Context Directions LLC v. Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD

Based on my research across docket sources (Justia, UniCourt), patent databases (Google Patents, Justia Patents, Unified Patents), and RPX coverage, here is the case overview:

---

Parties and posture. Context Directions LLC v. Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD, No. 4:24-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex., Sherman Division), filed March 14, 2024, is a patent-infringement suit by Context Directions LLC—a patent-assertion entity that Unified Patents identifies as "a Jeffrey M. Gross entity"—against Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD, a Dallas/Plano-area automobile dealership group (e.g., Don Herring Mitsubishi Plano). The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed by plaintiff's counsel David R. Bennett) asserts three patents and demanded a jury; the defendant, represented by Robert Glenn Chadwick Jr. and Alexander Gebert, was served March 20, 2024, and received two unopposed extensions to answer, with its answer deadline pushed to May 24, 2024 (Dkts. 5–8). The case was initially assigned to District Judge Sean D. Jordan but was reassigned to District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, a veteran patent judge in the Sherman Division. Venue is significant because the E.D. Tex. remains the nation's most active patent venue, and the defendant—a Texas dealer selling vehicles within the district—satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), allowing the plaintiff to sue a small downstream business in its home district rather than pursuing foreign OEMs. The case was "Open" as of the last docket retrievals (mid-May 2024); I could not verify any later disposition (answer, motions, settlement, or dismissal) from the sources retrieved, so subsequent events would need PACER confirmation.

Patents and accused technology. The asserted patents—U.S. 9,807,564, U.S. 10,142,791, and U.S. 11,057,738 (Exhibits A, N, T to the complaint)—are continuations sharing a common specification originating from Polish company Binartech Sp. z o.o. (inventor Pawel Aksamit, priority February 2012). The '564 patent ("Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device") and the '791 patent (same title, issued Nov. 27, 2018) cover power-efficient detection of a mobile device's context—e.g., that the device is in a moving vehicle—using hierarchically ordered groups of sensors, each with a classifier, where a low-power classifier's positive result triggers activation of higher-level sensor groups and the higher-level results adapt the lower-level classifiers' configuration. The '738 patent ("Adaptive Context Detection in Mobile Devices," issued July 6, 2021) claims the same hierarchical, adaptive sensor-classification scheme in device (claim 1) and method (claim 28) form. Consistent with Context Directions' parallel complaints (e.g., against Peters Chevrolet, Wagner Cadillac, and Patterson Motors dealerships, as summarized by RPX in "The Vehicle Is the 'Mobile Device,'" June 21, 2025), the accused instrumentalities here are vehicles sold by the dealership equipped with sensors—cameras, radar, steering/braking/speed sensors, accelerometers, GPS—whose context-detection and driver-assistance systems allegedly practice the patented methods under a "vehicle is the mobile device" theory. The complaint's extensive claim-chart exhibits (Dkts. 1-2 through 1-25) cover all three patents, though I did not retrieve the specific accused vehicle models in this particular case and cannot verify them from the sources obtained.

Why the case is notable. This is an early exemplar of a targeted NPE enforcement campaign: Context Directions previously sued rental-car operators (Fox Rent A Car, 5:23-cv-00009; Avis Budget, 4:22-cv-00575; Enterprise, 4:22-cv-00577) and then, beginning with this March 2024 filing, shifted to suing Texas auto dealerships—Huffines, Patterson Motors, Peters Chevrolet, Wagner Cadillac, Peltier Enterprises, Tyler Motor Company, Auto Merchants, and Gulliver USA (dismissed with prejudice in 140 days)—on the theory that ordinary vehicles' sensor/ADAS systems infringe mobile-device context-detection patents. The strategy targets resellers rather than manufacturers, maximizing settlement leverage against small businesses and avoiding the venue and damages defenses available to OEMs. The campaign has drawn validity scrutiny: Unified Patents ran a $3,000 PATROLL prior-art bounty on claim 3 of the '564 patent, and the patents' Polish-origin family has a history of serial assertion, making the Don Herring case a notable test of both the "vehicle-as-mobile-device" infringement theory and the durability of this patent family in the E.D. Tex. dealership litigation wave.

