Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Context Directions LLC, the plaintiff, is a classic non-practicing/patent-assertion entity. It is a New York-based company affiliated with Jeffrey M. Gross, and Unified Patents and RPX both identify it as an NPE that has asserted this patent family repeatedly since 2020. The patents themselves originated with Polish developer Binartech Sp. z o.o. (inventor Pawel Aksamit) and were evidently acquired by Context Directions. The defendants are seven affiliated East Texas auto dealerships owned by William R. Patterson — Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc., plus Patterson Motors of Longview, Marshall, Marshall Two, Tyler, Tyler 2, and Tyler 3 — which sell Mazda and Toyota vehicles. The case was filed June 12, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division; case no. 2:25-cv-00624), assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with a jury demanded under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Plaintiff is represented by Steven Kalberg (with David R. Bennett appearing in Context Directions' related cases).

Patents and accused technology. The suit asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791, which share a common specification and cover a "method/system for context awareness of a mobile device." In one line: the patents claim a mobile device with sensors arranged in hierarchically ordered groups, each group assigned a classifier, where a context-detection module activates a lower-level (lower-power) sensor group first and, based on the classification result, activates higher-level groups and adapts the first classifier's configuration — an energy-efficient way to detect device context (e.g., that the device is in a moving vehicle). The accused instrumentality is not a smartphone but the vehicles themselves: the complaint alleges that certain Mazda and Toyota models (roughly model years 2018–2025) equipped with ADAS features — pre-collision system with pedestrian detection, dynamic radar cruise control, lane departure alert with steering assist, and lane tracing assist — infringe because the car's camera, radar, steering, braking, and speed sensors plus software modules allegedly function as the claimed hierarchical sensor groups and classifiers, making "the vehicle [itself] the 'mobile device'" (Compl. ¶¶ 20–25, 33).

Why it matters. This is part of a coordinated NPE campaign against downstream auto dealers rather than OEMs: on the same day (June 12, 2025), Context Directions filed nearly identical complaints against Peters Chevrolet (2:25-cv-00626) and Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), and it later sued other Texas dealers (e.g., Ewing Buick-Plano, Tyler Motor Company, and Gulliver USA). The same two patents were previously asserted against Samsung and LG in the Western District of Texas, and against Enterprise, Avis, and Fox Rent-A-Car. The patents have been under validity attack: Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination of the '791 patent (control no. 90/014,712) in March 2021 and ran a $3,000 PATROLL crowdsourcing contest for prior art against the '564 patent (prize awarded February 2024). The Eastern District of Texas — where Gilstrap is one of the most experienced patent trial judges and where the defendants' dealerships are located, making venue straightforward — is the venue of choice. Notably, at least one parallel dealership case (Context Directions v. Gulliver USA, 2:25-cv-01005) resolved via joint dismissal with prejudice in about 140 days, hinting at a settlement-licensing pattern that may foreshadow the trajectory of this suit. One caveat: public docket sources I consulted reflect only the opening filings (through June 12, 2025); I did not find verified PACER entries showing whether answers, motions to dismiss, or a scheduling order have since been filed in this specific case, so the current procedural stage beyond assignment to Judge Gilstrap should be confirmed against PACER.

Based on the available research, here is what can be verified about Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex.) — with clear flags where the public record is thin. I was unable to retrieve a full post-filing docket before reaching search limits, so several categories below reflect genuine gaps rather than confirmed events.

---

Verified procedural history (through filing)

2025-06-12 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Context Directions LLC sued seven affiliated dealerships owned by William R. Patterson — Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc.; Patterson Motors of Longview, Inc.; Patterson Motors of Marshall, Inc.; Patterson Motors of Marshall Two, Inc.; Patterson Motors of Tyler, Inc.; Patterson Motors of Tyler 2, Inc.; and Patterson Motors of Tyler 3, Inc. The complaint alleges infringement of:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,807,564 ("'564 patent") — mobile-device context detection using hierarchical sensor groups/classifiers; and
• U.S. Patent No. 10,142,791 ("'791 patent," issued 2018-11-27) — a continuation with an identical specification.

The accused instrumentalities are 2018–2025 Mazda and Toyota vehicles sold by the dealerships, with infringement premised on ADAS features (pre-collision system with pedestrian detection, dynamic radar cruise control, lane departure alert with steering assist, lane tracing assist). The theory is that the vehicle itself is the claimed "mobile device," with camera/radar/steering/braking/speed sensors arranged in the claimed hierarchy. Complaint exhibits include claim charts for the '564 and '791 patents against Mazda and Toyota vehicles (Exs. B, C, E, F).

