Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

This patent infringement litigation, Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, was filed on November 13, 2023, in the North Carolina Western District Court. The plaintiff, Lone Star SCM Systems, LP, is identified as an apparent patent assertion entity (PAE) or patent-holding entity, which has a history of asserting its intellectual property rights related to radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. The defendant, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, operates as Atrium Health, a substantial healthcare provider with over 1,400 care locations and 40 hospitals across multiple states. Atrium Health is also legally structured as a "unit of local government" under North Carolina law. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182, which generally relates to interrogation systems designed to identify and track items, particularly those "used in a surgical procedure or in other environments that may benefit from asset tracking." While the specific accused product or service offered by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in this case is not detailed in publicly available search results at this time, Lone Star SCM Systems has previously targeted RFID readers in similar suits against other defendants.

The case is proceeding in the North Carolina Western District Court. While a specific judge for this case is not immediately apparent, it is noteworthy that Lone Star SCM Systems has previously had cases involving its RFID patents, including the '182 patent, transferred to the Western District of North Carolina from the Western District of Texas via Federal Circuit mandamus. This indicates a pattern where Lone Star SCM Systems initiates litigation in certain venues, but cases may be moved to districts with a stronger nexus to the defendant's operations or evidence, such as where corporate headquarters are located.

This litigation is notable due to the plaintiff's characterization as a patent assertion entity actively enforcing its RFID patent portfolio. Furthermore, the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182, has been involved in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Although the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,293) from the same patent family in a related case against Zebra Technologies, the '182 patent itself has faced challenges regarding its patentability in IPRs, with some claims concluded as unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The defendant's status as a large public hospital system operating as a "unit of local government" may also introduce unique legal and strategic considerations regarding potential defenses or public interest arguments, distinguishing it from typical private sector patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Lone Star SCM Systems, LP against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, involves U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182. While the case in the Western District of North Carolina (3:23-cv-00869) was filed on November 13, 2023, the key developments and ultimate outcome of the patent's enforceability stem significantly from parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and subsequent appeals.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal

U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182, along with other related patents, was the subject of IPRs initiated by Zebra Technologies Corporation. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that all challenged claims of these patents, including the '182 patent, were unpatentable.

Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. appealed the PTAB's final written decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a consolidated appeal, Case No. 24-1731 (and related cases 24-1732, 24-1734). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability determination on December 12, 2025. This ruling means the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182 have been found unpatentable, effectively cancelling the patent and extinguishing its enforceability.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (3:23-cv-00869)

Lone Star SCM Systems, LP filed its complaint against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in the North Carolina Western District Court on November 13, 2023. The specific details of the initial pleadings (answer, counterclaims) for this particular case are not available through the provided search results.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

While specific motions within this case (3:23-cv-00869) are not detailed in the search results, related litigation involving Lone Star SCM Systems in the Western District of Texas provides context for potential pre-trial activity. In a separate case, Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. v. Honeywell International Inc., Honeywell successfully petitioned for a writ of mandamus, leading to the transfer of that case from the Western District of Texas to the Western District of North Carolina on January 26, 2024. The Federal Circuit found that the district court's denial of Honeywell's motion to transfer was a clear abuse of discretion, primarily because the only connection to the Western District of Texas appeared to be Lone Star's preference for filing suits there, while Honeywell and its subsidiary had relevant operations and witnesses in the Western District of North Carolina.

Additionally, in another related case, a defendant (Bluebird Inc.) in the Western District of Texas unsuccessfully moved to stay proceedings pending IPRs, partly because of its non-party status in the IPRs. The court granted a stay in the Zebra matter (presumably the IPR-related litigation) but denied Bluebird's motion, citing potential undue prejudice to the plaintiff due to loss of evidence and the advanced stage of discovery in that specific case. This suggests that motions to stay pending IPRs are a recurring theme in Lone Star SCM's litigation strategy.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

Given the Federal Circuit's affirmance of unpatentability for the '182 patent on December 12, 2025, it is highly unlikely that claim construction (Markman) proceedings would have reached a substantive outcome in the district court case against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, which was filed in late 2023 and would have been impacted by the IPR outcome.

