Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Context Directions LLC is a classic non-practicing entity / patent assertion entity controlled by inventor Jeffrey M. Gross, which has no products of its own and monetizes a family of mobile-device "context detection" patents through litigation (Unified Patents has repeatedly described it as a "Jeffrey M. Gross NPE"). Defendant Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. is an operating company — the Ewing Buick GMC dealership at 6425 Dallas Pkwy in Plano, Texas, part of the Ewing auto group (BBB profile lists "Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P." as an alternate business name for the dealership). The suit is part of a deliberate 2025 campaign in which Context Directions has sued a string of Texas car dealerships — including Patterson Motors entities, Peters Chevrolet (2:25-cv-00626), Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), and later Gulliver USA (2:25-cv-01005) — over the same patent family, a pattern RPX flagged in its June 2025 piece titled The Vehicle Is the "Mobile Device".

Accused technology and patents. The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed Sept. 16, 2025) asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791 (Exhibits A and E, respectively) along with additional family-member patents (Exhibits C, D, G, H per the PacerMonitor docket; the full list is not verified from the docket extract). The '564 patent generally covers detecting the "context" of a mobile device — e.g., that it is located in a moving vehicle — using sensor data; the '791 patent covers a mobile device with a plurality of sensors arranged into hierarchically ordered sensor groups, classifiers assigned to those groups, and a context-detection module that activates classifications in sequence and adapts a lower-level classifier's configuration based on higher-level results (claim 1, col. 14 of the '791 patent). Context Directions' theory, per the complaints in its parallel dealership cases, treats the accused automobile itself as the "mobile device": the vehicles' advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) — with camera, radar, steering, braking, and speed sensors — are alleged to constitute the hierarchical sensor groups, and vehicle software modules are alleged to be the "classifiers" that evaluate driving context and adjust control behavior (see the ExParte complaint analysis of the parallel Wagner Cadillac case, 2:25-cv-00627).

Procedural posture and why it matters. The case is pending in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (case no. 2:25-cv-00953), assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the nation's most experienced patent trial judge; plaintiff is represented by David R. Bennett and Steven Kalberg. The case is a new filing — only the complaint, AO 120 patent form, corporate disclosure statement, and counsel appearances appear on the docket, with summons issued, and no substantive rulings or answer yet. The venue choice is notable: Ewing is a Plano, Texas dealership in Collin County, which sits in the Northern District of Texas, so Context Directions is invoking E.D. Tex.'s historically plaintiff-friendly patent docket against a defendant whose brick-and-mortar business is outside the district. The case is also notable for the validity cloud over the asserted patents: Unified Patents filed ex parte reexamination of the '791 patent in March 2021 (App. No. 90/014,712), and the examiner rejected all challenged claims as indefinite means-plus-function claims lacking any corresponding algorithm in the specification, with Unified arguing the patent owner effectively conceded abstraction; a reexamination certificate was ultimately issued, but the patent (and family) continues to be asserted. The broader significance is the NPE-vs.-dealership enforcement model — suing downstream auto retailers rather than manufacturers over factory-installed ADAS features, a strategy that typically pressures small defendants into quick settlements (the parallel Gulliver USA case against "dozens" of Nissan/Toyota/Lexus models dismissed with prejudice just 140 days after filing).

Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. — Case Developments & Posture

Case: No. 2:25-cv-00953 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap
Patents asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 ("Method for Detecting Context of a Mobile Device...") and 10,142,791 ("Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device") — the case metadata identifies the '791 patent as the lead patent at issue.

Chronological developments

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2025-09-16 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Context Directions LLC sued Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11094596. The complaint attaches the two patents plus claim charts (Exhibits A–H) covering accused vehicle systems. Counsel of record for plaintiff: Steven Kalberg (who signed the complaint) and David R. Bennett (appearance filed same day, Dkt. 4), of Direction IP Law.
• 2025-09-16 — AO 120 patent/trademark notice filed (Dkt. 2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 disclosure filed (Dkt. 3); case assigned to Judge Gilstrap (2025-09-16).
• 2025-09-17 — Summons issued to Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. (Dkt. 5).

Source: PacerMonitor docket for 2:25-cv-00953 (cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60174684); Justia Dockets search.

