Context Directions LLC v. Ean Holdings LLC et al.

Case Overview: Context Directions LLC v. Ean Holdings LLC et al. (4:22-cv-00577, E.D. Tex.)

Parties and roles. Plaintiff Context Directions LLC is a patent assertion entity controlled by Jeffrey M. Gross, a serial NPE principal, per Unified Patents' analysis of the patent family ("Context Directions, a Jeffrey M. Gross-controlled NPE"). Plaintiff's counsel of record is Kirk Anderson (firm associated with Budo Law, which filed the companion case per Law.com Radar). Defendants are the Enterprise Holdings rental-car entities: Ean Holdings LLC (d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car), Ean Holdings Inc., Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, and National Car Rental System LLC (the Justia docket shows "Alamo Rent-A-Center, LLC," which appears to be a docket-text typo for Alamo Rent-A-Car). They were represented initially by James S. Blank and Mackenzie Martin (Dkts. 10–12). These are operating companies—the Enterprise, Alamo, and National brands—making this a classic NPE-against-operating-company assertion rather than a dispute between competitors.

Accused technology and patents. The suit, filed July 8, 2022, asserts three patents in a mobile-device "context awareness" family aimed at detecting whether a mobile device is in a moving vehicle using sensor data and classifiers (IPWatchdog's Patent Filings Roundup, July 22, 2022, lists U.S. Patent Nos. 11,057,738; 10,142,791; and 9,807,564). The case metadata centers on the '791 patent, "Method and system for context awareness of a mobile device"; the '564 patent is titled "Method for Detecting Context of a Mobile Device and a Mobile Device with a Context Detection Module" (titles per Unified Patents and the Illinois Lawyer Now retail litigation report). The '738 patent's exact title was not confirmable in this search, though it sits in the same family. The accused products are the defendants' rental-car mobile applications and related telematics/location-based features that detect driving context—the same theory Context Directions deployed in a same-day companion case against Avis Budget Group (4:22-cv-00575) and later against Fox Rent-A-Car, as Unified Patents noted.

Procedural posture, venue, and notable dynamics. The case is pending in the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division) before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. Context Directions filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2022 (Dkt. 13); Ean answered with counterclaims (Dkt. 17), and plaintiff answered the counterclaims (Dkt. 21). Ean moved to transfer venue (Dkt. 18, with a declaration from Daniel C. Wessel), drawing opposition (Dkt. 23), a reply (Dkt. 24), and sur-reply (Dkt. 25). Before the venue motion was decided, the parties filed unopposed stays—60 days granted November 28, 2022 (Dkt. 27) and 30 days granted February 2, 2023 (Dkt. 29), with the scheduling conference reset to March 14, 2023. The docket tracker Ex Parte lists the case as "Closed," but the final disposition (dismissal, transfer, or settlement) is not confirmed by the sources retrieved; the last verified docket activity is the February 2023 stay order. Venue in E.D. Tex. matters here precisely because it was contested: the defendants sought transfer, and the parties' stays suggest settlement or IPR-adjacent resolution was being negotiated in the interim.

Why the case is notable. This is one salvo in a broader Context Directions enforcement campaign against the rental-car industry (Enterprise, Avis, and Fox among them, plus a 2025 wave of cases against auto dealers such as Patterson Motors and Wagner Cadillac, and a Gulliver USA case that settled with prejudice in early 2026). The family's validity is under sustained attack: Unified Patents filed ex parte reexamination 90/014,712 against the '791 patent, where the USPTO entered means-plus-function constructions and found the claims lacked corresponding algorithms—effectively indefinite under Aristocrat/Williamson—and Unified Patents also ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest for prior art on the '564 patent. The IPWatchdog roundup that flagged this filing also referenced a PTAB petition denial in the same period, though that denial's linkage to this specific case is not confirmed. In short, the case illustrates the NPE playbook of asserting a sensor-based "moving vehicle detection" patent family against rental-app operators in a plaintiff-friendly venue, while the accused industry (backed by Unified Patents) responds with reexamination, venue challenges, and stays. Unconfirmed items to flag: the exact title of the '738 patent, the final disposition of this case after February 2023, and the docket's odd "15 U.S.C. § 1126" cause-of-action citation (a likely clerical artifact for a 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent claim).