Context Directions LLC v. Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD — 4:24-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.)

Caveat on sources: Public docket aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt) have only partial entries for this case — the Justia docket page was last retrieved on the filing date (2024-03-14), and the UniCourt page was last updated 2024-05-13. I could not locate later PACER entries, opinions, RPX/PatSnap summaries, or Federal Circuit/PTAB records tied to this specific case number within my search limits. Accordingly, everything below marked "verified" comes from those docket pages; everything else is expressly identified as unverified or unknown. No attorney names, dates, or rulings beyond the docket entries below are inferred.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2024-03-14 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Context Directions LLC (occasionally listed in docket text as "Context Direction LLC") sued Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman/Plano division. The complaint attached three patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 9,807,564 (Ex. A), U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791 (Ex. N), and U.S. Patent No. 11,057,738 (Ex. T), plus 22 claim charts (Exhibits B–Y) mapping the asserted claims to accused dealership/vehicle systems. Jury demand by plaintiff. (Verified: Justia Docket; UniCourt.)
• 2024-03-14 — AO 120 patent notice filed (Dkt. 2); Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 3). (Verified.)
• 2024-03-14 — Case assigned to District Judge Sean D. Jordan. (Verified: Justia/UniCourt.) The case was later reassigned to District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III (UniCourt reflects Mazzant as the presiding judge; Justia lists Mazzant as referring judge). The reassignment order date is not shown in the retrieved entries. (Verified reassignment occurred; exact date not retrieved.)
• 2024-03-15 — Summons issued (Dkt. 4). 2024-03-20 — Defendant served; return of service filed 2024-04-08 (Dkt. 5). (Verified.)
• 2024-04-11 — Defendant's appearance by Robert Glenn Chadwick, Jr. (Dkt. 6); Alexander Gebert also appeared (Dkt. 8, 2024-05-07). (Verified.)
• Answer deadline extended twice: first unopposed extension granted 2024-04-12 (30 days; Dkt. 7), second granted 2024-05-09 (14 days, setting the answer due date to 2024-05-24; Dkt. 8). (Verified.)

Answer / counterclaims: I could not retrieve any answer, counterclaim, or affirmative-defense pleading from public sources. The UniCourt snapshot ends 2024-05-13, just before the extended answer deadline. Not verifiable from sources retrieved.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (MTD, transfer, stay, SJ)

No such motions were retrievable. The public docket entries available stop at the second answer extension (Dkt. 8, May 2024). I found no court opinions, PACER summaries, or media coverage (Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Reuters) addressing motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR in this specific case. Status: unknown/unverified.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman order, claim construction briefing, or scheduling order could be located for this case. Given that the available docket only extends to May 2024 and the case is a single-dealership defendant in a broader Context Directions campaign, it is plausible the case never reached claim construction before resolving or stalling — but that is inference, not verified fact. No Markman outcome can be reported.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None retrievable. No scheduling order, discovery disputes, or depositions appear in the available public docket. Unknown/unverified.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None retrievable. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion found. The UniCourt status as of its last update (2024-05-13) was "Open."

---

6. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / present posture

• As of the last docket retrieval (2024-05-13, UniCourt): case status "Open," with the answer due 2024-05-24.
• As of today (2026-08-26): I could not verify any final disposition — no notice of dismissal, stipulation, judgment, or settlement for this specific case number appeared in my searches. The case may have resolved quietly (the docket could contain a stipulation of dismissal not indexed by the aggregators I retrieved), but I cannot confirm that without PACER access.
• Pattern context (verified for other cases, not this one): Context Directions has filed a wave of substantially similar dealer suits in E.D. Tex. asserting the same '564/'791 patent family (e.g., Auto Merchants, Inc., 2:26-cv-00729; Peltier Enterprises, 2:25-cv-00419; Patterson Motors of Kilgore, 2:25-cv-00624; Peters Chevrolet, 2:25-cv-00626; Tyler Motor Company, 2:25-cv-00955). At least one sibling case resolved by joint dismissal with prejudice, each party bearing its own fees — Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., 2:25-cv-01005 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2025-10-03, dismissed with prejudice by order granting the joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion on 2026-02-20 (Dkt. 14). That dismissal is informative as to Context Directions' settlement pattern but is not evidence of the disposition in the Don Herring case.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

