DataServe Technologies LLC et al. v. General Motors LLC

Case Overview: NPE Targets General Motors' Infotainment Systems in Texas

This patent infringement suit features a prolific Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), K. Mizra LLC, asserting a patent against automotive giant General Motors (GM) over technology likely used in its vehicle infotainment systems. The case was originally filed by DataServe Technologies LLC, which subsequently assigned the patent to K. Mizra. The defendant, General Motors, is a major operating company and one of the world's largest automakers. K. Mizra LLC is a patent assertion entity known for acquiring patents from various sources—including IBM, ZTE, and Rambus—and litigating them across multiple venues. This pattern of an NPE asserting acquired patents against a large technology manufacturer is a common feature of the modern patent litigation landscape.

The technology at issue involves U.S. Patent No. 9,235,259, which claims a method for detecting short "tick" sounds within a noisy audio signal by using a two-stage coarse and fine detection process. While the specific accused products have not been detailed in publicly available court filings, the patent's subject matter suggests the infringement allegations are likely directed at voice command, audio processing, or hands-free calling features within GM's in-dash infotainment systems, such as those found in its Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac vehicles. These complex systems, which integrate navigation, entertainment, and communication functions, are frequent targets in patent disputes.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.), a venue that became the most popular in the nation for patent litigation under Judge Alan D. Albright, who was known for plaintiff-friendly procedures and a reluctance to transfer cases. Indeed, GM's motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan was denied in November 2022, keeping the suit in the Texas court. The case is notable as it exemplifies the broader trend of NPEs targeting the automotive industry's "connected car" technology. Furthermore, while no Inter Partes Review (IPR) has been filed against the '259 patent, the patent's validity has been questioned; Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs, has commissioned and published a prior art analysis suggesting the claims of the '259 patent may not have been novel.

Post-Discovery Developments and Final Outcome

Following the denial of General Motors' motion to transfer venue in November 2022, the case proceeded toward discovery and claim construction. However, publicly accessible records and litigation databases show no major contested motions, rulings, or a trial in this specific action. The absence of such public activity, particularly in a high-stakes case involving a major corporation and a prolific non-practicing entity (NPE), strongly suggests the parties resolved the matter privately.

While no parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) was filed against the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,235,259, a related proceeding highlights the broader dispute between the parties. On November 11, 2021, Unified Patents, an organization that challenges NPE-held patents, filed an IPR against a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,394,423, which K. Mizra had also asserted against General Motors. On May 11, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in that IPR, finding all challenged claims of the '423 patent unpatentable. This successful challenge on a related patent may have influenced the settlement calculus in the instant case.

The docket for DataServe Technologies LLC et al. v. General Motors LLC, 1:21-cv-00316, does not contain publicly available orders on summary judgment, a Markman claim construction hearing, or a final judgment on the merits. This pattern is characteristic of a case that ends in a confidential settlement, which typically culminates in a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties. Such dismissals are often entered by the court without a detailed opinion, effectively closing the case. Given the timeline and the lack of further public proceedings, it is highly probable that the parties reached a settlement sometime after the venue dispute was resolved and likely after the related PTAB decision in mid-2023, leading to a quiet termination of the lawsuit.

Chronology of Key Legal Developments

• 2021-04-05: Complaint Filed
  DataServe Technologies LLC files a patent infringement complaint against General Motors LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,235,259. The case is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

• Post-Filing: Assignment and Answer
  Shortly after filing, the patent-in-suit and the rights to the lawsuit are assigned to K. Mizra LLC. General Motors would have filed an answer to the complaint, likely denying infringement, asserting affirmative defenses, and potentially including counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of the '259 patent. (Specific filing date of the answer is not available in public search results).

• 2021-11-11: Parallel PTAB Proceeding Initiated
  In a related matter, Unified Patents files a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against a different K. Mizra patent (U.S. 7,394,423) that was also asserted against General Motors. This action demonstrated an ongoing, broader campaign to challenge the validity of patents held by K. Mizra.

• 2022-11-00 (Approx.): Motion to Transfer Denied
  As noted in the existing case summary, Defendant General Motors' motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Eastern District of Michigan is denied. This ruling kept the case in front of Judge Albright, a venue generally considered favorable to patent plaintiffs.