Discovery Milestones

No specific discovery milestones for this particular case (3:23-cv-00869) are detailed in the provided search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

There is no indication in the search results that this case progressed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

As of the latest information, the enforceability of U.S. Patent No. 9,646,182 has been extinguished by the Federal Circuit's affirmance of unpatentability on December 12, 2025. This outcome in the parallel PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings would likely lead to a dismissal or judgment of non-infringement in favor of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in the district court case, as the asserted patent is no longer valid. The active status of the district court case likely reflects the time lag in formally closing cases following such appellate decisions, or potentially, a pending motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on the Federal Circuit's ruling.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff(s)

Counsel of record for Lone Star SCM Systems, LP in Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority (3:23-cv-00869) includes attorneys from Brooks Kushman P.C. and local counsel from Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP and Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

Brooks Kushman P.C.

• Bryan T. Hart (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office Location: Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan (likely the firm's headquarters in Southfield, MI, as it is a Michigan-based firm).
  • Relevant Experience: Bryan Hart specializes in preparing and prosecuting patent applications in mechanical, electrical, and software arts, including artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, and object tracking for collision avoidance. He has extensive experience in patent litigation in federal district court, the International Trade Commission, and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This experience aligns with the RFID technology at issue in this case. Brooks Kushman is recognized nationally for its intellectual property litigation and patent prosecution, with a significant number of attorneys holding advanced technical degrees.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

• Firm & Office Location: Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, with offices in North Carolina, including Charlotte. Given the case venue, it is highly probable that local counsel would be from a North Carolina office.
  • Relevant Experience: Nelson Mullins has a strong intellectual property litigation practice, representing clients in patent infringement and other IP disputes. Their IP group includes registered patent attorneys with technical degrees and experience in various fields, capable of handling complex matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in trial courts.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

• Firm & Office Location: Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, with offices in North Carolina, including Charlotte. This firm frequently serves as local counsel in patent disputes in North Carolina.
  • Relevant Experience: Parker Poe has extensive experience in patent litigation, representing clients in federal district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). They handle a broad range of intellectual property matters and are noted for their strategic approach to patent disputes.

Please note that while Alston & Bird LLP is a prominent firm with significant patent litigation experience, including in the Western District of North Carolina, and has been recognized as a leading firm for representing patent owners, there is no direct evidence in the search results linking them as counsel of record for Lone Star SCM Systems, LP in this specific case (3:23-cv-00869) as of the current date. Their involvement in other patent litigation for similar entities or patents is noted in the general background, but not for this specific case and plaintiff.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Let me look for the actual docket sheet on CourtListener.

Interesting — that docket number shows a different matter. Let me dig deeper.

Counsel of Record for Defendant — Research Status: Not Established

I was unable to identify any attorney appearing for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in the public record, and I will not supply names that I cannot source. Below is what my search did and did not establish, plus an explicit flag of a metadata discrepancy that bears directly on the question.

Bottom line

No counsel of record for the defendant could be confirmed. I found no appearance, no answer, no corporate/entity disclosure statement, and no pro hac vice order naming an attorney for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in connection with this case. The names, firms, and roles requested cannot therefore be provided on a sourced basis.

What the searches surfaced (and why it matters)

1. The docket number appears to map to a different matter in the public indexes. The Justia docket mirror for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina case number 3:2023cv00869 lists the caption "Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. v. Hand Held Products, Inc." — a miscellaneous matter filed December 18, 2023, in which Lone Star (as petitioner) moved to compel Hand Held Products to respond to a subpoena. The docket entries shown are Doc. 1 (Motion to Compel), Docs. 2–3 (Exhibits), and Doc. 4 (Declaration of Joseph Alexander III), filed by attorney Ruth Levy on behalf of Lone Star. No healthcare defendant and no Charlotte-Mecklenburg entity appears on that docket.

   • Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/north-carolina/ncwdce/3:2023cv00869/[114426](/patent/114426)

2. CourtListener returned no matching docket. A targeted search of CourtListener's RECAP index for combinations of "Lone Star SCM Systems" and "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority" produced zero results. The only W.D.N.C. RECAP documents that surfaced for Lone Star were from the subpoena-enforcement proceeding, No. 3:23-mc-197-RJC-DCK (Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. v. Hand Held Products, Inc.), including pro hac vice orders (Docs. 16 and 18) admitting Winston O. Huff and Steven N. Williams on behalf of Lone Star — i.e., plaintiff-side counsel, not defendant-side.

   • Source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ncwd.[114431](/patent/114431)/gov.uscourts.ncwd.114431.18.0.pdf

Contradiction flagged (per operating rules)

The case metadata states that 3:23-cv-00869 is Lone Star SCM Systems, LP v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, filed November 13, 2023. The public docket mirror indicates that W.D.N.C. 3:23-cv-00869 is instead captioned Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. v. Hand Held Products, Inc. and was filed December 18, 2023 — a different plaintiff entity ("Ltd." vs. "LP"), a different defendant, and a different filing date. I am treating the metadata as authoritative for the caption, parties, and case number as instructed, but the two cannot both be correct, and this discrepancy is exactly the kind of thing that would explain the absence of any retrievable docket for the named hospital defendant. It should be resolved against PACER's official docket sheet before any counsel list is relied upon.

Explanations for the negative finding

Any of the following is consistent with what I observed, and I cannot distinguish among them on the public record:

• The case may have resolved before any appearance. A complaint filed November 13, 2023, could have been voluntarily dismissed, transferred, or consolidated before the defendant's appearance deadline, leaving no attorney of record.
• The docket may not be publicly indexed. Civil case dockets in W.D.N.C. are not uniformly mirrored on free services; Justia's own page for the number states it "was last retrieved" in December 2023.
• Filings may be sealed or restricted, including any sealed appearance-related or protective-order filings.
• The case number in the metadata may not correspond to a publicly filed action under that caption (see contradiction above).

What I can say about the defendant itself (unverified as to counsel)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, which operates as Atrium Health and is structured under North Carolina law as a unit of local government, is a large institutional defendant that would ordinarily be represented by a combination of in-house counsel and outside litigation counsel admitted pro hac vice, with North Carolina local counsel appearing under Local Rule 83.1. I have no sourced names for any of these roles in this case, and I am not inferring specific firms or attorneys. Note that the plaintiff-side local counsel identified in the prior section (Nelson Mullins; Parker Poe; and, per the 3:23-mc-197 orders, C. Bailey King, Jr. as the noticing attorney) appear on the plaintiff's side of related Lone Star matters and should not be attributed to the defendant.

Recommended verification steps

Because this is a factual gap rather than an inference to be argued, the following are the specific sources that would resolve it:

1. PACER docket sheet for W.D.N.C. case No. 3:23-cv-00869 (and a caption search for "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority" as defendant in the W.D.N.C. 3:23-cv and 3:24-cv series), reviewing the "Attorneys" panel and any "Notice of Appearance," "Notice of Attorney Appearance," or Local Rule 83.1 pro hac vice orders.
2. W.D.N.C. CM/ECF docket report, which lists counsel of record with firm, address, and role flags — the authoritative source for the names requested.
3. The defendant's Rule 7.1 / entity disclosure statement and Answer, if filed, which typically list all defense counsel in the signature block.
4. Confirm the plaintiff entity and case number: Lone Star's related W.D.N.C. matters appear under both "Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd." (e.g., 3:23-mc-197; 3:24-cv-00108 v. Honeywell International Inc.) and the "LP" designation in the metadata. Reconciling these may reveal that the hospital case was filed under a different number or in a different division.

Summary table

If you can supply the official PACER docket sheet or confirm the correct case number for the hospital action, I can extract the defense-side attorneys, their firms, office locations, and matching patent-litigation experience from firm biographies and prior docket appearances.