Same-day filings (2025-06-12):

• Dkt. 2 — AO 120 patent/trademark form notice.
• Dkt. 3 — Plaintiff's Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement.
• Case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap; plaintiff demanded a jury. Plaintiff is represented by Steven Kalberg (signing the complaint) and, per other Context Directions cases, David R. Bennett.

2025-06-21 — RPX coverage ("The Vehicle Is the 'Mobile Device'") confirmed the filing and the broader campaign: Context Directions filed the Patterson case together with separate suits against Peters Chevrolet (2:25-cv-00626) and Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), all on the same two patents.

---

Developments after filing — NOT confirmed

Despite searching, I found no public docket entries for this case after 2025-06-12. The Justia docket page was last retrieved on the filing date, and Ex Parte/RPX aggregators still listed the case as "Open" as of their last updates. Consequently, I cannot verify from available sources:

• Answer/counterclaims — No answer, counterclaim, or third-party complaint surfaced. (For context: in the related Avis Budget case, 4:22-cv-00575, defendants answered with counterclaims, but nothing similar is confirmed here.)
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay / summary judgment — No such motions were found for this docket.
• Markman/claim construction — No claim construction proceedings identified; the case almost certainly has not reached that stage on this timeline.
• Discovery milestones — Nothing on file (no scheduling order, discovery disputes, or protective orders retrieved).
• Trial / verdict / post-trial motions — None identified.
• Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — None identified for this case specifically.

Caveat: This is a gap in my search results, not affirmative evidence that these events never occurred. The docket should be checked on PACER for the current status.

---

Parallel PTAB / IPR activity

• Unified Patents PATROLL contest (2024-02-14): Unified Patents announced a $3,000 prior-art bounty award on the '564 patent, describing Context Directions as "a Jeffrey M. Gross entity" whose patents had been "asserted over 10 times" (against Fox Rent-A-Car, Avis, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, among others). This signals IPR-related threat activity targeting the '564 patent, but I found no specific filed IPR petition numbers or institution decisions on '564/'791 in my searches. I will not speculate on pending IPRs without a source.

---

Present posture (as best documented)

The case is active/open as of the most recent aggregator updates. No merits ruling, verdict, or judgment has been publicly reported. It sits in a large, ongoing enforcement campaign by Context Directions against Texas auto dealerships on the '564 and '791 patents — a campaign that also includes Tyler Motor Co. (2:25-cv-00955), Ewing Buick-Plano (2:25-cv-00953), Gulliver USA (2:25-cv-01005), Midland Nissan (7:26-cv-00071, W.D. Tex.), and the older Don Herring Auto Sales (4:24-cv-00228) and Avis Budget (4:22-cv-00575) suits.

A meaningful data point on likely trajectory: the closely parallel Gulliver USA case (same plaintiff, same two patents, same judge) was dismissed with prejudice on 2026-02-20, just 140 days after filing, via a joint Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with each side bearing its own fees — consistent with a confidential settlement/license. If the Patterson case follows that pattern, a joint dismissal could be expected, but no such filing has been confirmed for 2:25-cv-00624.

---

Bottom line

Documented developments are limited to the 2025-06-12 filing and initial pleadings in front of Judge Gilstrap; the case was open as of the most recent retrievable docket data. No answer, substantive motion, claim construction, trial, or disposition is verifiable from public sources I could reach, and no PTAB IPR on the asserted patents was confirmed. The most reliable next step for a definitive status is a PACER query of 2:25-cv-00624 (or CourtListener/RPX's paywalled docket feeds), which I could not fully access within the search budget.

The docket shows filings by an attorney named Steven Kalberg. Let me dig deeper into his firm and any other counsel of record.

I found that Steven Kalberg is with "Direction IP Law" and David R. Bennett often appears alongside him in related Context Directions cases. Let me verify whether Bennett (or others) appeared in this specific case and confirm the firm details.

Based on the docket records I was able to retrieve, here is what can be confirmed regarding plaintiff's counsel of record in Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex.):

Confirmed counsel of record

Steven G. Kalberg — Lead/counsel of record for Plaintiff Context Directions LLC

• Firm: Direction IP Law (per PACER Monitor attorney listings in related E.D. Tex. patent cases, e.g., Electronic Edison Transmission Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, 2:26-cv-00592, and Comarco Wireless Systems LLC v. Micro-Star Int'l Co., Ltd., 2:26-cv-00439). Office location not affirmatively stated in the retrieved sources; his filings are concentrated in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall/Plano divisions), consistent with a Texas-based practice.
• Role in this case: Filed the complaint (Dkt. 1), the AO 120 patent/trademark form (Dkt. 2), and the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Dkt. 3) on June 12, 2025 — all signed "(Kalberg, Steven)" (Justia docket for 2:2025cv00624, retrieved June 12, 2025; Docket text entries 1–3).
• Experience note: Kalberg is a serial patent-infringement plaintiff's attorney in E.D. Tex., representing NPE/licensing entities such as Context Directions LLC, TurboCode LLC, Convergent Assets LLC, Intellectros LLC, Virtual Creative Artists LLC, and Bataan Licensing LLC in suits against automotive manufacturers/dealers (Huffines Chevrolet, Peters Chevrolet, Wagner Cadillac, Tyler Motor), Sony, Deere & Company, Home Depot, and Ceragon Networks, among others. In Context Direction LLC v. Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc. (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00043 region), he handled responsive pleadings including an answer to counterclaim (UniCourt).

