Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the parties and patents.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into the parties, patent history, and any IPR activity.

Let me verify the patent origins, Peters Chevrolet's identity, and the latest docket activity.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Context Directions LLC is the plaintiff—a patent assertion entity tied to inventor Jeffrey M. Gross (Unified Patents describes it as "a Jeffrey M. Gross entity") that does not appear to practice the asserted technology; its counsel in this case is Steven Kalberg (with David R. Bennett appearing in related E.D. Tex. cases). Context Directions previously sued rental-car companies Avis Budget Group, Fox Rent-A-Car, and Enterprise (e.g., Context Directions v. Avis Budget Group, 4:22-cv-00575, E.D. Tex., Judge Mazzant, filed July 8, 2022), and since mid-2025 has filed a wave of cases against Texas auto dealerships. Defendant Peters Chevrolet, Inc. is a Chevrolet-branded auto dealership in East Texas that sells used Ford and Toyota vehicles; like the other dealership defendants in this campaign, it is a small downstream seller rather than a manufacturer.

Patents and accused technology. The suit asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791, both titled "Method and System for Context Awareness of a Mobile Device" and sharing an identical specification (the '791 is a continuation; per the complaint analysis, '791 issued Nov. 27, 2018). The '564 patent (asserted method claim 23) and '791 patent (asserted device claim 1) cover power-efficient context detection in a mobile device using hierarchically arranged sensor groups and classifiers: a lower-level classifier activates, its result triggers a higher-level classifier, and the higher-level result adapts the lower-level classifier's configuration. The accused instrumentalities are certain Ford and Toyota vehicles (model years roughly 2015–2025) sold by the dealership, equipped with ADAS features—pre-collision system with pedestrian detection, dynamic radar cruise control, lane departure alert with steering assist, and lane tracing assist—that use camera, radar, steering, braking, and/or speed sensors. The plaintiff's theory, laid out in claim charts attached to the complaint (Exhibits B–C and E–F), is that the vehicle itself is the claimed "mobile device" and its ADAS sensor hierarchy practices the claimed multi-stage classification and adaptation (e.g., low-level steering/braking/speed sensors active in "Group 1," camera/radar in "Group 2" activated once the vehicle is moving).

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed June 12, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00626) and assigned to Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap—the nation's most experienced patent trial judge—the case is in its early stages: summons issued, AO 120 filed, jury demanded, with willful-infringement allegations (RPX lists the latest docket entry as Aug. 8, 2025, and the docket reflects no substantive rulings yet). Venue is straightforward under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the dealership resides in the district, which is precisely the strategic point: suing in-district dealers—rather than Ford or Toyota—lets the NPE avoid venue and customer-suit hurdles while pressuring small defendants into quick settlements. The case is notable as part of Context Directions' broader dealership campaign (Patterson Motors entities, 2:25-cv-00624; Wagner Cadillac, 2:25-cv-00627; Peltier Enterprises, 2:25-cv-00419; Tyler Motor, 2:25-cv-00955; Ewing Buick-Plano, 2:25-cv-00953; Gulliver USA, 2:25-cv-01005—dismissed with prejudice after just 140 days in Feb. 2026; Auto Merchants, 2:26-cv-00729, Aug. 2026). Unified Patents has also targeted the '564 through its PATROLL crowdsourced prior-art program (awarding $3,000 for prior art on claim 3 in Feb. 2024 after noting the patent had been asserted 10+ times), signaling validity risk—though I found no confirmation that an IPR petition was actually filed. Sourcing caveats: I could not independently verify Peters Chevrolet's exact city, the precise issue date of the '564, or whether any IPR/PGR has been instituted; those specifics should be confirmed against PACER, USPTO records, and the RPX docket before reliance.

Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc. — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case: 2:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap; filed 2025-06-12.
Patents: US 9,807,564 (issued 2017-10-30) and US 10,142,791 (issued 2018-11-27), both directed to hierarchical/adaptive sensor-group context detection in mobile devices.

