Litigation

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc.

Unknown

6:23-cv-00682

Filed
2023-10-10

Patents at issue (1)

7742388

Defendants (1)

Summary

Patent infringement suit filed by Fleet Connect Solutions LLC against T-Mobile US, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent 7,742,388.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview and Background

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC ("Fleet Connect"), a patent assertion entity associated with monetization firm Empire IP LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against major telecommunications operator T-Mobile US, Inc. ("T-Mobile"). Fleet Connect's business model centers on licensing and enforcing patent rights rather than producing its own technology. T-Mobile is a leading provider of wireless voice and data services in the United States. The lawsuit, filed on October 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges that T-Mobile's wireless network infrastructure and services, which are fundamental to its commercial operations, infringe on at least one patent held by Fleet Connect.

The case revolves around U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, which generally relates to a system and method for increasing bandwidth and managing data packets in digital communication systems, including wireless networks like those operated by T-Mobile. Specifically, the technology involves creating and transmitting an "extended packet" with additional subcarriers in its training symbols to enhance communication. This litigation is part of a broader assertion campaign by Fleet Connect, which has filed over 60 lawsuits asserting the '388 patent against various companies in the telematics, fleet management, and electronics industries, often targeting the use of wireless communication technologies in their products and services.

The choice of the Western District of Texas as the venue is significant. For several years, the district, and particularly Judge Alan Albright's court in the Waco division, became the most popular venue for patent litigation in the U.S., attracting nearly 25% of all new patent cases by 2021. This was due to Judge Albright's patent-specific rules, plaintiff-friendly reputation, and a fast-track schedule to trial. However, a July 2022 standing order now mandates that new patent cases filed in Waco be randomly assigned among judges throughout the district, a change that has somewhat diluted the district's concentration of patent cases. Notably, the '388 patent has faced challenges to its validity. In March 2026, the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate cancelling numerous claims of the patent, a development that could significantly impact this and other pending litigation.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Research into the dockets for case number 6:23-cv-00682 in the Western District of Texas reveals a critical discrepancy with the provided case caption. Public court records, including those from Bloomberg Law and Justia, indicate that the defendant in this specific case was Peloton Interactive, Inc., not T-Mobile US, Inc. The litigation against Peloton was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York. As of today's date, no public record of a case captioned Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. with case number 6:23-cv-00682 has been found.

The following timeline details the key legal developments for the actual case filed under 6:23-cv-00682, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Chronology of Case No. 6:23-cv-00682 (Fleet Connect v. Peloton)

  • 2023-09-21: Fleet Connect Solutions LLC files a complaint for patent infringement against Peloton Interactive, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, alleging that Peloton's bike, tread, and row equipment, which utilize technologies like Bluetooth, infringe on its intellectual property.
  • 2024 (Date unspecified): Peloton files a motion to transfer venue from the Western District of Texas to a different forum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
  • 2024-09-26: The deadline for Peloton to file its reply to Fleet Connect's response regarding the motion to transfer is set.
  • 2024 (Date unspecified): The court schedules a Markman (claim construction) hearing. This hearing is later reset to November 6, 2024.
  • 2024 (Prior to 2024-11-06): Judge Alan D. Albright issues an order canceling the scheduled Markman hearing.
  • 2024-11-07: The case is officially transferred from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is assigned the new number 1:24-cv-08486 in the SDNY.

Outcome and Current Posture

The litigation under the original case number 6:23-cv-00682 did not reach a substantive resolution in the Western District of Texas. The key development was the defendant's successful motion to transfer the case to a different venue. The case now continues in the Southern District of New York under a new case number. There was no trial, verdict, or final judgment in the Texas court.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

As of the latest available information, no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been identified at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where T-Mobile US, Inc. is a petitioner challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388. A search of PTAB records did not show any such filings, which would be a common defensive strategy for a defendant in T-Mobile's position. This further supports the conclusion that the litigation under this case number did not involve T-Mobile.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage across multiple angles.

Let me search more targeted angles for press coverage.

Press and media coverage

Bottom line: no news outlet has reported on a Fleet Connect Solutions v. T-Mobile US case. Searches across the case caption, the case number (6:23-cv-00682), the party pair "Fleet Connect" + "T-Mobile," and the asserted patent number (7,742,388) returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or JD Supra story about T-Mobile being sued by Fleet Connect on this patent, and no verdict, settlement, or damages reporting. That absence is itself consistent with the docket discrepancy the earlier sections flagged: the only records that pair case number 6:23-cv-00682 with these parties are docket aggregators, and the primary-source records I did find tie that number to Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC v. Rivian/Peloton (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan Albright, "Completed October 2024"). A USPTO filing in Unified Patents' ex parte reexamination of the '388 patent lists "Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-00623-ADA; Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-00682-ADA, Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC v. Rivian/Peloton" (PTABs public records), which independently corroborates that 6:23-cv-00682 was not a T-Mobile case. I also found no press coverage of the Peloton matter's transfer to the Southern District of New York — only dockets.

