AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors

This case involves AutoConnect Holdings LLC, which appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), given its business model of "leasing of intellectual property and similar products, except copyrighted works" and its activities in acquiring a large portfolio of patents related to automotive technologies. General Motors LLC (GM) is a multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, and is one of the world's largest motor vehicle manufacturers. GM designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of automobiles, trucks, and automotive components under brands like Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac.

The accused products are GM vehicles, specifically certain makes and models from the 2016 model year to the present, and related in-vehicle multimedia systems, mobile apps, and associated hardware and software components. The alleged infringement focuses on features such as support for Apple's CarPlay and Google's Android Auto platforms, security measures, and user device profiles. The sole patent at issue, US 9173100, is titled "On Board Vehicle Network Security" and generally relates to providing security within a vehicle's network.

The case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:24-cv-00877, is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is the assigned judge, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne also involved. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly reputation. The case has been consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00802), which was filed earlier.

This case is notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by AutoConnect Holdings LLC against major automotive manufacturers, including Toyota and Ford, indicating a strategic effort to monetize its patent portfolio within the connected vehicle technology space. The denial of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition for US 9173100 (IPR2026-00173) by the PTAB on discretionary grounds further emphasizes the significance of the district court litigation, as the validity of this patent will now primarily be determined there. This trend of NPEs asserting patents against established automotive companies, coupled with the strategic use of the Eastern District of Texas and the interplay with PTAB proceedings, makes this a closely watched case in the automotive and intellectual property industries.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Important finding: IPR2026-00173 was filed by Ford, not GM, and was discretionarily denied. Let me dig deeper into the docket and key rulings.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing AutoConnect Holdings LLC in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00877:

Lead Counsel (Appeared Pro Hac Vice)

• William R. Woodford

  • Role: Partner and Founder.
  • Firm: Avantech Law LLP.
  • Office Location: (Minnesota Bar No. 0322593, practices in various federal courts).
  • Experience: Over 20 years of patent litigation experience in federal courts, well acquainted with laws governing patentability. He is counsel for AutoConnect Holdings LLC in related litigations in the Eastern District of Texas, including this case and AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

• Todd Stephen Werner

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice).
  • Firm: (Information not clearly available in provided snippets for firm and location; typically a national IP litigation firm).
  • Experience: (Information not clearly available in provided snippets).

• Jason Zucchi

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice).
  • Firm: (Information not clearly available in provided snippets for firm and location; typically a national IP litigation firm).
  • Experience: (Information not clearly available in provided snippets).

Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas)

• Andrea Fair
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement litigation across the Eastern District of Texas and other federal courts. Noted for securing significant patent verdicts, including an $11.5 million verdict for Ollnova Technologies Ltd. and a $62.7 million patent verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for General Motors in this case.

Let me dig deeper for GM's specific counsel of record in this docket.

Found a promising lead (Jenner & Block). Let me verify and identify local counsel and any in-house attorneys.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — General Motors LLC

Sourcing caveat up front: The E.D. Tex. docket sheets themselves sit behind PACER's paywall, and I could not pull the actual notices of appearance for 2:24-cv-00877. Everything below is drawn from docket-derived counsel listings (PacerMonitor) for the *lead consolidated case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00802*, and from USPTO/PTAB filings. Where I could not confirm something, I say so rather than fill the gap.

Lead / national counsel (Jenner & Block LLP)

PacerMonitor's party-and-counsel listing for the consolidated lead case identifies General Motors LLC (Consol Defendant) as "Represented By" the following Jenner & Block attorneys:

Concrete source: PacerMonitor docket page for No. 2:24-cv-00802, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55326310/AutoConnect_Holdings_LLC_v_Toyota_Motor_Corporation_et_al) — "Consol Defendant: General Motors LLC — Represented By: Reginald J Hill, Jenner & Block Llp – Chicago; Mitchell L Denti; Peter J Brennan; Benjamin J Bradford; Nicole Keenan, Jenner & Block, LLP."

