IOT Innovations LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement action pits IOT Innovations LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), against Johnson Controls, Inc., a major global provider of building technology and automation solutions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, is part of a broader litigation campaign by IOT Innovations, which has filed numerous suits against various technology companies. While the specific Johnson Controls products accused of infringement are not yet clear from publicly available documents, the case centers on technology for remotely updating software on connected devices, a core feature of modern "Internet of Things" (IoT) ecosystems like the smart building and security systems that Johnson Controls manufactures.

The plaintiff, IOT Innovations LLC, is associated with the Texas-based monetization firm Empire IP LLC and has acquired a portfolio of patents, including some that originated with major technology companies like Nokia and AT&T. This pattern of patent acquisition and subsequent litigation against operating companies is characteristic of a patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant, Johnson Controls, is an operating company with a significant market presence in building automation, including its flagship Metasys® system, as well as HVAC, fire detection, and security products like the C•CURE access control platform. Given the technology at issue, the accused products likely involve Johnson Controls' platforms and devices that receive remote software or firmware updates.

The sole patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 7,593,428, titled "Method and system for providing a uniform software updating process of a communication device." In essence, the patent describes a method for updating software on a device by using a separate, updatable "updating application" that manages the download and installation of new software versions. This case is procedurally in its early stages, having been filed on September 13, 2024, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The choice of this venue is notable; while not as high-volume as the Western District of Texas or Delaware, the district has handled significant patent cases, including a $28 million verdict for willful infringement in Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., presided over by Judge J. P. Stadtmueller. As of May 2, 2026, a judge has not been publicly assigned to this specific case, and a detailed docket, including the complaint, is not widely available. The case is significant as it represents the continued expansion of NPE litigation into the rapidly growing IoT and smart building sector, targeting a major industry player.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 7, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between IOT Innovations LLC and Johnson Controls, Inc. remains in a preliminary phase with no significant legal developments or resolutions publicly reported since its filing. The case docket, 2:24-cv-01178 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, shows the case as "Open" but lacks publicly indexed substantive filings or court orders.

A chronological overview of the case's status is detailed below:

• 2024-09-13: Complaint Filed

  • IOT Innovations LLC initiated the lawsuit against Johnson Controls, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,593,428. Details regarding the specific Johnson Controls products accused of infringement are not available in the public record.

• Subsequent Pleadings and Motions

  • There is no publicly available information regarding Johnson Controls' answer to the complaint or the filing of any counterclaims.
  • Searches for substantive pre-trial motions—such as motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay proceedings—have not yielded any results. This indicates either that no such motions have been filed or that they have not been reported on by legal news outlets or captured in available litigation databases.

• Claim Construction, Discovery, and Trial

  • The litigation has not advanced to a claim construction (Markman) hearing.
  • No significant discovery milestones or disputes have been publicly reported.
  • The case has not been scheduled for trial, and no verdict has been issued.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings

  • There is no record of any inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings being filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Johnson Controls against U.S. Patent No. 7,593,428. Therefore, the district court case has not been stayed or otherwise impacted by parallel administrative challenges to the patent's validity.

• Current Status and Disposition

  • The case's official status remains "Open," but there is no indication of its procedural posture. The absence of any public filings or rulings for a case filed in late 2024 is notable. It could suggest an early, confidential settlement, a stipulated stay pending other litigation, or simply a slow pre-trial progression that has not yet generated substantive, publicly reported events. Without direct access to the court's PACER system, a more detailed procedural history cannot be constructed.

While no attorneys have formally filed a notice of appearance in the IOT Innovations LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc. case as of May 7, 2026, a clear pattern of representation has been established across the plaintiff's nationwide litigation campaign. Based on counsel identified in numerous other lawsuits filed by IOT Innovations, the legal team representing the plaintiff is consistently drawn from the following two law firms.

Likely Lead Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC

Attorneys from this Texas-based intellectual property firm have appeared as lead counsel for IOT Innovations in multiple recent patent infringement cases, making them the most probable lead counsel in the action against Johnson Controls.