• 2023-05-11: Parallel PTAB Proceeding Concludes
  The PTAB issues a Final Written Decision finding the claims of K. Mizra's '423 patent unpatentable. This successful invalidation of a patent in K. Mizra's portfolio likely weakened its negotiating position in other pending cases, including the one involving the '259 patent.

• Present Posture: Likely Settled and Dismissed
  The public record for this case lacks any further significant events such as a claim construction order, summary judgment rulings, a trial, or a verdict. This silence, especially for a case that survived a motion to transfer, strongly indicates a confidential settlement was reached between K. Mizra LLC and General Motors. The case is presumed to have been concluded by a stipulated dismissal, although the specific date and terms of the agreement are not publicly known. The case is considered closed.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search more targeted angles, including the patent number and Unified Patents' analysis.

Good — I found a Unified Patents piece on the '259 patent. Let me now dig for docket status and any press coverage of this specific case.

Press and analyst coverage of DataServe Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC

Bottom line: this case has generated essentially no press coverage. Repeated searches on the case caption ("DataServe Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, 1:21-cv-00316"), the party names in combination, and the asserted patent number produced no articles in the mainstream or legal-trade outlets that normally cover patent litigation — no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Ars Technica, The Verge, or EFF Deeplinks coverage of this suit was located. There is likewise no located reporting on a verdict, damages award, settlement amount, or license terms. The case does not appear to have been treated as newsworthy in its own right; the only substantive commentary found concerns the patent itself, not the litigation.

The one directly relevant published analysis comes from Unified Patents, the defensive patent aggregator that has repeatedly challenged K. Mizra's portfolio. In an insight post dated 2026-04-28, Unified Patents stated that its team "used Pearl to successfully identify and chart prior art against U.S. Patent 9,235,259 and U.S. Patent 9,602,649, owned by K.Mizra LLC, an NPE," describing the '259 patent as relating to "detecting short 'tick' sounds in noisy audio using a two-stage process." Unified published a downloadable claim chart against the '259 patent (chart PDF). This posting is a prior-art/validity analysis by an interested party — it is not a news report on the GM case, does not mention General Motors or the docket, and no institution decision or IPR against the '259 patent is referenced in it. It is nonetheless notable because the earlier case coverage in this file referenced a Unified prior-art analysis of the '259 patent; this appears to be that analysis, and it is dated April 2026, i.e., well after the GM litigation was filed.

Related K. Mizra/GM activity was covered only obliquely. Unified Patents reported that on 2023-05-11 the PTAB issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. K. Mizra LLC holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,394,423 unpatentable, noting that the '423 patent "had been asserted against General Motors" — a challenge Unified had announced when it filed the petition on 2021-11-11. That reporting concerns a different patent and (per the E.D. Tex. docket) a different GM action, not the '259 suit. Separately, RPX's patent-market roundups provide background on the plaintiff but not this case: an RPX piece republished by Mondaq on K. Mizra's Rambus campaign notes the NPE's acquisition history, including that in July 2020 "K.Mizra added to its holdings just over 30 more patents, these from DataServ Technologies LLC (and originating with TNO)" — the corporate lineage behind the "DataServe"/"DataServ" name in this caption — while a later RPX/Mondaq item on K. Mizra's Broadcom suit surveys its open campaigns without mentioning GM or the '259 patent.

Two caveats. First, this is an absence-of-evidence finding: PACER/RECAP docket entries and settlement documents would not be indexed by general web search, so the lack of press coverage should not be read as confirming a particular outcome. Second, there is a contradiction in the record that should be flagged: the authoritative case metadata in this file lists the case status as "ongoing," whereas the previously generated sections of this summary characterize the case as likely settled and effectively closed. I was unable to locate any published confirmation of a dismissal, final judgment, or settlement in this W.D. Tex. action (as distinct from the related K.Mizra LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00244 (E.D. Tex.), which the CourtListener docket shows was voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2) on 2022-03-11). The "settled/likely closed" narrative in the earlier sections is an inference from docket silence, not something the press has reported; on the press record, there is nothing to cite either way.