Caveat on that listing: The PacerMonitor snippet for the lead case interleaves the plaintiff side (Avantech Law's William Woodford, Julianne Thomsen, Todd Werner, Jason Zucchi; and Miller Fair Henry's Andrea Fair) with the consolidated-defendant entries, and it also spans the Toyota defendants. The five Jenner & Block names are grouped under the GM entry, which makes GM representation the best reading of the data — but I could not independently verify each name against a filed Notice of Appearance. Treat the roster as moderately to well sourced, not docket-confirmed.

Local counsel (E.D. Tex.)

• Not identified. The December 5, 2024 consolidation order instructs the Clerk to add consolidated defendants "into the Lead Case and their corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only," which strongly implies GM retained E.D. Tex. local counsel. I could not locate a specific local-counsel firm or attorney for GM in this matter from available public sources. I am deliberately not naming any Texas firm to avoid inventing an appearance.

In-house counsel

• Not identified. No GM in-house IP/litigation attorney is disclosed in the sources I could access. GM's in-house legal department (Detroit) is not rule-of-court counsel of record in E.D. Tex. in any event.

A parallel PTAB representation — flag as unverified

A USPTO PTACTS document (petition No. 1553818) contains a signature block reading "Counsel for Defendants General Motors Company and General Motors LLC," listing:

• Celine J. Crowson — Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C.;
• Clement J. Naples — Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; and
• Gabrielle A. LaHatte — Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA.

I could not confirm which AutoConnect-related PTAB proceeding that signature block belongs to, or whether it concerns the '100 patent at issue here (the naming "Defendants" is also atypical for an IPR/PGR petitioner caption). I flag it as a potential additional GM-side representation in the AutoConnect dispute, not as confirmed counsel in 2:24-cv-00877.

---

Contradictions with the prior case sections and metadata (flagged)

1. Patents at issue — significant. The case metadata and the prior sections state that US 9,173,100 ("On Board Vehicle Network Security") is the sole patent at issue. Multiple independent sources contradict this: the complaint analysis for 2:24-cv-00877 references infringement allegations on US 9,020,491, US 9,082,239, US 10,862,764, and US 12,039,243, and a PTAB petition states that "U.S. Patent No. 9,082,239 is being asserted in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC 2-24-cv-00877 (EDTX) (pending) filed October 30, 2024." The '100 patent may be one of several asserted patents, or the metadata may be a mis-mapping. The prior "Patent at issue: '100" framing should be treated as unreliable.
2. Filing date. The prior "Key legal developments" section dates the complaint to 2024-03-01. Aggregator data and the PTAB pleading both indicate the GM complaint was filed October 30, 2024. The March date is unsupported.
3. Consolidation date. The prior sections date the consolidation order to 2024-04-18. The signed consolidation order text in the PTAB record reads "So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of December, 2024," consolidating into lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00802 (Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Mag. J. Roy S. Payne). Note the Toyota lead case itself was filed 10/03/2024, which makes an April consolidation of a not-yet-filed GM case impossible.
4. Case status. One aggregator page shows 2:24-cv-00877 as "Closed." The consolidation order says "[i]ndividual cases remain active for trial," so this is most likely an administrative closure of the member docket after consolidation rather than a termination of the litigation — but the metadata's flat "Ongoing" status for the member case number is worth confirming against the live docket.
5. Party naming. The docket caption is General Motors LLC; the case metadata says "General Motors." For caption accuracy, "General Motors LLC" is the entity named in the consolidation order and in PTAB records.

Bottom line: GM's defense is being handled by a Jenner & Block LLP team led by Reginald J. Hill (Chicago), with Mitchell L. Denti, Peter J. Brennan, Benjamin J. Bradford and Nicole Keenan also listed on the consolidated-defendant counsel block. GM's E.D. Tex. local counsel and any in-house counsel are not identifiable from the sources available, and the PTAB-side Hogan Lovells / Latham & Watkins appearance is unverified as to scope. Docket-level confirmation via PACER (notices of appearance in 2:24-cv-00802 and 2:24-cv-00877) would be needed to make this list authoritative.