The closest thing to press coverage concerns the '388 patent and Fleet Connect's campaign generally, not this case. Unified Patents reported (in its April 15, 2026 "News & Views" post) that on March 26, 2026 the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit entered a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate cancelling claims 1–9, 11–13, 20, 21, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent 7,742,388 — the patent at issue here. That post characterizes Fleet Connect as "an NPE and entity of Empire IP," describes the '388 patent as covering "a system and method for increased bandwidth in digital communications, particularly within local and wide area networks including WLANs and mobile networks," and states the patent "has been asserted in over 60 cases." It also named the most recent targets (UAB Xirgo Global, Werner Enterprises, Cedar Electronics, Nextbase) — T-Mobile is not among them. Separately, Bloomberg Law (Peter Hayes, June 21, 2024) covered a different Fleet Connect suit — against French home-automation company Somfy in the Eastern District of Texas — and is notable only because it also asserts the '388 patent alongside U.S. Patent 7,260,153, quoting the '388 title "Packet Generation Systems and Methods." A scan of Law360's IP news index surfaced no Fleet Connect–T-Mobile article at all.

Where accounts go beyond the court record. The trade/blog coverage I located frames this campaign through the NPE lens — Unified Patents positions the '388 reexamination as a defensive win and identifies Fleet Connect's corporate parent (Empire IP), while Bloomberg Law calls Fleet Connect a "patent acquisition company" alleging infringement of "wireless communications" patents. Neither source discusses T-Mobile, damages figures, settlements, market impact, or executive statements, so there is no reported damages number, settlement term, or industry-reaction quote to attribute for this case. I should also flag that several results that superficially look like coverage — PatSnap litigation "blog" entries and Ex Parte's complaint "analysis" pages — are algorithmically generated docket summaries, not journalism, and none of them concerns a T-Mobile case; they should not be treated as press reporting. Net: aside from Unified Patents' report on the '388 reexamination, there is essentially no media coverage to summarize, and what exists speaks to the patent's validity challenge and Fleet Connect's broader assertion campaign rather than to Fleet Connect v. T-Mobile.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel for Plaintiff Fleet Connect Solutions LLC

Based on a review of court filings and other sources, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC has retained a team of attorneys from at least three law firms, a common strategy in patent litigation to combine specialized patent expertise with local trial experience.

Name Role Firm Location Notable Experience
Saied Kashani Lead Counsel Law Office of Saied Kashani Los Angeles, CA A Harvard Law graduate, Mr. Kashani has a practice that includes intellectual property and commercial litigation.
Matthew C. T. Lamson Of Counsel Lamson IP Canada A Canadian patent agent with over 20 years of experience in drafting and prosecuting patent applications, particularly in complex cases.
Johnny Ward Local Counsel Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC Longview, TX A nationally recognized Texas trial lawyer with numerous major courtroom victories in patent cases against companies like Apple, Samsung, and Verizon.
J. Wesley Hill Local Counsel Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC Longview/Tyler, TX Known for his success in patent litigation, he has experience in a variety of complex commercial and intellectual property disputes.

Note on Firm Changes: The firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, known for its extensive patent litigation work in Texas, has recently been renamed Miller Fair Henry PLLC after named partners Johnny Ward and Wesley Hill, among others, transitioned from full-time trial practice. They now focus on mediations and trial consulting. Attorneys from this esteemed Texas firm frequently serve as local counsel in patent cases due to their deep experience in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

Fleet Connect Solutions has been represented by various counsel in its widespread litigation campaign. For instance, in other cases, attorneys from Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC have appeared on behalf of the company. The specific attorneys from these firms who have formally appeared in the T-Mobile case (6:23-cv-00682) would be definitively listed on the case docket, however, direct access to the latest docket entries was not available in the search results.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on a review of publicly available information, counsel for the defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. in case number 6:23-cv-00682 cannot be identified. Publicly accessible court records and legal databases frequently associate this case number with a different lawsuit, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., which was originally filed in the Western District of Texas and subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York.

While some sources correctly list the case caption Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. with case number 6:23-cv-00682, they do not provide any information regarding legal representation for the defendant. The conflicting information suggests a possible clerical error in the case number provided for the T-Mobile litigation or an error in the indexing of the case by public data aggregators.

Without a consistent and verifiable docket record for Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. under this specific case number, it is not possible to identify the attorneys who have formally appeared to represent T-Mobile. No notices of appearance, answers, or other filings by defense counsel are accessible through the available search results. Therefore, the counsel of record for the defendant remains unknown.