Based on my research, here is the chronological picture of Context Directions LLC v. Ean Holdings LLC et al., No. 4:22-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex., Sherman Div., Judge Amos L. Mazzant III). I have flagged where the record is incomplete, particularly the post-February 2023 disposition, which no publicly indexed docket source in my search confirms in detail.

Patents at issue

• The case metadata you provided lists U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791 ("Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device," issued 2018-11-27). The IPWatchdog filing roundup (2022-07-22) lists the case as asserting three patents: 11,057,738; 10,142,791; and 9,807,564 — the Context Directions sensor/context-detection family. The '791 patent is the common thread across the family and had already been challenged by Unified Patents in ex parte reexamination 90/014,712 (granted 2021-04-29) before this suit was filed.

Chronology of key developments

Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022-07-08 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1); AO 120 patent notice (Dkt. 2); corporate disclosure (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff counsel: Kirk Anderson (with Jeff Gross as the underlying Context Directions entity per IPWatchdog).
• 2022-07-13 — Summonses issued to Ean Holdings LLC (d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car), Ean Holdings Inc., Alamo Rent-A-Center LLC, and National Car Rental System LLC (Dkts. 4–7).
• 2022-07-29 / 08-08 — Service executed on the Ean entities; answers due 2022-08-19 (Dkts. 8–9).
• 2022-08-16/18 — Pro hac vice appearance of James S. Blank (Dkt. 10) and appearance of Mackenzie Marie Martin (Dkt. 12) for Ean Holdings; unopposed extension of time to answer granted to 2022-09-19 (Dkt. 11).
• 2022-08-31 — Amended complaint filed (Dkt. 13).
• ~2022-09/10 — Ean Holdings answered the amended complaint and asserted a counterclaim (Dkt. 17, referenced in the docket via Dkt. 21).
• 2022-10-21 — Plaintiff answered the counterclaim (Dkt. 21); court entered Order Governing Proceedings and set a Rule 16 management conference for 2022-12-16 (Dkt. 22).

Pre-trial motions of substance

• ~2022-10 — Ean Holdings filed a Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. 18, supported by the Declaration of Daniel C. Wessel). Fully briefed: opposition 2022-10-24 (Dkt. 23), reply 2022-10-31 (Dkt. 24), sur-reply 2022-11-07 (Dkt. 25). No ruling on the venue motion appears in the indexed docket — the case was instead put on hold.
• 2022-11-18 — Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to stay all deadlines (Dkt. 26); granted 2022-11-28 for 60 days, with the scheduling conference reset to 2023-02-14 (Dkt. 27).
• 2023-01-30 — Plaintiff filed a second unopposed motion to stay (Dkt. 28); granted 2023-02-02 for 30 days, scheduling conference reset to 2023-03-14 (Dkt. 29).

Claim construction / Markman

• No Markman proceedings appear in the record. The case was stayed at the pleadings/venue-motion stage, and no claim construction order was located.

Discovery milestones

• No substantive discovery milestones (no claim charts, expert reports, or discovery orders) appear in the indexed docket. The serial stays beginning November 2022 — notably filed by the plaintiff — suggest settlement negotiations while the venue motion was pending.

Trial / post-trial

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion appears in the record.

Final disposition / present posture

• The outcome is not confirmed from authoritative docket sources in my search. The Ex Parte docket aggregator lists the case status as "Closed," and UniCourt's last update (2023-02-21) still showed "Pending – Other Pending" after the Dkt. 29 stay order. The most plausible reading is a post-stay settlement dismissal or stipulated dismissal sometime in 2023, but I could not verify the terminating docket entry (e.g., stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41, judgment, or transfer order) from PACER or court-opinion sources. No Federal Circuit appeal was found.