Bottom line: This is a young case. As of the most recent docket data I could verify (RPX Insight showing last docket entry 2025-08-08; Justia's docket page last retrieved 2025-06-12), the case is in the early pleading phase. I found no answer, counterclaims, substantive motions, Markman ruling, discovery orders, trial, verdict, settlement, or judgment, and no IPR/PGR directed at these patents. I flag every gap explicitly below — I did not have PACER access to confirm entries after August 2025, so anything beyond that date is unverified.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2025-06-12 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Context Directions LLC sued Peters Chevrolet, Inc. for infringement of the '564 and '791 patents, alleging willful infringement, with claim-chart exhibits mapping the patents onto Ford and Toyota vehicles (model years ~2015–2025) equipped with ADAS sensor suites (camera, radar, steering/braking/speed sensors). The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 23 of the '564 patent and claim 1 of the '791 patent. (Justia docket; Ex Parte complaint analysis.)
• 2025-06-12 — Dkt. 2: AO 120 patent/trademark form filed and emailed to the USPTO Director.
• 2025-06-12 — Dkt. 3: Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement filed by plaintiff (Steven Kalberg).
• 2025-06-12 — Dkt. 4: Summons issued to Peters Chevrolet, Inc.
• Case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division).
• Answer / counterclaims: None located. Peters Chevrolet's answer deadline and any response are not reflected in any public docket source I found. RPX's docket feed showed the latest entry as 2025-08-08 (~57 days after filing), but the entry text was not accessible to me.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• None found. No motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue (e.g., under 28 U.S.C. § 1404), motion to stay pending PTAB, or summary judgment motion appears in any accessible source as of the last docket update (2025-08-08). If any were filed after that date, I could not verify them.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Not reached / no Markman ruling found. The case did not progress to claim construction in the public docket records available to me. (Note: a related '791 reexamination — see §7 — produced a narrow USPTO construction that is highly relevant to any future Markman in this case.)

4. Discovery milestones

• None reported. No scheduling order, discovery disputes, or ESI/claim-construction discovery events appear in public sources. Given the typical Gilstrap docket, a scheduling order likely issued after the answer, but I could not verify it.

5. Trial events and post-trial motions

• None. No trial, jury verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists in any source I located.

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

• Present posture: active, early-stage litigation. Both RPX Insight and Ex Parte list the case as "Open"; RPX's last docket pull was 2025-08-08. No dismissal, judgment, settlement, or appeal has been docketed per accessible sources.
• Context: This is one of a coordinated E.D. Tex. campaign by the Jeffrey M. Gross-related plaintiff against Texas auto dealerships over the same two patents: Patterson Motors (2:25-cv-00624), Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), Peltier Enterprises (2:25-cv-00419), the Huffines multi-dealer case (2:25-cv-00073, which drew answers and counterclaims), and a later Auto Merchants case (2:26-cv-00729, filed 2026-08-21). Outcomes in those companion cases (e.g., any stipulated dismissals) could presage the path here, but I found no published resolution in any of them.

7. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings

• No IPR or PGR petitions found on either '564 or '791. There is no PTAB trial proceeding tied to this litigation in the sources I searched (Unified Patents portal, PTAB blogs, etc.).
• Important related USPTO history on the '791 patent — ex parte reexamination 90/014,712: Unified Patents requested ex parte reexamination of '791 on 2021-03-29; the USPTO granted it in April 2021. In a non-final office action (2021-06-11), the examiner rejected challenged claims as (a) means-plus-function claims under § 112 ¶ 6 lacking corresponding algorithm structure (i.e., indefinite), and (b) unpatentably abstract. After patent-owner responses, the examiner issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (2021-08-10) with a substantially narrowed construction. A reexamination certificate issued thereafter. This is the single most strategically significant validity backdrop: the USPTO's means-plus-function/indefiniteness findings on the '791 patent (and its family, including '564) are ammunition any Peters Chevrolet defense would use in this case, and it likely explains why Context Directions sued only dealerships (not OEMs). (Unified Patents, Nov. 2021 analysis; App. No. 90/014,712.)

---

Sourcing caveats

• Well-sourced: filing date, judge, docket entries 1–4, patents, accused products, and the '791 reexamination (Justia, RPX Insight, Ex Parte, Unified Patents).
• Unverified: everything after 2025-08-08 (RPX's last docket entry date). I could not access PACER, and I did not find Law360/Reuters/IPWatchdog coverage of this specific docket. If the user needs the current docket, PACER (or a CourtListener/RECAP pull for TXED 2:25-cv-00626) is the authoritative next step. No attorney names for the defendant, no answer, and no scheduling order were verifiable — do not treat their absence as a finding that they don't exist.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc., 2:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex.)

Based on the available docket record, here is what is confirmed and what remains unverified.

Confirmed counsel of record

Steven Kalberg — Lead/counsel of record for plaintiff (firm affiliation not confirmed in available sources)

• Role: Appears as the filing attorney for the plaintiff on every initial docket entry. The June 12, 2025 entries show: the Complaint (Dkt. 1) was filed by "(Kalberg, Steven)"; the AO 120 patent/trademark notice (Dkt. 2) and the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Dkt. 3) were likewise filed by "(Kalberg, Steven)." See Justia docket for 2:2025cv00626 (entries 1–4, retrieved June 12, 2025).
• Experience note: Kalberg is the repeat plaintiff-side attorney for Context Directions LLC in its Eastern District of Texas dealership litigation campaign. He filed the parallel June 12, 2025 complaints against the Patterson Motors dealerships (2:25-cv-00624) and Wagner Cadillac (2:25-cv-00627), as well as earlier Context Directions cases including Context Direction LLC v. Huffines Chevrolet Lewisville, Inc. (2:25-cv-00073) and later suits such as 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). RPX described the campaign as Context Directions suing Texas auto dealerships over the same two patents (U.S. 9,807,564 and 10,142,791) through sale of vehicles with ADAS sensor systems.
• Firm/office: I was unable to confirm Kalberg's firm or office location from the sources retrieved (docket entries list only his surname as the e-filer). Do not treat any firm name as verified unless confirmed via PACER or a firm bio.