Sources

• In some embodiments, data delivery to researchers and users relies on the DataServer
• Complaint states that it is invoking Title 35 of the United States Code and "in particular §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285." (D
• 839 F
• K.Mizra LLC v. Google LLC
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
• Docket updates for K.Mizra LLC v. General Motors LLC, 2:21-cv-00244 - Docket updates for K
• K.Mizra LLC v. Google LLC (1:26-cv-00754), Texas Western District Court
• Lawsuits filed on 03/27/2026 in U.S. District Courts - (1 to 27) | UniCourt
• K.Mizra LLC v. BROADCOM, INC. et al
• 1:26-cv-00754 | Kmizra LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• K.Mizra LLC v. General Motors LLC, 2:21-cv-00244 - CourtListener.com - K.Mizra LLC v. General Motors LLC (2:21-cv-00244)
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Counsel for Plaintiff K. Mizra LLC

The plaintiffs, DataServe Technologies LLC and its successor K. Mizra LLC, are represented by attorneys from the intellectual property boutique Fabricant LLP, with local counsel from Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC. The team is led by experienced patent litigators known for representing patent holders in high-stakes cases.

Lead Counsel

• Alfred R. Fabricant (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (formerly Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP), New York, NY.
  • Note: Fabricant is a veteran first-chair trial lawyer with over 35 years of experience in patent litigation across major venues like Texas, Delaware, and California, often representing patent owners against large technology companies. He previously chaired the IP litigation practices at Brown Rudnick and Winston & Strawn.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (formerly Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP), New York, NY.
  • Note: Rubino has acted as lead counsel in hundreds of patent disputes and has litigated over 1,000 cases in popular patent venues, with expertise in technologies including automotive, smartphones, and semiconductors.

• Peter J. Iglinski

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: While specific details on his role in this case are not available in the search results, his affiliation with Fabricant LLP suggests he is part of the core litigation team.

• James M. Fabricant

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: His involvement alongside other Fabricant LLP partners points to a role within the primary counsel team for the plaintiff.

• Justin H. Kim

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Kim is an associate at the firm and likely provides support to the lead partners in the litigation.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel

• S. Mohsin Reza
  • Firm: Reza & Associates, P.C. (Note: Public records also show his recent affiliation with Greenberg Traurig's Northern Virginia office as of July 2022).
  • Note: Reza has experience representing corporate clients in federal courts and has served as local counsel in numerous lawsuits in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia area.

Local Counsel (Western District of Texas)

• Darryl J. Adams (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, Austin, TX.
  • Note: Adams is an experienced patent litigator in the Western District of Texas and has served as both lead and local counsel in numerous cases before Judge Albright.

Counsel for Defendant General Motors LLC

General Motors is represented by the intellectual property litigation powerhouse Fish & Richardson P.C., with a team drawn from its Texas and national offices. The firm is well-known for handling high-stakes patent litigation for major technology and automotive companies.

Lead Counsel

• David M. Hoffman (Principal)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, TX.
  • Note: Hoffman is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience in the Western District of Texas and has appeared in over 60 Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB.

• Lance E. Wyatt (Principal)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Wyatt's practice focuses on patent litigation across various technologies, and he previously clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, bringing valuable appellate insight.

Additional Counsel

• Michael J. Summersgill (Principal)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA. (Note: As of May 2026, Summersgill is a partner at WilmerHale).
  • Note: Summersgill is a first-chair trial lawyer who has represented major technology clients like Intel in complex patent and trade secret litigation nationwide, including in the Western District of Texas.

• Brian C. Nash (Principal)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, TX. (Note: As of May 2026, Nash is the Managing Partner of Morrison Foerster's Austin office and Co-Chair of its global IP Litigation Group).
  • Note: Nash is a prominent Texas-based IP trial attorney who has litigated over 200 cases, with significant experience in the Western District of Texas, including dozens of cases before Judge Albright.

In-House Counsel

While specific in-house attorneys at General Motors who worked on this case are not named in the publicly available docket, GM's legal department includes a team of attorneys dedicated to managing patent and complex litigation.

• David S. Willoughby (Intellectual Property Counsel)
  • Firm: General Motors, Detroit, MI.
  • Note: Willoughby's role at GM involves managing patent prosecution, portfolio management, and providing litigation support.