Parallel PTAB/PTO proceedings and effect

• Ex parte reexamination 90/014,712 of the '791 patent — requested by Unified Patents and granted 2021-04-29 (before this case was filed); a factor in the patent's overall litigation posture.
• Unified Patents also ran PATROLL prior-art crowdsourcing contests targeting the Context Directions family (including '807,564), and its commentary notes the family was asserted against Fox Rent-A-Car, Avis, and Enterprise.
• I found no IPR petition filed by Ean Holdings/Enterprise against these patents in my searches, and no IPR institution order tied to this case. The litigation docket itself shows no stay "pending IPR"; the stays were unopposed, plaintiff-initiated deadline stays.

Key caveats

• The exact terminating event (dismissal vs. transfer vs. judgment) after 2023-02-02 remains unverified; treat the "Closed" status as indicative but not confirmed.
• The docket's cause-of-action label on Justia ("15 U.S.C. § 1126") appears to be a clerical artifact; the case is a standard 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement suit.
• Case metadata lists only the '791 patent, but the contemporaneous IPWatchdog roundup shows three patents asserted (9,807,564; 10,142,791; 11,057,738); the complaint's amended version (Dkt. 13, 2022-08-31) likely carried all three.

Bottom line: This was a short-lived E.D. Tex. NPE suit against Enterprise/Alamo/National that never got past the pleadings and venue-motion stage — it was stayed twice at the plaintiff's request (Nov. 2022 and Jan. 2023) and is now listed as closed, with no trial, Markman ruling, IPR by the defendants, or appeal identified.

Based on the available public docket and news sources, the plaintiff's counsel of record is limited to one identified attorney:

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Context Directions LLC

Kirk J. Anderson — Lead Counsel / Attorney of Record

• Firm: Budo Law P.C.
• Office location: 5610 Ward Rd., Suite #300, Arvada, CO 80002 (per RPX litigation documents; firm founded 2019)
• Role: Appears as the filing attorney on essentially every plaintiff-side filing in the case — the original complaint (Dkt. 1), corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 3), amended complaint (Dkt. 13), response and sur-reply to the defendants' motion to transfer venue (Dkts. 23, 25), answer to the counterclaim (Dkt. 21), and the unopposed motions to stay (Dkts. 26, 28). Unicourt's attorney listing for the case shows Kirk Anderson as the sole "Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Attorney."
• Experience: Founder of Budo Law P.C., a boutique firm focused on representing inventors and patent owners in infringement litigation; firm materials note experience arguing before district courts and the Federal Circuit. Law.com Radar described the related, same-day Avis Budget filing (4:22-cv-00575) as brought "by Budo Law on behalf of Context Directions LLC." He also represents Context Directions in its other car-rental patent campaigns (e.g., 4:22-cv-00575; 5:23-cv-00009 against Fox Rent a Car, where colleague Mark Adam Rabideau appeared).

Important caveats

• No separate local counsel identified. Public docket snippets for 4:22-cv-00577 do not show a pro hac vice motion or notice of appearance for Texas-based local counsel for the plaintiff. E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-3 normally requires local counsel for out-of-district attorneys, but I found no docket entry confirming who (if anyone) served in that role in this case — the available sources show only Anderson's name on filings. If you need certainty, the full PACER docket (or the AO 120 / PHV entries) should be checked.
• Jeffrey M. Gross is not counsel. IPWatchdog's filing roundup lists the filer as "Context Directions LLC [Jeff Gross]" — but Gross is the individual behind Context Directions (Unified Patents describes Context Directions as a "Jeffrey M. Gross" entity/patent owner), not an attorney of record. I found no evidence he entered an appearance.
• Mark Adam Rabideau (Budo Law) is associated with the Context Directions campaign and appeared in the later Fox Rent a Car case (W.D. Tex. 5:23-cv-00009), but I found no evidence in this specific case that he entered an appearance; I would not list him as counsel of record for 4:22-cv-00577 without a docket entry confirming it.
• Patents: The case metadata you provided lists only U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791, but IPWatchdog's roundup indicates the original complaint also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 11,057,738 and 9,807,564. That discrepancy does not affect the counsel analysis.
• Case outcome/status: The docket went quiet after a February 2, 2023 stay order (Dkt. 29), and third-party sources disagree on final status (Unicourt: "Pending"; Ex Parte: "Closed"). I could not confirm the termination event or any later appearances from the public record I accessed.

