Litigation

Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company

dismissed

2:25-cv-01116

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Filed: 2025-11-10
Terminated: 2026-02-11

Patents at issue (2)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC

Defendants (1)

Δ Ford Motor Company

Summary

Bunker Hill Technologies asserted multiple patents, including US 10,442,296, against Ford Motor Company. The parties settled and the court dismissed the case on February 11, 2026.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 10442296-2-25-cv-01116 · edit in Admin

Further reading

How to read a patent claim chart
The claim chart is where the plaintiff's case actually lives. The complaint is a pitch deck; the chart is the homework — and most patent troll homework doesn't survive a careful read.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Prior art and § 102 novelty
Most issued patents have anticipating prior art that the examiner missed. The work is finding it and proving the date.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.

All resources →