• Answer / counterclaims: As of the publicly available docket data, no answer, motion under Rule 12, or counterclaims have surfaced for this defendant. Ewing Buick-Plano is a single-dealership defendant, and the docket visible on PacerMonitor ends at Dkt. 5 (summons issued).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• None identified in public records. I found no motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment in this case. The docket appears to be in its early pleading stage.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceedings identified. The case has not reached claim construction based on available public records.

4. Discovery

• No strategic discovery milestones identified in public records. No scheduling order, discovery motions, or Rule 26(f) reports were found in the public docket snippets.

5. Trial / verdict / post-trial

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion appears on the public docket.

6. Final disposition / present posture

• Case appears active and in its infancy. As of the latest retrievable data, the only entries are the five initial filings from 2025-09-16/17. There is no dismissal, judgment, settlement notice, or appeal on record for Ewing Buick-Plano specifically. If the pattern of Context Directions' parallel cases holds, a negotiated resolution is plausible but cannot be confirmed from available sources — I did not locate any stipulation of dismissal or Rule 41 notice for this defendant.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

• No IPR/PGR petitions located for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 or 10,142,791 in connection with this litigation. Searches of PTAB-related coverage and litigation databases did not surface any inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered-business-method challenge against these patents. No PTAB estoppel or stay issues are therefore in play in this case.

Context: Context Directions' related litigation campaign (relevant for posture)

Context Directions LLC — a patent assertion entity whose counsel is Direction IP Law — has filed a wave of near-identical suits against Texas car dealerships in E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap, all asserting the same two patents:

• Context Directions LLC v. Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00073
• Context Directions LLC v. Peltier Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00419
• Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00624
• Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00626
• Context Directions LLC v. Wagner Cadillac Company, Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-00627
• Context Directions LLC v. Tyler Motor Company, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00955 (filed same day as this case)
• Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01005

Notable sister-case outcome: Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc. — filed 2025-10-03, closed 2026-02-20 when Judge Gilstrap granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. 14) under Rule 41(a)(2), each side bearing its own costs and fees — a 140-day resolution indicative of a private settlement/license. (Source: PatSnap Eureka case summary.) That result suggests Context Directions is settling dealer cases quickly, and the Ewing Buick-Plano case may follow the same path, but no such filing is on record yet.

Bottom line

This is a new, low-activity case: filed 2025-09-16, summons issued 2025-09-17, and (per publicly retrievable PACER/PacerMonitor data) nothing substantive after that — no answer, no substantive motions, no claim construction, no discovery activity, no PTAB challenges, and no final disposition. The present posture is pre-answer / early pleading stage before Judge Gilstrap, with the defendant's response deadline and a scheduling conference (if any) not yet reflected in public sources. I could not verify service-return, answer, or settlement filings beyond Dkt. 5; PACER access to the full docket would be needed to confirm whether the defendant has since answered or the parties have privately resolved the matter.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Context Directions LLC

Case: Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P., No. 2:25-cv-00953 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed Sept. 16, 2025)

Based on the PACER docket (via PacerMonitor public mirror of this case, case ID 60174684), two attorneys have appeared for the plaintiff. No filings are sealed, and no separate Texas-based local counsel appears on the docket as of the initial filings.

---

1. Steven G. Kalberg

• Role: Filing/signatory attorney on the complaint — docket entries show he filed the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 3), the AO 120 patent form (Dkt. 2), and the request for summons. The docket does not formally label him "lead" or "local counsel," but he is the CM/ECF filing attorney of record for the plaintiff in this and all of Context Directions' companion E.D. Tex. cases (e.g., 2:25-cv-00955, 2:25-cv-00626, 2:25-cv-00627).
• Firm/Location: Direction IP Law — office address listed on court filings: 865 Marquette Court, Vernon Hills, IL 60061 (phone 847-508-1294). (PacerMonitor party listings in related cases identify him as "Direction IP Law"; CourtListener's TurboCode v. Ceragon listing shows the Vernon Hills address.)
• Experience: Frequent filer of patent infringement complaints in E.D. Tex. and elsewhere on behalf of NPE/licensing plaintiffs — e.g., Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, TurboCode LLC v. Ceragon Networks (2:25-cv-00383), Bataan Licensing LLC v. Donaldson Co. (N.D. Ill.), Intellectros LLC v. Deere & Co. (C.D. Ill.), and Electronic Edison Transmission Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America. He and Bennett regularly appear together as the plaintiff's counsel team in Context Directions' dealer-facing patent campaign.