Bottom line: Kirk J. Anderson of Budo Law P.C. is the identified lead/attorney of record for Context Directions LLC. No other plaintiff-side attorneys (local counsel, co-counsel, or in-house) are confirmed from the public record I found.

Based on the public docket entries available for Context Directions LLC v. Ean Holdings, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Rent A Car et al., No. 4:22-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III), the counsel of record for the defendants are:

---

1. James S. Blank — Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/Office: Baker McKenzie LLP, New York (452 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY); formerly of Kaye Scholer/Arnold & Porter and Latham & Watkins
• Role: Entered a Notice of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice on behalf of EAN Holdings, LLC (Docket No. 10, filed 8/16/2022; fee receipt ATXEDC-9073315). He also filed the defendant's first extension application (Docket No. 11) and is the senior Baker McKenzie partner on the matter.
• Experience: Longtime lead patent trial counsel for Enterprise Rent-A-Car in patent cases involving image processing, vehicle navigation, and customer-service platform technologies; previously first-chaired Nintendo 3DS and Wii litigations (winning non-infringement verdicts/judgments), high-speed cable cases (Nexans/Berk-Tek), and was named a Law360 2016 "IP MVP" and IAM Patent 1000 (Band Silver). He is admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar in addition to the Federal Circuit.

2. Mackenzie Marie Martin — Counsel (Texas-based)

• Firm/Office: Baker McKenzie LLP, Dallas (1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75201)
• Role: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of EAN Holdings, LLC (Docket No. 12, filed 8/18/2022); later filed the defendants' reply in support of the motion to change venue (Docket No. 24, 10/31/2022). She is Texas-licensed (admitted 2008), so she also serves the local/regional-counsel function for the E.D. Tex. proceeding.
• Experience: Co-heads Baker McKenzie's global patent practice; litigates patent and trade-secret cases in district courts, at the ITC, and before the PTAB; a former electrical engineer with experience in software, networks, communications, and semiconductors; named to Super Lawyers "Rising Stars" (2017–2021) and Texas Lawyer "Lawyers on the Rise" (2016).

---

Notes and caveats

• Which defendants are represented: Both appearances (Dockets 10 and 12) are expressly on behalf of EAN Holdings, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car. The amended complaint (Docket 13, 8/31/2022) was also filed against EAN Holdings, LLC only, which is consistent with UniCourt's attorney list showing Blank and Martin as the sole "Defendant and Counter Claimant Attorneys." If Alamo Rent-A-Car and National Car Rental were later re-joined or separately represented, that would not be reflected in the public docket excerpts I retrieved.
• Counterclaim: The docket references a defendant's answer and counterclaim (Docket 17) and plaintiff's answer to that counterclaim (Docket 21), so Blank and Martin also represent the counterclaimant EAN Holdings.
• No separate local counsel of record identified: The E.D. Tex. local rules require local counsel for pro hac vice admissions, but the public docket does not show a distinct local-counsel appearance beyond Martin (who is admitted in Texas and Dallas-based). I could not confirm from public sources whether an additional Sherman/Plano-area local counsel appeared without a standalone docket entry.
• Case disposition: The docket went quiet after a series of stays (Dockets 26–29, last activity ~2/2/2023), and the Ex Parte aggregator flags the case as "Closed," but I could not confirm the final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or transfer) from the sources I accessed. Full PACER would be needed to confirm any post-February 2023 events and to verify whether additional counsel entered or withdrew.
• Source basis: Justia docket (retrieved 8/31/2022), UniCourt case summary (updated 2/21/2023), Baker McKenzie attorney bios, Super Lawyers, and Law360-adjacent profiles. No filings appear to be sealed regarding counsel, but my access was limited to secondary docket aggregators rather than PACER itself.