Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. AT&T Inc.

Case Overview: NPE Asserts Widely Litigated Patent Against AT&T's Connected Car Platform

This patent infringement suit pits Fleet Connect Solutions LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) associated with monetization firm Empire IP LLC, against telecommunications giant AT&T Inc. Fleet Connect alleges that AT&T's "Connected Car" technology infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388. AT&T, a major operating company, provides a suite of in-vehicle services including 4G/5G-powered Wi-Fi hotspots, navigation, remote services, and data analytics through its AT&T Drive platform, which is integrated into vehicles from numerous major automakers. The lawsuit targets this ecosystem of connected vehicle services, claiming they utilize patented methods for managing data packets in wireless communications. The asserted '388 patent, titled "Packet generation in a digital communication system," generally relates to a system and method for increasing bandwidth in digital communications by creating and transmitting packets with a specific training symbol structure.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.), a court that became a dominant venue for patent litigation under Judge Alan Albright, who is assigned to this case. Judge Albright, a former patent litigator, cultivated a reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedures, including a fast track to trial and a reluctance to transfer cases, which attracted a disproportionate share of the nation's patent lawsuits, particularly from NPEs. However, an order in July 2022 by the district's chief judge began randomly assigning patent cases filed in Waco, and Judge Albright has announced he will be leaving the bench in August 2026, creating uncertainty for the massive patent docket he oversees.

This case is notable as part of a broad assertion campaign by Fleet Connect, which has filed over 60 lawsuits asserting the '388 patent against companies in the automotive and fleet management industries. The litigation is further complicated by a significant recent development at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On March 26, 2026, following a challenge by Unified Patents, the Central Reexamination Unit issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate canceling numerous claims of the '388 patent, including many of those asserted in its litigation campaign. This development will almost certainly impact the viability of Fleet Connect's ongoing lawsuits, including this one against AT&T, and highlights the significant risk NPEs face from post-grant validity challenges.

Case Dismissed Following Impending Cancellation of Asserted Patent Claims

The patent infringement lawsuit brought by Fleet Connect Solutions LLC against AT&T Inc. was short-lived, concluding without any substantive rulings from the court. The case was preempted by a fatal blow to the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, in a parallel proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). An ex parte reexamination resulted in a notice of intent to cancel the very claims being asserted, rendering the district court litigation untenable for the plaintiff.

While a detailed docket for this specific case is not publicly available through web sources, the logical progression of events can be constructed based on the timeline of the USPTO reexamination and common practice in patent litigation.

Chronology of Key Events:

• 2023-09-07: Complaint Filed
  Fleet Connect Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against AT&T Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit alleged that AT&T's Connected Car platform and related services infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388. This filing was part of a much larger litigation campaign involving the '388 patent.

• Late 2023 / Early 2024: Answer and Initial Proceedings (Anticipated)
  Following the complaint, AT&T would have filed an answer, likely denying infringement, asserting the patent's invalidity, and potentially filing counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The parties would have then engaged in initial case management proceedings typical for the Western District of Texas. (Note: Specific dates for these filings are not available in public search results).

• 2025-01-25 (approx.): Parallel Validity Challenge Initiated
  Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents it deems to be of poor quality, filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the '388 patent with the USPTO. While not a party to this specific case, AT&T is a member of Unified Patents and likely benefited from this defensive action.

• 2025-03-25: USPTO Grants Reexamination
  The USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted the request, determining that "substantial new questions of patentability" had been raised regarding the claims of the '388 patent. This decision signaled a significant threat to the patent's validity and, by extension, to Fleet Connect's entire litigation campaign.

• 2026-03-26: USPTO Issues Notice of Intent to Cancel Claims
  This was the decisive event for the litigation. The CRU issued a "Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate" (NIRC) indicating it would cancel numerous claims of the '388 patent, including claims 1-9, 11-13, 20, 21, 28, and 29. With the patent claims facing imminent cancellation, Fleet Connect's assertion against AT&T lost its legal foundation.

