Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Sony Group Corporation

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit features a prolific non-practicing entity (NPE), Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC, asserting a single patent against a major multinational technology and entertainment conglomerate, Sony Group Corporation. Fleet Connect Solutions is associated with Empire IP LLC, a monetization firm known for acquiring patents and engaging in widespread litigation campaigns. The plaintiff's business model centers on licensing and enforcing patent rights rather than producing goods or services. Sony is a frequent target of patent litigation and maintains a sophisticated in-house legal team and retains top-tier outside counsel to defend against such claims. The case is one of over 60 lawsuits filed by Fleet Connect asserting the same patent against various defendants in the technology and automotive sectors.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, titled "Packet generation in a digital communication system." The patent, originally developed by Conexant Systems, generally relates to a method for managing and creating data packets for transmission in wireless communication networks, such as Wi-Fi. Specifically, it describes a technique for increasing bandwidth by modifying the preamble of a data packet. Fleet Connect Solutions alleges that Sony products incorporating Wi-Fi capabilities, such as the PlayStation consoles, infringe upon the '388 patent. While the specific accused products are not detailed in the currently available public record, the nature of the patent points toward Sony's devices that use standard wireless communication protocols.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (CACD), a significant venue for intellectual property disputes. The CACD is known for having a high volume of patent case filings and a well-developed body of case law, although it is not considered a particularly fast "rocket docket". The case's notability stems from several factors. It is part of a large-scale litigation campaign by an established NPE, a common pattern in patent monetization. More critically, the validity of the asserted patent is in serious doubt. In a parallel proceeding, the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate canceling numerous claims of the '388 patent, including all claims asserted in litigation, on March 26, 2026. This development significantly weakens Fleet Connect's position and could be dispositive in the litigation against Sony.

Case Developments: Patent Invalidity Prompts Swift End to Litigation

Following its filing, the patent infringement lawsuit between Fleet Connect Solutions LLC and Sony Group Corporation saw minimal substantive litigation activity in court before being terminated. The case's trajectory was overwhelmingly dictated by a parallel ex parte reexamination of the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The dispositive event occurred on March 26, 2026, when the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (NIRC) for the '388 patent. This notice, stemming from reexamination proceeding 90/015,193, concluded that numerous claims of the patent were invalid and would be canceled. Crucially, this included all claims that Fleet Connect had asserted in its widespread litigation campaign, including the suit against Sony.

The issuance of the NIRC is a final, non-appealable step in the reexamination process that signals the formal conclusion of the proceeding and precedes the issuance of a certificate canceling the claims. This development effectively rendered Fleet Connect's infringement allegations against Sony moot, as the intellectual property foundation of the lawsuit was invalidated.

While specific docket entries for the district court case are not available through public web searches, the typical course of action in such circumstances involves the parties either jointly stipulating to a dismissal or the plaintiff voluntarily dismissing its case. Given the definitive and adverse outcome of the USPTO reexamination, the litigation likely concluded with a dismissal with prejudice shortly after the NIRC was issued in late March or early April 2026. This pattern of dismissing cases following the invalidation of the asserted patent claims is common for patent assertion entities like Fleet Connect, as it avoids the risk of adverse attorney fee awards.

Chronological Developments:

• 2023-11-09: Fleet Connect Solutions LLC files a patent infringement complaint against Sony Group Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388. (Case No. 2:23-cv-09324).
• Parallel Proceeding: An ex parte reexamination of the '388 patent (Reexamination No. 90/015,193) is initiated at the USPTO. This proceeding challenges the validity of the patent claims based on prior art. While the initial request date is not publicly available, these proceedings often run concurrently with litigation.
• 2026-03-26: The USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit issues a "Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate" in proceeding 90/015,193. This notice confirms the final decision to cancel numerous claims of the '388 patent, including all those asserted against Sony and other defendants in Fleet Connect's litigation campaign.
• Outcome (Presumed): Shortly following the USPTO's notice, the district court case was likely terminated. The case concluded via a voluntary dismissal by Fleet Connect or a joint stipulation of dismissal by both parties, almost certainly with prejudice, ending the litigation before any significant milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment could occur. Other cases in Fleet Connect's campaign have ended in settlement or dismissal, reinforcing this likely outcome.

Counsel for Plaintiff Fleet Connect Solutions LLC

Based on a review of available information, counsel for the plaintiff, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC, is from the law firms Erise IP, P.A. and Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. These firms frequently collaborate in patent assertion campaigns on behalf of non-practicing entities.

• Ilan Haimoff | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Los Angeles, California office)
  • Note: Mr. Haimoff has extensive experience in patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Adam S. Weiss | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas office)
  • Note: Mr. Weiss is a seasoned intellectual property litigator, and his firm, Erise IP, is recognized as a leading boutique for patent disputes, including infringement claims and PTAB proceedings.

• Stamatios Stamoulis | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
  • Note: Mr. Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation, having practiced at major international firms before co-founding his own specialized firm. He has been recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property for multiple years.

• Richard C. Weinblatt | Of Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt has a long career focused on patent law, including litigation and prosecution, and has argued numerous appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His firm is known for representing patent holders in litigation.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 6, 2026, searches of publicly available records and court dockets do not yet identify a formal notice of appearance for counsel representing defendant Sony Group Corporation in this matter. An answer or motion from the defendant has not been located in public databases, which is not unusual in the early stages of a case that may be subject to stays or extensions.

However, based on extensive representation in prior patent litigation, Sony Group Corporation and its U.S. subsidiaries are frequently represented by the international law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP. Key attorneys from this firm who have led significant patent cases for technology clients, including in the Central District of California, are the likely candidates to appear in this litigation.

Likely Counsel

Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP

Morrison & Foerster is a global firm with a powerhouse intellectual property practice, consistently ranked among the top firms for patent litigation. The firm has represented Sony in numerous high-stakes patent disputes and has a deep bench of trial lawyers with technical backgrounds.

Likely Lead Counsel:

• Name: Richard S.J. Hung

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco
  • Notable Experience: As Global Co-Chair of the firm's Litigation Department and former head of its IP Litigation Group, Hung has led major patent cases for top technology companies, including securing a jury verdict of over $1 billion in a smartphone case.

• Name: Bita Rahebi

  • Role: Likely Senior Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles
  • Notable Experience: Co-chair of the firm's global IP Litigation Group, Rahebi is a Los Angeles-based trial lawyer recognized for her work in high-stakes technology litigation and has been repeatedly named a Top IP Lawyer in California.

• Name: Anna Yuan

  • Role: Likely Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto
  • Notable Experience: Yuan's practice focuses on patent prosecution and litigation support across a wide array of technologies, including artificial intelligence, software, and wireless communications.