Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., involves plaintiff Emerging Automotive LLC, identified as an inventor-controlled patent assertion entity (PAE) or patent-monetization company, asserting patent infringement claims against a consortium of major automotive manufacturers: Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc.. The defendants are operating companies in the automotive industry. The core of the alleged infringement centers on modern connected vehicle technologies. Specifically, the plaintiff accuses Toyota and Kia of infringing patents through vehicles that incorporate electronic key functionalities, such as Kia's "Kia Connect and/or Digital Key" services and Toyota's "Remote Connect and/or Digital Key" services. Toyota is further accused of infringing patents related to vehicles that can be "programmed remotely based on user profiles". The technology at issue broadly covers user profiles and electronic key systems in vehicles, often involving remote connect features.

The lead patent asserted in this case, 12337716, generally covers "Systems for transferring user profiles between vehicles using cloud services". This includes methods and systems for vehicles to communicate with a cloud services system's server to access and manage user profiles, enabling the vehicle's electronics to connect to the internet for these functions. This case (2:25-cv-00782) is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation due to its specialized docket and reputation for moving cases efficiently, often making it a favored forum for patent holders. This lawsuit is consolidated for pretrial issues with a related case against Kia (2:25-cv-00799).

This litigation is part of a broader campaign by Emerging Automotive LLC against major automakers, characterized by the plaintiff's pattern as an NPE asserting patents in the burgeoning connected car sector. The case is further notable for its strong linkage to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the defendants have challenged the validity of Emerging Automotive's patents. The defendants have filed a motion to stay this case pending the final disposition of these related IPRs, a common strategy by defendants facing NPE assertions. The asserted patents, part of a larger family of over 100 patents, broadly relate to remotely operated and cloud-connected vehicles. The increasing prevalence of NPE litigation in the automotive sector, especially concerning digital and connected technologies, underscores the industry's evolving landscape for intellectual property disputes.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcomes for Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00782, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as of May 15, 2026:

Case Status: Active, with a motion to stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Emerging Automotive LLC filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. on August 12, 2025. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716 against Toyota, and also mentions infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,104,245 and 12,337,715 against both Toyota and Kia.
• Context: This case ("EA2") is a follow-up to a related predecessor case, Emerging Automotive LLC v. Kia Corp. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex.) ("EA1"), which was voluntarily stayed by Emerging Automotive LLC pending IPR/EPR challenges. The patents asserted in EA2 are described as nearly identical to those in EA1.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: On January 2, 2026, the Toyota Defendants filed a motion to stay this action pending the final disposition of asserted claims challenged in proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This motion argues that a stay would not unduly prejudice Emerging Automotive, that the stage of the case weighs in favor of a stay, and that a stay would simplify the case, especially given the similarity to the previously stayed EA1 case.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• As of the latest available information, the district court has not yet construed the claim terms of the U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716. Previous claim construction efforts in related cases involved different patents.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect:

• IPR2026-00070: Toyota Motor Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716. This IPR proceeding directly impacts the district court litigation, as Toyota argues that a stay is warranted because the IPR could simplify or entirely dispose of the case.
• Stipulation in IPR: In the IPR (IPR2026-00070), the Petitioner (Toyota) stipulated that it would not pursue in the district court any ground raised, or that could have been reasonably raised, in the IPR. This stipulation aims to eliminate the risk of duplicative litigation or inconsistent outcomes and increases the likelihood of a stay in the district court action.
• Expected Final Written Decision: The motion to stay mentions that a Final Written Decision (FWD) for IPR2024-01167 regarding a different patent ('659 Patent) was expected by January 27, 2026. This provides context for the ongoing nature of IPR challenges related to Emerging Automotive's patents.

Current Posture:
The case is active, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is currently considering the Toyota Defendants' motion to stay the case pending the final disposition of IPR2026-00070, which challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716. No trial, verdict, or final judgment has occurred. The outcome of the motion to stay will be a significant next development in the litigation.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Emerging Automotive LLC against Toyota and Kia entities in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00782), is currently active and is subject to a motion to stay pending the outcome of related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The case, dubbed "EA2" by the defendants, is part of a broader litigation campaign by Emerging Automotive.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-08-12): Emerging Automotive LLC initiated the lawsuit, accusing Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. of infringing U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716. The complaint also asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 11,104,245 and 12,337,715 against both Toyota and Kia, with the '716 patent specifically asserted against Toyota.
• Relation to Prior Litigation: This case ("EA2") was filed eight weeks after Emerging Automotive LLC agreed to stay a predecessor case ("EA1"), Emerging Automotive LLC v. Kia Corp. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex.), which involved "nearly identical" patents and accused products.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Toyota Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending IPR (2026-01-02): The Toyota Defendants filed a motion requesting a stay of the district court proceedings pending the final disposition of challenges to the asserted patent claims before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The motion argues that a stay would not cause undue prejudice to Emerging Automotive (a non-practicing entity that agreed to a stay in EA1), that the early stage of the case favors a stay, and that a stay would simplify the case due to the ongoing IPR proceedings. The defendants highlighted that they diligently pursued their IPR petitions shortly after the case was filed.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of the current date, the district court has not yet held a claim construction (Markman) hearing or issued an order construing the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716. References to Markman orders in search results pertain to different patents.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly detailed in the provided information beyond the general progression of the lawsuit to the motion to stay phase.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case has not reached the trial stage, and therefore, no verdict or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with the motion to stay pending. There has been no settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal of the district court case at this time.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR2026-00070 Filed by Toyota Motor Corp.: Toyota Motor Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review petition (IPR2026-00070) challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,337,716, the patent-at-issue in the district court litigation against Toyota.
• Petitioner's Stipulation: In IPR2026-00070, Toyota stipulated that it would not pursue in the district court any ground of invalidity against the challenged claims that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR. This stipulation is intended to streamline the litigation and prevent duplicative efforts, strengthening the argument for a stay of the district court case.
• Effect on Litigation: The ongoing IPR proceedings are central to the defendants' motion to stay the district court case. The outcome of IPR2026-00070 could significantly impact the scope of the district court litigation, potentially simplifying issues or leading to the dismissal of claims if the patent claims are found unpatentable. The court's decision on the motion to stay is a critical next step.