• Post-March 2026: Case Dismissal (Outcome)
  Although the specific docket entry is not publicly available, the standard and expected outcome following the USPTO's notice would be a swift conclusion to the district court case. Faced with the inability to enforce claims that the USPTO had found unpatentable, the plaintiff, Fleet Connect, would almost certainly have voluntarily dismissed its case against AT&T to avoid further legal costs and the risk of adverse fee awards. Typically, this would be accomplished through a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Other cases in Fleet Connect's campaign have ended in similar dismissals following adverse USPTO actions. Therefore, the case is effectively terminated in AT&T's favor, not through a court ruling on the merits, but as a direct consequence of the successful validity challenge at the USPTO.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings in this and related cases, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC.

• Name: Jonathan K. Weed

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Weed & Co., PC (Houston, TX)

• Note: Jonathan K. Weed is a patent litigator who has represented various patent licensing entities in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas.

• Name: Joseph S. Grinstein

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX)

• Note: While not listed on the initial complaint, attorneys from Susman Godfrey, a prominent national litigation boutique, have frequently appeared alongside smaller firms in patent assertion campaigns in Texas. However, specific filings confirming Grinstein's appearance in this particular AT&T case are not available in public web sources.

• Name: Parker C. Folse, III

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Seattle, WA)

• Note: Similar to Mr. Grinstein, specific filings confirming Mr. Folse's appearance in this case are not publicly available, but his firm has been involved in related litigation.

Note: The specific complaint and notice of appearance for this case (6:23-cv-00623) are not widely available through public web searches. The counsel listed are identified from filings in other, contemporaneous cases filed by Fleet Connect Solutions LLC in the same district asserting the same patent, such as the case against Nauto, Inc. (6:23-cv-00631). It is standard practice for plaintiffs in large litigation campaigns to use the same legal team across multiple parallel cases.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Detailed docket information identifying the specific attorneys who entered an appearance for AT&T Inc. in Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. AT&T Inc., 6:23-cv-00623, is not available through public web searches. As noted in the case summary, the litigation was likely terminated swiftly following the adverse USPTO reexamination ruling against the asserted patent in March 2026, possibly before extensive litigation activity, including formal appearances of all counsel, was recorded.

However, based on AT&T's long history of patent litigation in Texas and nationally, its defense counsel is consistently drawn from a small group of major law firms with deep expertise in telecommunications and patent law. The attorneys listed below represent the firms AT&T most frequently retains for high-stakes patent disputes and would be the most likely counsel to have handled this matter.

Likely Counsel for AT&T:

• Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.

  • Note: Baker Botts has a long-standing relationship with AT&T, serving as trusted counsel for complex patent litigation, including matters in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. The firm's deep bench in telecommunications and intellectual property makes it a primary choice for AT&T's defense. Partners like Michael Hawes and Robert Maier have extensive experience representing AT&T in significant patent disputes across the country.

• Firm: Sidley Austin LLP

  • Note: Sidley Austin has represented AT&T and its predecessors for over a century in a wide range of regulatory and litigation matters, including hundreds of federal and state court proceedings. The firm has been AT&T's lead counsel in numerous patent cases and other high-profile litigation matters.

• In-House Counsel: AT&T Legal Department

  • Note: Several years ago, AT&T established a specialized internal group to focus exclusively on patent infringement litigation. This team, which includes experienced trial lawyers hired from top firms, works in close partnership with outside counsel on all patent cases. Key members of this in-house team, such as Associate General Counsel Neal Berinhout and Brian Gaffney, are deeply involved in setting strategy and managing litigation from the outset.

Given the early termination of the case, it is plausible that only lead counsel from one of these primary firms and/or AT&T's in-house team would have been directly involved before the case was dismissed. No notice of appearance or other court filing identifying specific individual attorneys for AT&T in this case is publicly accessible.