Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP

Case Overview: Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP

Parties and their roles. Plaintiff Context Directions LLC is a Delaware LLC headquartered at 261 West 35th Street, Suite 1003, New York, NY, and is best characterized as a patent assertion entity (PAE/NPE): it has no apparent product business and has enforced the same two patents in a rolling campaign against downstream automotive sellers since 2020, including Samsung and LG in W.D. Tex. (6:20-cv-01063, 6:20-cv-01064, both voluntarily dismissed in August 2021), then rental-car operators and Texas dealerships (RPX; PatSnap Eureka's case analysis expressly labels it "a patent assertion entity"). In the parallel E.D. Tex. dealership cases it has been represented by Direction IP Law (David R. Bennett, Steven Kalberg). Defendant Midland Nissan LLLP is the operator of Nissan of Midland, a Nissan new- and used-car dealership at 4800 W Loop 250 N, Midland, TX 79707 (founded 2012, roughly 20 employees; Cars.com, Kona Equity — the latter's revenue estimates are proprietary, not verified). It is a small, local, downstream reseller with no role in designing or manufacturing the accused vehicles.

Accused technology and patents. The complaint accuses a range of used vehicles from Kia, Toyota, and RAM (model years 2022–2026) sold, offered for sale, and/or used by the dealership. The infringement theory, per the complaint analysis, is that the vehicles' integrated sensor and telematics/infotainment systems — including cameras, radar, steering, braking, and speed sensors — operate as the claimed "mobile device," performing hierarchical context detection (e.g., recognizing that the vehicle/device is in motion or being driven) in a power-efficient manner. Two related patents are asserted: U.S. Patent No. 9,807,564 ("Method for Detecting Context of a Mobile Device and a Mobile Device with a Context Detection Module") and its continuation U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791 ("Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device," issued November 27, 2018), both invented by Pawel Aksamit and sharing an identical specification. The patented solution is a hierarchical, adaptive sensor-management architecture: classifiers assigned to low-power sensor groups perform an initial context classification, higher-power sensor groups are activated only when needed to confirm/refine the result, and the higher-level classification results are fed back to adapt and improve the lower-level classifiers — yielding accurate context awareness without the battery drain of always-on GPS or parallel multi-sensor analysis.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed February 27, 2026 (per Patexia and Ex Parte docket trackers), Case No. 7:26-cv-00071 is a new, open patent-infringement action (35 U.S.C. § 271; Nature of Suit 830) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The "7" case prefix denotes the Midland–Odessa Division, which is significant: venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the defendant dealership resides and has its regular and established place of business in Midland, and the alleged infringing sales occurred there. I could not verify the assigned district judge from available public sources (the docket has not yet surfaced on Justia/PACER mirrors). Notably, Context Directions has venue-shopped across Texas: Waco (Judge Albright) against manufacturers, then E.D. Tex. (Chief Judge Gilstrap) against dealerships beginning June 2025 (Patterson Motors, Peters Chevrolet, Wagner Cadillac), and now the W.D. Tex. Midland–Odessa Division against a West Texas dealer.

Why the case is notable. This is a textbook downstream-NPE campaign: instead of suing OEMs like Kia, Toyota, or Stellantis/RAM (who design the accused systems), Context Directions targets small independent dealerships whose only conduct is reselling used vehicles — maximizing settlement leverage while minimizing litigation cost and the likelihood of a robust invalidity defense. RPX flagged the theory as "The Vehicle Is the 'Mobile Device'" (June 2025), observing that the plaintiff sued dealerships for selling cars "equipped with sensors such as a camera, radar sensor, steering sensor, braking sensor, and/or speed sensor." The pattern's trajectory is telling: the identical patent pair's first dealership test case, Context Directions v. Gulliver USA (2:25-cv-01005, E.D. Tex.), was dismissed with prejudice after just 140 days — consistent with a quick private license/settlement. I found no IPR petitions against the '564 or '791 patents in the sources reviewed, and no substantive rulings or answer in this case yet; both should be treated as unverified given the case's early stage and limited public docketing.

Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP, No. 7:26-cv-00071 (W.D. Tex.)