2. David R. Bennett

• Role: Notice of Attorney Appearance (Dkt. 4, filed 09/16/2025) on behalf of Context Directions LLC. Same pattern as his appearances in the companion Context Directions cases.
• Firm/Location: Direction IP Law — P.O. Box 14184, Chicago, IL 60614 (phone 312-291-1667; dbennett@directionip.com). (Also identified in some filings as "David Randolph Bennett.")
• Experience: Patent litigator with a long E.D. Tex. track record representing plaintiffs in infringement actions, including Veraseal LLC v. Walgreen Co. (2:17-cv-00723, before Judges Schroeder/Gilstrap, involving reexamination stay practice), Moxchange LLC v. Suitable Technologies (D. Del., pro hac vice), Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC v. Bumble Inc. (W.D. Tex.), and the broader Context Direction/Context Directions campaign against automotive dealerships in E.D. Tex.

---

Caveats: The docket entries available do not designate anyone as "lead counsel," "of counsel," or "local counsel" by title — both men appear to practice through Direction IP Law, and Kalberg is the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF filing user while Bennett files the appearance notices. I found no indication of any in-house counsel appearing for the plaintiff, and no separate Texas local counsel on the docket. Defense counsel had not yet appeared in the entries reviewed (summons was issued at Dkt. 5). If you need the formal lead-counsel designation, it would appear in any later scheduling-order or motion-filing designations, or in the parties' attorney-identification disclosures — none of which were available in the public docket mirror at the time of search.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. (2:25-cv-00953, E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: As of the docket records retrievable from public sources, no attorney has entered an appearance for defendant Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. There is no counsel of record to report for the defendant at this stage.

What the docket actually shows

The public docket (PacerMonitor mirror of the E.D. Tex. case 2:25-cv-00953) reflects only the plaintiff's filings and service activity:

• Dkt. 1 – Complaint for patent infringement filed 2025-09-16 by Steven Kalberg (plaintiff's counsel).
• Dkt. 2 – AO 120 patent/trademark form filed by Kalberg.
• Dkt. 3 – Rule 7.1 disclosure statement filed by Kalberg.
• Dkt. 4 – Notice of Attorney Appearance by David R. Bennett on behalf of Context Directions LLC (filed 2025-09-16).
• Dkt. 5 – Summons issued as to Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. on 2025-09-17 (clerk: mdj).
• Case assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap; magistrate-judge availability notice issued.

There is no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no notice of appearance, no motion to appear pro hac vice, and no substitution of attorney by or for the defendant on the docket pages retrieved. The case was docketed as a new filing with service just completed (summons issued the day after the complaint), and the public docket snapshots stop there.

Likely explanation

Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. — a Texas limited partnership operating a Buick-GMC dealership in Plano, Texas — is one of a large cohort of auto dealerships sued by Context Directions LLC in the Eastern District of Texas over U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564, 10,142,791, and 11,057,738 (mobile-device context-detection patents). Sibling cases include:

• Context Directions LLC v. Wagner Cadillac Company, Ltd., 2:25-cv-00627 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-06-12, Gilstrap)
• Context Directions LLC v. Peltier Enterprises Inc., 2:25-cv-00419 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-04-18)
• Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc., 2:25-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-06-12)
• Earlier campaign cases against Enterprise/National/Alamo (4:22-cv-00577) and Avis Budget (4:22-cv-00575), plus cases against Samsung, LG, and Garmin.

In the parallel dealership cases, defense counsel sometimes enter appearances only after an extension or responsive-pleading deadline — and in several of these small-dealer cases, defendants have defaulted or settled without counsel ever appearing. Nothing in the retrieved records identifies who (if anyone) has been engaged for Ewing Buick-Plano in this action.

Explicit caveats

• No defense counsel can be identified from PACER/docket sources retrieved; I did not find any appearance by Ewing Buick-Plano's counsel in this case number.
• I did not find any sealed-filing indication for this case; rather, the case simply appears to be at the early service stage with the defendant's response deadline (typically 21 days after service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), subject to extension) not yet reflected in the public docket.
• To confirm whether counsel has since appeared, a live PACER query of 2:25-cv-00953 (or the court's CM/ECF party/attorney report) would be needed. As of the available records, the answer is: no defendant's counsel of record yet.

I cannot responsibly provide names, firms, or bios for defendant's attorneys because none have appeared on the docket — inventing them would be worse than stating the gap.