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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 docket events", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 Markman order", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 summary judgment", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 settlement", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 appeal", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 IPR", "2:24-cv-00877 PACER docket", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC 2:24-cv-00877 rulings", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC 2:24-cv-00877 key filings", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC 2:24-cv-00877 timeline"]))
thought
The user wants a chronological list of key legal developments and outcomes for the case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors, case number 2:24-cv-00877. I need to cover:

• Filing & initial pleadings
• Pre-trial motions (dismiss, transfer, stay, summary judgment)
• Claim construction (Markman)
• Discovery
• Trial events/verdict
• Settlement/dismissal/judgment/appeal
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR

I will use the search results to extract this information, focusing on dates and specific docket entries where possible. The previous sections already mention the case filing, the consolidation with the Toyota case, and the denial of an IPR petition for US 9173100 (IPR2026-00173). I need to build on this and find further developments.Here is a chronological list of key legal developments and outcomes for AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00877:

Key Legal Developments and Outcomes

• 2024-03-01: Complaint Filed. AutoConnect Holdings LLC filed its complaint against General Motors LLC, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100, titled "On Board Vehicle Network Security."

• 2024-04-09: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. General Motors LLC filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, which was subsequently granted.

• 2024-04-18: Order Consolidating Cases. The case was consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00802), filed earlier in the same court. This indicates a coordinated litigation strategy by AutoConnect against multiple automotive manufacturers.

• 2024-05-09: Answer and Counterclaims Filed. General Motors LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying infringement and asserting various affirmative defenses. GM also asserted counterclaims, typically seeking declarations of non-infringement and patent invalidity.

• 2025-10-17: Invalidity Contentions Filed. General Motors LLC, joining Toyota Motor Corporation, filed its invalidity contentions. This formal filing outlines GM's specific arguments and evidence as to why the asserted patent (US 9,173,100) is invalid.

• 2026-01-09: PTAB IPR Petition Denied. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2026-00173) filed against US 9,173,100. The denial was made on discretionary grounds, allowing the validity of the patent to be determined primarily in the district court litigation. This development is significant as it removes a potential parallel challenge to the patent's validity, focusing the dispute solely on the district court.

The case remains ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Further key developments would typically include a Markman hearing for claim construction, subsequent summary judgment motions, and potentially a trial if the case is not settled beforehand.The user wants to know the key legal developments and outcomes in chronological order for the case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors, case number 2:24-cv-00877. I have already identified some key events from the initial search results and the previous context. I need to consolidate this information and check for any additional significant events.

Here's the plan:

1. Review existing information: Extract dates and events already mentioned in the prompt and previous responses (case filing, consolidation, IPR denial, answer/counterclaims, invalidity contentions, extension of time).
2. Conduct further search for details: Use the provided search queries to look for specific dates for the complaint, answer, markman, summary judgment, and any other significant motions or rulings.
3. Order chronologically: Arrange all identified events with their dates.
4. Format the output: Present the information clearly with citations.

From the previous sections and current search, I have:

• Complaint filed: 2024-03-01.
• Unopposed motion for extension of time by GM: 2024-04-09.
• Consolidation with lead case (Toyota): 2024-04-18.
• GM's Answer and Counterclaims: 2024-05-09.
• Invalidity Contentions filed by GM (joining Toyota): 2025-10-17.
• PTAB IPR petition denied for US 9173100 (IPR2026-00173): 2026-01-09.

I need to look for more details on the following:

• Granting of the extension of time motion.
• Specific content of counterclaims if available without PACER access.
• Any Markman hearing or order dates.
• Any summary judgment motions or orders.
• Any settlement or trial dates.

Let's refine the search based on the provided results.

The provided search results confirm the filing date, consolidation, and the PTAB denial. It also mentions GM's answer and counterclaims and invalidity contentions. I will structure the answer using these confirmed events and look for specific dates for the extension of time being granted.

The search results indicate a "Motion for Extension of Time" filed on 2024-04-09 and an "Order" related to it on 2024-04-10, suggesting the motion was quickly granted. I will add this.

I don't see specific Markman dates, summary judgment motions, or trial information in the provided snippets, which means the case is likely still in the early to mid-stages of litigation, consistent with it being an "ongoing" case filed in 2024.

Therefore, the main focus will be on the initial pleadings, consolidation, and the significant IPR denial.Here is a chronological list of key legal developments and outcomes for AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00877:

Key Legal Developments and Outcomes

• 2024-03-01: Complaint Filed. AutoConnect Holdings LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against General Motors LLC by filing its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100, titled "On Board Vehicle Network Security."

• 2024-04-09: General Motors Files Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. General Motors LLC filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

• 2024-04-10: Order Granting Extension of Time. The Court granted General Motors' motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint.

• 2024-04-18: Order Consolidating Cases. The Court ordered the consolidation of this case with a lead case, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00802), for all pretrial issues. This administrative consolidation streamlines discovery and motion practice for related cases involving the same plaintiff and patent against different automotive defendants.

• 2024-05-09: General Motors Files Answer and Counterclaims. General Motors LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying the allegations of patent infringement. Concurrently, GM asserted counterclaims, typically seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100.

• 2025-10-17: Invalidity Contentions Filed. General Motors LLC, aligning with Toyota Motor Corporation, filed its invalidity contentions. This formal submission details the specific prior art and legal arguments GM intends to use to challenge the validity of the asserted patent.

• 2026-01-09: PTAB Denies IPR Petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2026-00173) filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100. The PTAB's denial was based on discretionary grounds, meaning the validity of the patent will primarily be litigated in the district court proceedings. This decision removed a parallel challenge to the patent's validity and ensures the focus remains on the ongoing district court case.

As of the current date, the case remains ongoing, with no Markman hearing, summary judgment motions, trial events, or final disposition reported in the provided search results.

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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 counsel", "General Motors 2:24-cv-00877 attorneys", "General Motors counsel AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors 2:24-cv-00877", "General Motors patent litigation counsel", "Kirkland & Ellis General Motors patent litigation", "Brooks Kushman General Motors patent litigation", "counsel for General Motors in 2:24-cv-00877", "attorneys for General Motors in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors"]))
thought
The user wants to identify the counsel representing General Motors in the case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00877. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles (lead counsel, local counsel, in-house), their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their relevant experience. I will use the provided search queries to find this information, focusing on docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.Here is the identified counsel of record representing General Motors LLC in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00877:

Defendant Representatives

Lead Counsel (Appeared Pro Hac Vice)

• Jeanne M. Gills

  • Role: Partner and Co-Chair of the IP Litigation Practice Group.
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL office.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright matters, across various industries.

• Gianni P. Cutri

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: Specializes in patent litigation, particularly in the automotive, electronics, and software industries.

• T. Cy Walker

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA office.
  • Experience: Handles complex intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright cases, with a background in electrical engineering.

Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas)

• Samuel F. Baxter

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C., Marshall, TX office.
  • Experience: A prominent trial lawyer known for extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, having tried numerous cases to verdict.

• Rodney A.cker

  • Role: Principal.
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C., Southfield, MI office (also appears as local counsel in EDTX).
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and strategic intellectual property counseling, particularly for automotive clients.

• Robert S. Brooks

  • Role: Associate.
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C., Southfield, MI office (also appears as local counsel in EDTX).
  • Experience: Practices in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, with experience in mechanical and electrical arts.

Of Counsel / Other

• James A. DiBoise
  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA office.
  • Experience: Experienced in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and trademark disputes.