Executive summary

This is a very early-stage, still-active patent infringement suit filed 2026-02-27 in the Western District of Texas (Midland–Odessa docket prefix "7:"). As of the most recent public docket information available, the case is open and essentially at the pleading stage: the complaint is the only substantive event documented. No answer, counterclaims, substantive pretrial motions, Markman ruling, discovery orders, trial, or final judgment are publicly docketed. The suit is part of a broader, multi-district enforcement campaign by Context Directions LLC (a Jeffrey M. Gross–affiliated NPE, per Unified Patents) against automobile dealerships for sales/use of vehicles allegedly practicing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2026-02-27 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Context Directions LLC sued Midland Nissan LLLP for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, asserting:
  • U.S. Patent No. 9,807,564 ("Method for Detecting Context of a Mobile Device and a Mobile Device with a Context Detection Module," issued 2017-10-31); and
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791 ("Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device," issued 2018-11-27; reexamined and confirmed — see PTAB section below).
• Accused instrumentalities: used vehicles from Kia, Toyota, and RAM, model years approximately 2022–2026, sold/used/offered for sale by the dealership. The infringement theory treats the vehicles' integrated telematics/infotainment or sensor/safety systems as the claimed "mobile device" with hierarchical sensor groups and classifiers. The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of each patent (per the Ex Parte complaint analysis; claim charts were attached as exhibits).
• Plaintiff's counsel: Direction IP Law (David R. Bennett, Steven Kalberg) — the same firm/counsel appearing across Context Directions' dealer campaign.
• Venue/court: W.D. Tex., case No. 7:26-cv-00071; cause of action 35 U.S.C. § 271; nature of suit 830 (Patent).
• Answer / counterclaims: None located on public dockets as of the search date. The case remains "Open" per third-party docket trackers (Ex Parte; Justia; Patexia).

Caveat: I could not retrieve the live CM/ECF docket (PACER paywall), so I cannot confirm whether a summons was issued/returned, whether an answer is overdue, or whether an extension or default has been entered. All statements about the absence of later filings are based on the absence of such events in the public aggregator records, which may lag.

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

• None identified. No motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to stay, or summary judgment motion appears on the public record for this case. Given the filing date (2026-02-27) and the pattern of Context Directions' parallel dealer cases, the case has not advanced past initial service/answer territory in the public docket.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceedings or ruling — the case has not reached claim construction. For context, the threshold term likely to be contested in this campaign is whether a vehicle's ADAS/telematics system qualifies as a "mobile device" under the claims, but no construction has been requested or issued in this case.

4. Discovery milestones

• None. No scheduling order, discovery plan, or discovery dispute is publicly documented. The case is too young to have produced substantive discovery events.

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

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

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

• Present posture: active and at the pleading stage. The case was filed 2026-02-27 and remains open. There is no judgment, dismissal, settlement, or appeal.
• Useful comparator (same plaintiff, same two patents, one week before this filing): In Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01005 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap), filed 2025-10-03, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss; on 2026-02-20 the court granted dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 14), each side bearing its own fees — a negotiated resolution reached in ~140 days with no substantive rulings. That outcome is a strong signal of how this W.D. Tex. case (and the parallel dealer suits) may resolve, but it is not a ruling in this case.
• Other pending/settled parallel Context Directions suits asserting the same patents (E.D. Tex.): Patterson Motors of Kilgore (2:25-cv-00624), Peters Chevrolet (2:25-cv-00626), Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), Tyler Motor (2:25-cv-00955), Ewing Buick-Plano (2:25-cv-00953), and Auto Merchants (2:26-cv-00729, filed 2026-08-21).

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings and effect on litigation

• No IPR or PGR involving these patents was identified. Notably, Unified Patents ran a PATROLL prior-art crowdsourcing contest on the '564 patent (winner announced 2024-02-14, $3,000 award) — an indication of third-party interest in challenging the patent — but I found no resulting IPR petition filed against either the '564 or '791 patent.
• Ex parte reexamination history of the '791 patent (relevant backdrop): Reexamination No. 90/014,712 was initiated 2021-03-29; a reexamination certificate issued 2021-11-05 confirming patentability of the claims (including asserted independent claim 1). This was cited in Context Directions' own Avis Budget complaint (Context Directions LLC v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-00575, E.D. Tex., asserting '791, '564, and '738) and means the '791 patent is in force as B2/C1.
• Effect on this litigation: Because no IPR/PGR has been instituted, there has been no PTAB-induced stay or estoppel in this case. The only USPTO proceeding bearing on the asserted patents is the completed 2021 ex parte reexamination of the '791 patent, which strengthens (rather than threatens) Context Directions' position on that patent.

---

Bottom line

Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP is a new, active, pleading-stage case (filed 2026-02-27, W.D. Tex., No. 7:26-cv-00071). The only confirmed event is the filing of the complaint asserting the '564 and '791 patents against a used-car dealership's sales of Kia, Toyota, and RAM vehicles. There is no answer, no substantive motion practice, no claim construction, no discovery, no trial, no judgment, and no PTAB IPR — yet. Given Context Directions' recent pattern (e.g., the Gulliver USA dismissal with prejudice on 2026-02-20), a negotiated early resolution is plausible, but nothing of that sort is docketed in this case as of the latest available public records. If you need the live docket, PACER (W.D. Tex., case 7:26-cv-00071) is the authoritative source; third-party aggregators (Justia, Ex Parte, Patexia) may lag behind actual CM/ECF activity.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Context Directions LLC — Case No. 7:26-cv-00071 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: I could not confirm the specific counsel of record on the W.D. Tex. docket for Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP from the public sources I could access. The case is a new filing (filed 2026-02-27), and the docket entries for this case (PACER/Justia docket sheet) did not surface attorney names in retrievable snippets. No appearance, summons, or counsel entries specific to 7:26-cv-00071 were verifiable in my search. However, the plaintiff's counsel in every other retrievable Context Directions LLC case in this same enforcement campaign are consistently David R. Bennett and Steven Kalberg — so those two are the expected attorneys of record here, pending docket confirmation.

