Emerging Automotive LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Emerging Automotive LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., involves a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) asserting intellectual property against major automotive manufacturers. The plaintiff, Emerging Automotive LLC, is identified as a patent assertion entity with no employees, offices, facilities, or revenue, and does not seek injunctive relief. The defendants are prominent automotive industry operating companies: Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. The core of the dispute centers on features related to remotely operated and/or cloud-connected vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245, which generally relates to systems and methods for remotely operating and/or connecting vehicles to cloud-based services. In this specific case, U.S. Patent No. 12,337,715 is also being asserted against Kia. These patents are part of a larger family of over 100 issued patents held by Emerging Automotive LLC, broadly directed to connected vehicle technologies, with an earliest estimated priority date in February 2011.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00799, and has been consolidated for all pretrial issues with Case No. 2:25-cv-00782 as the lead case. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding over the consolidated cases. The Eastern District of Texas is a favored venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings, experienced patent judges, and fast-paced dockets, which can accelerate cases towards trial. The case is notable for several reasons, including Emerging Automotive LLC's apparent business model as an NPE, its aggressive assertion of a large patent portfolio against major automotive players, and the existence of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO against some of Emerging Automotive's patents by these and other automotive companies like Toyota. This pattern of assertion, coupled with the industry's significant investment in connected vehicle technology, highlights the ongoing patent landscape challenges within the rapidly evolving automotive sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Emerging Automotive LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al. (2:25-cv-00799)

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Emerging Automotive LLC against Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is currently pending. The lawsuit alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245.

Chronological Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2025-08-15): Emerging Automotive LLC initiated the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 15, 2025. The defendants named in the case are Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245, relates to a "User profile system and method for vehicles" and has been asserted in other related litigation by Emerging Automotive concerning electronic key systems and user profiles in vehicles.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

  • IPR2024-00785 Filed by Toyota (2024-04-22): Toyota Motor Corp. filed an inter partes review (IPR2024-00785) against a patent owned by Emerging Automotive LLC on April 22, 2024. This IPR challenged claims related to systems for managing user profiles for vehicles and the exchange of information.
  • IPR2024-00786 Final Written Decision (2025-10-21): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in IPR2024-00786 on October 21, 2025. This IPR, also initiated by Toyota Motor Corp. against an Emerging Automotive LLC patent, found some challenged claims relating to systems and methods for managing user profiles for vehicles and cloud-based processing systems to be unpatentable as anticipated by prior art. While these IPRs are against Emerging Automotive LLC patents with similar subject matter descriptions, it is not explicitly confirmed if either IPR2024-00785 or IPR2024-00786 specifically targeted U.S. Patent No. 11,104,245.

Given the recent filing date of the district court case (August 2025), it is likely still in its early stages of litigation. As of May 15, 2026, no significant pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes specific to this patent in this case), claim construction, discovery milestones, or trial events have been publicly reported for case 2:25-cv-00799. The case remains pending.

Emerging Automotive LLC is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators, primarily from Bunsow De Mory LLP, with local counsel from Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC) in the Eastern District of Texas. The case 2:25-cv-00799 is consolidated for pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00782, where several of these attorneys have made appearances for the plaintiff.

The identified counsel for the plaintiff(s) include:

• Marc C. Belloli

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA.
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer focused on patent litigation and monetization, he has secured significant jury verdicts, including a $172.5 million verdict for Wapp Technologies against Micro Focus, and was lead trial counsel for Garrity Power Services against Samsung in a case concerning two-way wireless charging that settled before trial. He has also led teams in numerous patent infringement litigations and has experience with appeals to the Federal Circuit. He filed a "Notice of Readiness for Scheduling Conference" on behalf of Emerging Automotive LLC in the lead consolidated case 2:25-cv-00782.

• Aaron Richard Hand

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA.
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer with experience litigating patent and trade secret cases across various technologies. He was instrumental in securing a massive arbitration award exceeding $500 million for trade secret theft and has successfully defended against patent infringement claims, leading to dismissals. He is recognized by Best Lawyers for intellectual property litigation.

• Jordan C. Strauss

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Munck Wilson Mandala LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: A partner in her firm's litigation group, she represents clients in intellectual property cases involving diverse technologies and has played a critical role in high-stakes litigation, including securing a $10.1 million patent infringement verdict. She filed a "Notice of Attorney Appearance" in the lead consolidated case 2:25-cv-00782.

• T. John Ward

  • Role: Of Counsel (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, TX.
  • Experience Note: A former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he presided over one of the heaviest intellectual property dockets in the country for 12 years, handling hundreds of patent cases and over 150 claim construction hearings. He is widely credited with establishing efficient rules for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Charles "Chad" Everingham IV

  • Role: Of Counsel (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, TX.
  • Experience Note: A former U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, he handled numerous Markman proceedings and trials of complex patent cases, and advises clients on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation. He served as Judge T. John Ward's permanent law clerk.

Defendant's Counsel Identified in Emerging Automotive LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

In the ongoing patent infringement case Emerging Automotive LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al. (2:25-cv-00799) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, counsel from two prominent law firms have entered appearances for the defendants.

For Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc.:

• D. James Pak
  • Role: Counsel pro hac vice
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Mr. Pak is an experienced patent litigator and trial lawyer known for handling high-stakes patent disputes, including for global automotive companies. He has secured dismissals with prejudice against non-practicing entities and achieved jury verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity in various industries.

For Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc.:

• Nancy L. Schroeder
  • Role: Counsel (specific role as lead, local, or of counsel not explicitly stated in public snippets, but noted as representing both Hyundai and Kia entities in Eastern District of Texas calendar events).
  • Firm: O'Melveny, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Ms. Schroeder is an intellectual property litigator with a focus on complex patent and trade secret litigation across various technologies, including semiconductors, mobile communications, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. She has represented clients in U.S. district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit.

Local Counsel:

While the Eastern District of Texas does not have a strict mandate for local counsel for every filing, engaging local counsel is a common practice due to the district's reputation for fast-paced litigation and specific local procedures. [cite: 1 of previous step, 5 of previous step] However, based on the publicly available search results, specific local counsel appearances for the defendants in this particular case could not be definitively identified without direct access to the full PACER docket entries. It is possible that one of the appearing counsel is also acting in a local capacity or that local counsel will be identified in subsequent docket filings.