeRoy, Christopher C. Smith, Reza Roghani Esfahani — Brooks Kushman P.C. (Michigan).
• Delaware local counsel: Neal C. Belgam and Daniel A. Taylor — Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP (Wilmington), succeeding Helena C. Rychlicki of Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, who signed earlier 2025 filings.
• In-house: none identifiable on the public docket.