Plaintiff Emerging Automotive LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Hillary Noelle Bunsow

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Bunsow De Mory LLP is identified as representing Emerging Automotive, suggesting a primary role.
  • Note on experience: Bunsow De Mory LLP is noted as representing Emerging Automotive in this and related litigation.

• Brenda Entzminger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for her appearance. She filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Note on experience: No specific patent litigation experience or notable cases were identified for Brenda Entzminger in the provided search results beyond her appearance in this case.

• Marc Belloli

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for his appearance. He filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance.
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Note on experience: No specific patent litigation experience or notable cases were identified for Marc Belloli in the provided search results beyond his appearance in this case.

It is worth noting that while some East Texas firms like Ward, Smith & Hill (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC) and their attorneys (Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, Andrea Fair) are prominent in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and have extensive experience in such cases, the provided docket information for this specific case (2:25-cv-00782) does not explicitly list them as counsel of record for Emerging Automotive LLC. The attorneys identified above (Bunsow, Entzminger, and Belloli) are those who have filed notices of appearance according to the Justia Dockets entry as of February 6, 2026.

The following counsel of record represent the defendants in Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00782 E.D. Tex.):

For Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation:

• James R. Barney

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC (and potentially other offices such as Reston, VA)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Barney is a partner at Finnegan and has a strong background in patent litigation, including representing Toyota in ITC investigations where Finnegan successfully defended against patent infringement claims involving electric motors.

• Jordan Christine Strauss

  • Role: Of Counsel (appeared on behalf of all defendants)
  • Firm: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Ms. Strauss is involved in patent litigation for Toyota, as evidenced by her appearance in this and related cases. She was previously a litigation partner at Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, focusing on intellectual property and complex commercial disputes, and managed patent litigation for Toyota.

• Robert D. McCutcheon

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. McCutcheon is listed as counsel for Toyota in related IPR proceedings for the '716 patent.

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mr. Smith often serves as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Aidan C. Skoyles

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Skoyles is a partner at Finnegan and has been involved in strategic efforts and arguments in ITC investigations, including for Toyota.

• Joshua L. Goldberg

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Goldberg is a partner at Finnegan with experience in global IP enforcement, ITC Section 337 investigations, and PTAB invalidation proceedings, including for automotive clients. He is also listed as counsel for Toyota in related IPR proceedings.

• Kelly Chen

  • Role: In-house Counsel, Managing Counsel
  • Firm: Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Chen manages and directs Toyota's business litigation matters, including patent litigation and class actions, and provides counsel to business units.

• Frederick Mau

  • Role: In-house Counsel, Intellectual Property Counsel
  • Firm: Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mau handles patent filing, prosecution, portfolio management, and advises on patent disputes and other IP-related matters for Toyota Motor North America.

• Elizabeth Gibson

  • Role: In-house Counsel, Group Vice President and General Counsel
  • Firm: Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Gibson oversees Toyota's legal department, sets legal direction and strategy, and is responsible for complex litigation, intellectual property, and risk mitigation.

For Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc.:

The available information indicates that Jordan Christine Strauss appeared on behalf of "All Defendants" in October 2025, suggesting that some counsel may represent both Toyota and Kia defendants. Additionally, Kia often uses counsel with significant experience in automotive patent litigation.

• Jordan Christine Strauss

  • Role: Of Counsel (appeared on behalf of all defendants)
  • Firm: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: As noted above, Ms. Strauss appeared for all defendants in this case.

• Esther Shin

  • Role: In-house Counsel, Corporate Counsel
  • Firm: Kia America, Inc.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Shin is Corporate Counsel at Kia America, Inc. and has experience in IP litigation and a business-focused approach to legal matters for Kia.

While not directly tied to this specific case in the provided snippets, Kia has engaged other firms in related patent litigation. For example, Gillam & Smith represented Hyundai and Kia in a recently dismissed patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Additionally, Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc. have been involved in ITC investigations concerning design patents, often represented by firms specializing in such matters.