Likely co-counsel (appearance not confirmed on this specific docket)

David R. Bennett — Co-counsel for Plaintiff Context Directions LLC

• Firm: Appears in PACER Monitor records simply as "David R. Bennett" (his own firm, per the "David R." listing format in Control Sync Systems, LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc.).
• Caveat: I could not confirm that Bennett filed a notice of appearance in this case (2:25-cv-00624) from the records retrieved. However, he has filed "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David R Bennett on behalf of Context Directions LLC" in sibling cases filed the same week by the same plaintiff against other dealers — e.g., Context Directions LLC v. Tyler Motor Company, Inc. (2:25-cv-00955) and Context Directions LLC v. Ewing Buick-Plano, L.P. (2:25-cv-00953) (PACER Monitor). Given the pattern, he is likely to have appeared here as well, but that requires PACER confirmation.

Important caveats

• The public Justia docket snapshot for 2:25-cv-00624 was last retrieved June 12, 2025 (filing day), so it reflects only the initial filings. Any attorney appearances, amended filings, or substitutions after that date are not captured in the sources I retrieved. The Ex Parte/RPX case pages show "No Attorneys" or partial data, which appears to be a data-completeness issue rather than evidence that no counsel exists.
• No in-house counsel for Context Directions LLC (a licensing entity) was identified in any source.
• To definitively confirm the full current roster (including any local counsel and Bennett's appearance), you would need to pull the live PACER docket report for 2:25-cv-00624, which was not accessible through the free sources used here.

Defense Counsel of Record — Findings

Bottom line: No defense counsel of record could be identified from publicly available docket sources as of the latest retrievable entries. It appears no attorney has formally appeared for Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. et al. in the public record to date, though the available docket data may simply be stale.

What the public docket shows

• Justia docket (case no. 2:25-cv-00624, E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap): the docket was "last retrieved on June 12, 2025" — the filing date — and lists only four filings: (1) the Complaint, (2) AO 120 patent form, (3) Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 disclosure, and (4) issuance of summons. The case-assignment entry to Judge Gilstrap is also dated June 12, 2025. No answer, no motion to dismiss, no notice of appearance, and no defense attorney names appear.
• Ex Parte (AI-lab) case page for 2:25-cv-00624 explicitly lists "No Attorneys" / "No Defendant Attorneys," consistent with a docket containing only plaintiff-side filings.
• RPX Insight maintains a page for the case ("Context Directions LLC v. Patterson Motors of Kilgore, Inc. et al.," 2:25-cv-00624) with a docket "updated daily," but the search results did not surface any counsel names or post-filing entries from that page.

Important caveats

1. The free docket sources are likely stale. Justia's capture is from the filing date itself (June 12, 2025). RPX's related-case page for Context Directions v. Peters Chevrolet (2:25-cv-00626, filed the same day) shows a "Latest Docket Entry: 08/08/2025," demonstrating that later docket activity exists in the parallel dealership cases that the free sources do not fully expose. It is therefore probable that some docket activity (e.g., an answer, extension, or appearance) has occurred in 2:25-cv-00624 after June 12, 2025, but I could not retrieve it.
2. No attorney names were found anywhere — no firm website hits, Law360/Reuters references, or PACER-derived entries naming defense counsel for the Patterson entities. I will not speculate or fabricate names.
3. No in-house counsel identified for the defendant dealerships either; the Patterson entities are closely held dealerships, and the existing case summary notes that a parallel Context Directions dealership case (Gulliver USA, 2:25-cv-01005) resolved by joint dismissal with prejudice in ~140 days — a pattern that, if repeated here, could mean the case settles before counsel is heavily litigating.

Recommended verification

To confirm whether defense counsel has appeared, the authoritative check is PACER for 2:25-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), reviewing entries filed after June 12, 2025 — particularly any "Notice of Appearance," "Answer," "Motion to Dismiss," or "Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time." RPX Insight's paywalled docket for this case and the related 2:25-cv-00626/00627 matters would also show attorney names once appearances are entered. As of the information retrievable today, the accurate answer is: no defense counsel of record is publicly identifiable; either none has appeared or the appearance post-dates the available docket captures.