---

Expected attorneys (strong pattern evidence, but unconfirmed for this docket)

1. Steven Kalberg

• Role: Signing/complaint counsel; typically files the complaint, Rule 7.1 disclosure, and AO-120 notices for Context Directions LLC.
• Firm/Office: Firm not identified in the sources I retrieved (see caveat below).
• Notable experience: Files the pleadings across Context Directions' dealer-facing patent campaign asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791 — e.g., Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex., filed 6/12/2025, complaint signed by Kalberg); Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex.); Context Directions LLC v. Tyler Motor Co., No. 2:25-cv-00955; and TurboCode LLC v. Ceragon Networks, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00383 (E.D. Tex.), where Kalberg filed the complaint, Rule 7.1 statement, and AO-120.

2. David R. Bennett

• Role: Appearing counsel; files the Notice of Attorney Appearance in each Context Directions matter.
• Firm/Office: Same firm as Kalberg; office not confirmed in retrieved sources.
• Notable experience: Files appearances and litigation notices in the same campaign — Context Directions LLC v. Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00073 (E.D. Tex., appearance docketed 1/24/2025, Notice of Readiness for Scheduling Conference); Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P., No. 2:25-cv-00953; Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01005 (E.D. Tex.), which settled via joint dismissal with prejudice on 2/20/2026 (per PatSnap's case analysis identifying Bennett and Kalberg as plaintiff's counsel).

---

Caveats

• No local counsel identified for W.D. Tex.: The prior cases were all in the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap). If Bennett/Kalberg are not admitted in W.D. Tex., local counsel may need to appear; I found no evidence of any W.D. Tex. local counsel for the plaintiff in this docket.
• Source limitations: The Ex Parte case page for 7:26-cv-00071 has an "Attorney" field but the snippet did not display names; the Justia listing for the case shows the parties but no attorney names in the accessible text. I did not have direct PACER access.
• Recommendation: Confirm via PACER docket for 7:26-cv-00071 (W.D. Tex.) — Docket Entry 1 (Complaint) and any Notice of Attorney Appearance — before relying on the Bennett/Kalberg identification for this specific case.

I'll research the counsel of record for Midland Nissan LLLP in this case. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and related Context Directions cases to identify defense counsel.

Let me check docket sources directly for appearances in this case.

Based on my research, I could not identify any counsel of record for defendant Midland Nissan LLLP in Context Directions LLC v. Midland Nissan LLLP, No. 7:26-cv-00071 (W.D. Tex.). Here is what the record supports:

Findings

No defense counsel of record identified — likely none has appeared yet.

• The case is a new filing (complaint filed February 27, 2026), per Patexia and Ex Parte case-index sources. The docket is in its earliest stage — the sources show only the complaint and case-opening entries.
• Web-accessible docket aggregators (Justia Dockets, CourtListener-indexed pages, Ex Parte) do not yet show any attorney appearance, answer, motion to dismiss, or Rule 12 filing by or for Midland Nissan LLLP.
• The complaint itself names only the defendant; plaintiff's counsel (David R. Bennett and Steven Kalberg, per the parallel Gulliver matter) were identified, but no defense-side appearance was found in public sources for this specific case number.

Important caveat — do not confuse with the parallel Gulliver case

A heavily indexed related case, Context Directions LLC v. Gulliver USA, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01005 (E.D. Tex.), involved the same two patents ('564 and '791) and the same plaintiff, and was dismissed with prejudice on February 20, 2026. In that case, defense counsel were:

• Brian Patrick Shaw Jr. and Stephen Lloyd Levine — Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP (Dallas) — represented Gulliver USA, Inc., a different defendant.

Those attorneys represent Gulliver, not Midland Nissan. They should not be listed as counsel for the defendant here unless and until a notice of appearance or pleading in 7:26-cv-00071 confirms it. No such filing was found.

Conclusion

As of the latest publicly available docket information:

• No counsel of record has publicly appeared for Midland Nissan LLLP in 7:26-cv-00071.
• This is consistent with a case filed only ~6 months ago (Feb. 2026) where the defendant has not yet filed an answer or appearance, or where such filings are not yet indexed in free public sources.
• Verified verification path: Check PACER for the W.D. Tex. case docket (entries after Doc. 1, e.g., waiver of service, notice of appearance, or answer) or search the Public Access to Court Electronic Records / CM/ECF attorney list for "Midland Nissan." I was unable to access PACER directly in this session.

I deliberately did not invent attorneys, firms, or docket entries. If you can provide a PACER dump or a more recent docket date, I can update the counsel list with roles, firms, and experience notes.