I found no PTAB IPR or PGR petitions referencing the Don Herring case, and no PTAB proceedings on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564, 10,142,791, or 11,057,738 tied to this litigation in the sources retrieved. Unverified/unknown. (Note: my search window was limited; a USPTO PTAB search by patent number would be the definitive check.)

---

Bottom line

This case is a pending-or-silently-resolved, low-profile dealer suit in the Context Directions campaign. Verified record: complaint filed 2024-03-14; three patents asserted ('564, '791, '738); Judge Jordan → Judge Mazzant; defendant appeared and obtained two extensions, with the answer due 2024-05-24. No substantive rulings, Markman order, trial, judgment, dismissal, or IPR activity could be verified from public sources, and the case's final disposition (settlement dismissal vs. still-active docket) remains unconfirmed as of 2026-08-26. To close the gaps definitively, PACER access to the full docket of 4:24-cv-00228 and a USPTO PTAB search on the three patent numbers would be required.

Based on my review of the available docket sources (Justia, UniCourt, and PACER-monitor mirrors of the E.D. Tex. docket for 4:24-cv-00228, Context Direction LLC v. Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD), here is what the record shows as of the last retrievals (docket last updated ~May 13, 2024):

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

David R. Bennett

• Role: Lead/counsel of record for plaintiff Context Direction LLC — he signed the initiating filings: the Complaint (Dkt. 1, 3/14/2024), the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 3), and the Return of Service (Dkt. 5, filed 4/8/2024). The Justia and UniCourt docket summaries both list him as the sole "Plaintiff Attorney" for this case.
• Firm / office: Not confirmed from the available sources. The docket entries do not state a firm, and my searches did not surface a current firm profile page for a "David R. Bennett" matching this practice (the Super Lawyers hit for "R. Todd Bennett" is a Houston criminal-defense attorney and is a different person). I could not verify his firm or office location from public sources retrieved; that detail should be confirmed via PACER or the E.D. Tex. bar/admission records.
• Relevant experience: He is a repeat E.D. Tex. patent plaintiff-side litigator. Confirmed appearances include:
  • Flash3D LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00521, Judge Gilstrap) — filed complaint and numerous substantive filings (initial disclosures, PR 3-1/3-2 submissions, reply to Samsung's counterclaims).
  • Moxchange LLC v. Suitable Technologies Inc. (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01210) and Bataan Licensing LLC v. Intuicom Inc. (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00240) — admitted pro hac vice for NPE patent-infringement plaintiffs.
  • He also appears as plaintiff's counsel in the Context Directions LLC campaign's later companion suits (e.g., 2:25-cv-00073 Huffines; 2:25-cv-00953 Ewing Buick-Plano; 2:25-cv-00955 Tyler Motor; 2:26-cv-00729 Auto Merchants).

Caveats / Notable points

• Steven Kalberg — In the related Context Directions LLC cases filed in 2025–2026 (e.g., 2:25-cv-00073, 2:25-cv-00953, 2:26-cv-00729), Kalberg signs the complaints and disclosure statements and Bennett files the notices of appearance, suggesting a two-attorney plaintiff team in the campaign. However, in this case (4:24-cv-00228), the retrieved docket (through Dkt. 8, May 2024) shows only Bennett as plaintiff's counsel of record — Kalberg's appearance in this specific case is not confirmed by the sources I obtained. If later docket entries (post-May 2024) added Kalberg or others, that would not appear in the snapshots I retrieved.
• Defendant's counsel (Robert Glenn Chadwick Jr. and Alexander Gebert, who entered appearances at Dkts. 6 and 8) are confirmed, but they represent the defendant, not the plaintiff.
• The case was reassigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, but that does not affect the counsel-of-record analysis.
• No sealed filings were identified that would obscure counsel; the limitation is simply that the free docket mirrors cut off in May 2024, so I cannot rule out later attorney appearances without a fresh PACER look-up.

