AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Unknown

This patent infringement litigation, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. (2:24-cv-00802), is currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), also referred to as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), that has acquired a portfolio of automotive-related patents, some from Flex (Flextronics America LLC) and IP Optimum Ltd.. The defendants are major global automotive manufacturers: Toyota Motor Corporation, along with its North American subsidiaries (Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor North America, Inc.), and General Motors LLC. Toyota is a Japanese multinational known for a diverse range of vehicles and a pioneer in hybrid technology, while General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company known for brands like Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac.

AutoConnect Holdings LLC's complaint, filed on October 3, 2024, accuses the Toyota Defendants and GM of infringing 11 patents broadly directed to various aspects of network-connected vehicles and vehicle systems. The patents at issue cover technologies such as Toyota's Digital Key, face identification, User Profiles, and support for Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100, which is mentioned in the case caption, relates to methods and systems for controlling access of a communication device to an on-board vehicle network. Other asserted patents cover vehicle systems enabling face identification (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 8,793,034), components enabling Android Auto and/or Apple CarPlay (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,491, 9,140,560, 9,290,153, 10,862,764, 9,116,786), components enabling Toyota's Digital Key feature (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,697, 9,123,186, 11,163,931), and components enabling User Profiles in Toyota vehicles (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,147,296, 12,039,243). The accused products and services include a wide array of automobiles, in-vehicle multimedia systems, mobile apps, and related hardware and software components found in Toyota and GM vehicles from model year 2019 onward, depending on the specific patent.

The procedural posture sees the case ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne managing pretrial matters. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, often favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings, a relatively fast litigation timetable, and judges experienced in patent cases, which can lead to increased settlement pressure on defendants. The case is notable due to the involvement of a patent assertion entity, AutoConnect Holdings, asserting a large portfolio of patents against major automotive manufacturers, impacting a wide range of common vehicle technologies. The ongoing parallel PTAB IPR proceedings, such as those initiated by Ford Motor Company (IPR2026-00173) and Toyota Motor Corp. (PGR2025-00041, challenging the '243 patent), highlight the defendants' efforts to challenge the validity of the asserted patents outside of district court, a common strategy in complex patent litigation.

This patent infringement litigation, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. (2:24-cv-00802), is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, asserts 11 patents related to network-connected vehicle technologies against Toyota Motor Corporation, its North American subsidiaries, and General Motors LLC.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2024-10-03): AutoConnect Holdings LLC initiated the lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation et al. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint accuses the defendants of infringing 11 patents related to connected vehicle technologies, including U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100. The alleged infringement involves features like Toyota's Digital Key, face identification, user profiles, and support for Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto in vehicles from model year 2019 onward.
• Invalidity Contentions (2025-04-01): Toyota served its initial invalidity contentions, leveraging a prior art search conducted in November 2024.
• Amended Invalidity Contentions (2025-08-19): Defendants (Toyota and GM) informed AutoConnect of additional relevant prior art identified, including Ford's SYNC system, and subsequently served supplemental invalidity contentions.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 63): Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Report and Recommendation to Deny Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (2026-03-30): Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
• Objections to Report and Recommendation (prior to 2026-03-30): The Defendants filed objections to Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation.
• Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (2026-03-30): District Judge Rodney Gilstrap overruled the Defendants' objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, thereby denying the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 63).

Claim Construction (Markman)

• Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (2025-10-28): A joint statement was filed, indicating that there were no agreed constructions at that time.
• Markman Hearing Set (2025-12-12): A Markman hearing was scheduled for December 12, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Discovery Milestones

• Docket Control Orders (2025-02-06): Multiple docket control orders were issued, setting various pretrial and trial dates.

Trial Events

• Jury Selection Set (2026-06-22): Jury selection for the trial is currently scheduled for June 22, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Pretrial Conference Set (2026-05-18): A pretrial conference was set for May 18, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been initiated against patents asserted by AutoConnect Holdings LLC, including those relevant to this case.

• IPR2026-00173 (Patent 9,173,100 B2): Ford Motor Company filed this IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,100, which is one of the patents at issue in the district court litigation. The status of this IPR is "Pending".
• PGR2025-00041 (Challenging the '243 patent): Toyota Motor Corp. initiated this PGR, which challenges the '243 patent. (Specific status not detailed in provided snippets, but it is ongoing as noted in the previous case summary).
• IPR2026-00171 (Patent 9,020,697): Ford Motor Company filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,020,697. This patent is also asserted in the AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. case.
• Other PTAB Filings (Ongoing): The USPTO PTAB portal shows various IPR and PGR filings, with many in "Pending" or "Instituted" status, indicating ongoing challenges to other patents. For example, numerous PGRs were instituted in October 2025 against patents owned by Halozyme, Inc., by Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC, demonstrating active use of post-grant review challenges in other cases, which is a common strategy to challenge patent validity outside of district court.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, in AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al. (2:24-cv-00802), based on available information up to May 29, 2026:

Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC

---

Counsel for Plaintiff:

1. Andrea L. Fair

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
• Experience: Andrea Fair is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC, a firm deeply rooted in the Eastern District of Texas, known for its intellectual property and patent litigation. She has secured significant jury verdicts in patent litigation, including a $121.95 million verdict against Amazon and a $62.7 million verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd.. She excels in developing trial strategies and has been recognized for her work in intellectual property and patent law litigation.

2. Claire Abernathy Henry

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
• Experience: Claire Henry is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC with a strong record in patent litigation. She has been part of trial teams that secured substantial verdicts, including $62.7 million for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd. and $43 million for Intellectual Ventures I LLC. She is also recognized by Lawdragon as a Top Plaintiff Financial Lawyer.

3. Garrett Parish

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
• Experience: Garrett Parish is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC who focuses on patent and complex commercial litigation. He began as an intern with the predecessor firm Ward, Smith & Hill and aims to craft the best strategies for his clients.

4. Charles Everingham IV

• Role: Of Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
• Experience: A former magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas, Charles Everingham IV brings unique insight into patent litigation in the region. He holds "of counsel" status with Miller Fair Henry and has been recognized as the region's Lawyer of the Year for patent litigation by Best Lawyers in America.

5. T. John Ward (Johnny Ward)

• Role: Of Counsel (Miller Fair Henry PLLC) / Counsel (Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC)
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX) and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
• Experience: Johnny Ward is a nationally renowned attorney with a legacy in East Texas litigation. He previously served as a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, presiding over hundreds of patent cases. He is also a founder of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, and now focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, as well as mediation and arbitration.

6. Steven Callahan

• Role: Partner
• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC (Dallas, TX)
• Experience: Steven Callahan is a founding partner at Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC, specializing in business and intellectual property litigation, particularly patent infringement. He has represented numerous clients in patent infringement cases, including those listed in VerdictSearch's "Top 100 Verdicts" of the year, and has extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

7. Anthony Garza

• Role: Partner
• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC (Dallas, TX)
• Experience: Anthony Garza is a founding partner and registered patent attorney at Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC. He specializes in patent and commercial litigation and has served as lead counsel in patent litigation matters in various states, including Texas. He has managed jurisdictional, venue, and Markman disputes and helped secure a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas.

8. Mitchell Sibley

• Role: Attorney
• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC (Dallas, TX)
• Experience: Mitchell Sibley is a commercial and patent litigation attorney at Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC, with extensive pre-trial and trial experience in federal court and before the International Trade Commission. He focuses on patent damages and has handled cases involving various technologies.

9. Craig Tolliver

• Role: Attorney
• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC (Dallas, TX)
• Experience: Craig Tolliver has over twenty years of experience in intellectual property and complex litigation matters, including patent litigation and enforcement, IP portfolio strategy, and detailed licensing negotiations. He has represented companies of all sizes in big-ticket patent lawsuits.

It appears that AutoConnect Holdings LLC is represented by multiple firms with substantial experience in patent litigation, particularly within the Eastern District of Texas. The search did not reveal a specific John F. Murphy as plaintiff's counsel in this particular case.

I'll research the defense counsel for this case using multiple search angles.

I found the docket structure and some counsel. Let me dig deeper on the Toyota and GM defense teams.

Good progress — Finnegan appears to represent Toyota. Now let me pin down district court appearances and local counsel.

Defendants' Counsel of Record — AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., 2:24-cv-00802-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Threshold contradiction with case metadata: the prompt's caption lists the defendant as "Unknown." The docket establishes the defendants as Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (the original 2:24-cv-00802 defendants) plus General Motors LLC, which was consolidated into 2:24-cv-00802 as a consolidated defendant via the December 5, 2024 consolidation order (Case No. 2:24-cv-00877, GM's own case). Consolidation was "for all pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00802," and the Clerk was directed to add the consolidated defendants "and their corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only." (consolidation order text)

That order confirms the two-tier defense structure (lead/outside litigation counsel + E.D. Tex. local counsel) that governs how appearances appear on the docket.

---

1. General Motors LLC (consolidated defendant)

Lead/outside counsel — Jenner & Block LLP (Chicago, IL)

Per the PACER Monitor party listing for this case, GM is "Represented By":

Sources: PACER Monitor docket summary; [Law360 — Mitchell L. Denti