Possibly appeared — unverified for this case

David R. Bennett — Potential additional counsel for plaintiff

• In sister Context Directions cases, a "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David R Bennett on behalf of Context Directions LLC" appears on the docket (e.g., Tyler Motor Co., 2:25-cv-00955; Ewing Buick-Plano, 2:25-cv-00953; Auto Merchants, 2:26-cv-00729, per PacerMonitor).
• However, I could not verify that Bennett has entered an appearance in this case (2:25-cv-00626). The Justia docket I retrieved stops at June 12, 2025, and shows no Bennett appearance; RPX indicates the case's latest docket entry was around August 8, 2025, but the underlying entries were not accessible in my searches. PACER review is needed to confirm whether Bennett appeared here.

Caveats

• Docket coverage gap: The public Justia snapshot is from filing day (June 12, 2025). Any appearances, answers, motions, or amended filings after that date (e.g., through the August 8, 2025 entry flagged by RPX) could not be reviewed in the sources I accessed. A PACER check of the full docket is the definitive source for the complete counsel list.
• No sealed filings or pro hac vice issues identified: Nothing in the retrieved record indicates sealed pleadings; the initial filings are public.
• No in-house counsel or separately designated local counsel appears in the retrieved record; Kalberg filed directly on E.D. Tex. electronic filing (the docket does not separately designate a local-counsel role).
• Defense counsel was not requested and is not addressed here.

Bottom line: The only counsel of record affirmatively confirmed from the docket for plaintiff Context Directions LLC is Steven Kalberg, who signed the complaint and all initial filings. His firm/office location could not be verified from the available public sources, and whether David R. Bennett entered an appearance in this specific case remains unconfirmed — check PACER for the complete, current counsel list.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Context Directions LLC v. Peters Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex.)

No defendant-side counsel of record can be identified from the accessible record, and I can say so explicitly rather than guess.

Here is what the available sources show:

• Docket as of filing (June 12, 2025): The Justia/RECAP docket for 2:25-cv-00626 shows only the initial filings: the Complaint (Dkt. 1), AO 120 (Dkt. 2), Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 3), and Summons issued to Peters Chevrolet, Inc. (Dkt. 4). No answer, notice of appearance, motion, or other defense-side entry appears on that docket sheet, which was last retrieved on June 12, 2025.
• Subsequent activity: RPX Insight reports a "Latest Docket Entry: 08/08/2025" for this case, but the underlying docket entries (e.g., whether Peters Chevrolet appeared, filed an answer, or was noted in default) are behind RPX/PACER and were not accessible through the public sources I could retrieve. Ex Parte's case page likewise lists no attorneys.
• No public appearances found: Web searches for "Context Directions" + "Peters Chevrolet" combined with "answer," "notice of appearance," or "waiver" returned no defense counsel names, filings, or firm announcements. I did not locate any Law360, Reuters Legal, or firm-press coverage identifying defense counsel in this specific case.

Practical conclusions

• No counsel of record for Peters Chevrolet, Inc. has appeared in the public docket records I could verify. If a notice of appearance or answer was filed between late June and August 8, 2025 (the period RPX reflects), it is not captured in the free docket sources, and I cannot identify those attorneys.
• Risk flags to check on PACER: (1) whether service was completed and whether Peters Chevrolet filed an answer or motion to dismiss; (2) whether plaintiff moved for default judgment; (3) whether there is a pending stipulation or settlement (Context Directions LLC has filed a wave of similar ADAS-sensor patent cases against Ford/Toyota dealerships in E.D. Tex. in 2025, and some of those cases have resolved quickly).
• Notably absent: I found no attorney identified as lead, local, or in-house counsel for the defendant in this case. Given Peters Chevrolet is a dealership, defense counsel (if any) could be a regional Texas firm or an insurer-retained patent litigator, but I have no sourced basis to name anyone.

Recommended verification: Pull the PACER docket report for 2:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap) and check entries after Dkt. 4 — particularly any "Notice of Appearance," "Answer," "Motion for Default," or "Stipulation of Dismissal" — to identify the defendant's counsel of record. I deliberately did not speculate about attorney names, firms, or roles beyond what the record supports.