Bottom line: The only confirmed plaintiff's counsel of record in 4:24-cv-00228 is David R. Bennett, who appears to be lead counsel (and the E.D. Tex. filing attorney) for Context Direction LLC. His firm and office location could not be verified from the retrieved sources; a PACER query of the case's attorney docket or the E.D. Tex. bar roll would confirm those details.

Defense Counsel of Record — Context Directions LLC v. Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD, No. 4:24-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.)

Based on the docket as last publicly retrieved (UniCourt/Justia, through mid-May 2024), two attorneys have appeared for defendant Don Herring Auto Sales, LTD — both from Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP. No separate local-counsel designation, in-house counsel, or pro hac vice appearance appears on the docket (both are Texas-licensed), and no filings are sealed. Caveat: the docket entries I could verify stop around May 13, 2024; any answer, amended appearances, or substitution of counsel filed after that date would not be reflected here. The case remains pending (per metadata) before Judge Amos L. Mazzant III (reassigned from Judge Sean D. Jordan).

1. Robert Glenn Chadwick, Jr.

• Role: Lead/defense counsel of record — filed the Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. #6, entered ~04/11/2024) and the first unopposed extension of time to answer (Dkt. #7, filed 04/11/2024).
• Firm/Office: Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP — 7160 Dallas Pkwy, Suite 625, Plano, TX 75024 (also associated with Seltzer Chadwick Soefje & Ladik, PLLC, Dallas).
• Experience note: A veteran Texas/Georgia litigator (J.D., University of Georgia, 1984; licensed TX 1988) whose practice is principally employment, ERISA, and commercial litigation — board-certified in labor & employment law, not a patent specialist; his handful of E.D. Tex. matters (per Law360) are non-patent (e.g., personal injury), so this dealership patent case appears to be an outlier from his usual docket.

2. Alexander "Alex" Scott Gebert

• Role: Defense counsel of record — filed the second unopposed extension of time to answer (Dkt. #8, filed 05/07/2024, extending the answer deadline to 05/24/2024).
• Firm/Office: Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP — 7160 Dallas Pkwy, Suite 625, Plano, TX 75024 (profiled as a Partner in the firm's Dallas office; State Bar of Texas records previously listed him at Ziegler Gardner Bell, PLLC, Dallas, and Martindale lists 5851 Legacy Circle, Plano).
• Experience note: Younger litigator (J.D., University of Oklahoma, 2020; admitted TX 2020), named to Super Lawyers Rising Stars – Texas (2025–2026); his firm bio highlights intellectual property guidance on "patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets" alongside commercial, construction, and professional-liability work, and his Law360 case list shows this as his only E.D. Tex. patent matter.

Plaintiff's counsel (for context)

David R. Bennett (with Steven Kalberg appearing in related Context Directions cases) represents Context Directions LLC; the complaint and AO 120 filings were entered by Bennett.

Key docket references

• Dkt. #1 – Complaint (filed 03/14/2024), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 (Ex. A), 10,142,791 (Ex. N), and 11,057,738 (Ex. T).
• Dkt. #5 – Summons returned executed; Don Herring Auto Sales served 03/20/2024.
• Dkt. #6 – Chadwick notice of appearance; Dkt. #7 – Chadwick first extension motion (granted 04/12/2024).
• Dkt. #8 – Gebert second extension motion (granted 05/09/2024; answer due 05/24/2024).

Source note: Attorney/firm details are drawn from the UniCourt case page, Justia dockets, Law360 attorney profiles, the FMG Law firm bio for Gebert, Super Lawyers, and State Bar of Texas records. I could not verify post-May-2024 docket events (e.g., whether an answer was actually filed on 05/24/2024 or whether additional counsel entered) — those would require a PACER retrieval beyond the publicly indexed sources available.