• Carey M. Rozier (Likely Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Experience Note: Rozier is consistently named as counsel on complaints filed by IOT Innovations, including in cases against Resideo Technologies and SimpliSafe, indicating a lead role in managing the litigation campaign.

• James F. McDonough, III (Likely Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Experience Note: McDonough has appeared alongside Rozier and Hardt in several IOT Innovations cases, including those against Resideo Technologies and Savant Systems.

• Jonathan L. Hardt (Likely Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Experience Note: Hardt is also frequently named as counsel in IOT Innovations' patent suits, such as the cases filed against Resideo Technologies and SimpliSafe.

Likely Delaware or Local Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

This Wilmington, Delaware-based firm is well-known for representing patent plaintiffs, particularly non-practicing entities, often serving as local counsel in Delaware or as part of the primary litigation team in other districts. They have represented other prolific patent asserters in numerous cases.

• Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis (Likely Of Counsel / Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in IP litigation and co-founded his firm, which is frequently retained by patent monetization entities for litigation in Delaware and other key districts.

• Richard C. Weinblatt (Likely Of Counsel / Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work and has successfully argued before the Federal Circuit, making him a seasoned attorney for patent assertion campaigns.

Other Potential Counsel

While the firms above are most consistently linked to IOT Innovations, other attorneys known for representing high-volume patent plaintiffs could also be involved.

• Isaac Rabicoff (Potential Counsel)
  • Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL)
  • Experience Note: Rabicoff's firm was ranked among the most active in patent litigation and is known for representing high-volume plaintiffs and leading licensing campaigns against major technology companies. His admission to the bar in the Western District of Wisconsin could be relevant.

As the case is still in its nascent stages, formal appearances by these or other attorneys on the public docket are expected as proceedings move forward.

Defense Counsel for Johnson Controls Not Yet on Record; Key Law Firms Emerge as Likely Candidates

As of May 7, 2026, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. in its patent infringement case with IOT Innovations LLC in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Given the early stage of the litigation, filed in September 2024, this is not unusual. However, an analysis of Johnson Controls' past patent litigation representation and its relationships with major law firms provides a clear indication of likely counsel.

Johnson Controls, a global conglomerate with its operational headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, frequently retains law firms with deep Wisconsin roots and national patent litigation expertise. Two firms in particular, Foley & Lardner LLP and Quarles & Brady LLP, stand out as primary candidates for the defense.

Likely Lead National and Local Counsel

Foley & Lardner LLP
The firm's historical relationship with Johnson Controls in intellectual property matters is well-documented. With a major office in Milwaukee, Foley & Lardner is positioned to serve as both national and local counsel.

• Potential Role: Lead National and Local Counsel
• Firm & Office: Foley & Lardner LLP (Milwaukee, WI)
• Experience Note: Foley has represented Johnson Controls in prior patent litigation, including successfully defending against Wildcat Licensing and prevailing for Johnson Controls in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The firm's IP department is robust, handling a full spectrum of patent services from prosecution to high-stakes litigation. Foley & Lardner also prosecutes patents for Johnson Controls Tyco IP Holdings LLP.

Quarles & Brady LLP
Also headquartered in Milwaukee, Quarles & Brady is another prominent national firm with a strong IP litigation practice that has represented major Wisconsin-based corporations.

• Potential Role: Lead National or Local Counsel
• Firm & Office: Quarles & Brady LLP (Milwaukee, WI)
• Experience Note: Quarles & Brady has a highly-regarded patent litigation group known for representing Fortune 500 companies and has been ranked as a top patent firm. While public records of recent patent litigation for Johnson Controls are not as readily available as for Foley, their local presence and expertise make them a strong possibility.

In-House Counsel

Johnson Controls maintains an in-house patent department that will actively manage the litigation, though they are not expected to appear as counsel of record.

• Potential Role: In-House Counsel
• Firm & Office: Johnson Controls, Inc. (Milwaukee, WI)
• Experience Note: The in-house team is responsible for managing the company's extensive patent portfolio and overseeing outside counsel in litigation matters.

Formal appearances are expected to be filed on the court docket in the coming weeks or months as the case proceeds beyond the initial complaint. Until then, the engagement of either Foley & Lardner or Quarles & Brady remains the most probable scenario for Johnson Controls' defense.