Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff's identity, the '666 patent itself, and the IPR landscape.

Let me verify the procedural history, the 12(b)(6) ruling, and any IPR on the '666 patent specifically.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC ("LAG"), is a non-practicing entity — Unified Patents describes it as "an NPE and entity of Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC," part of the Longhorn IP family of patent-monetization vehicles that acquire portfolios and litigate them (its corporate disclosure statement was filed at Dkt. 3 on the filing date). LAG does not make or sell vehicles; it holds patents originating from third parties. The defendant, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., is the Japanese parent of the Nissan/Renault-Nissan automaker group — a large operating company that designs, manufactures, and sells the vehicles accused here. Notably, the named defendant is the Japanese parent entity, not Nissan North America, a fact that matters for the personal-jurisdiction and infringement-pleading disputes discussed below. The '666 patent's inventors — Lee Ming Cheng, Ting On Ngan, and Ka Wai Hau — were researchers associated with City University of Hong Kong (CityU lists the patent in its research-output records), and the patent was previously asserted by Intellectual Ventures in the early 2010s (e.g., against JPMorgan Chase in S.D.N.Y. over IBM's 4765 PCIe Cryptographic Coprocessor, where the court construed claim 4, and in PTAB proceeding IPR2014-00180). Its path from a university-origin invention to a mass-assertion NPE portfolio is characteristic of the secondary market in patents.

The accused technology and asserted patent. Per LAG's complaint, the '666 patent is "implemented in car system-on-chips ('SoC'), such as the Renesas R-Car SoCs, implemented in Nissan vehicles, in all trims and configurations." The '666 patent (U.S. Pat. No. 7,634,666, "Crypto-Engine for Cryptographic Processing of Data," issued Dec. 15, 2009) claims a compact hardware crypto-engine/co-processor for asymmetric cryptography — a modular arithmetic unit containing dedicated multiplication, addition, and sign-inversion units, an SRAM memory block with input/output switches and an address controller, and an interface controller that manages host-processor communications and generates op-code signals selecting RSA or ECC modes. LAG asserts claims 1–11 (the entire claim set) against Nissan only. The infringement theory is essentially chip-level: the crypto/security functionality inside the Renesas SoCs embedded in Nissan vehicles is said to map to the claimed architecture (LAG's claim charts, for example, point to ARM Cortex-A-series cores, NEON/ALU pipelines, and TrustZone components in the Nissan LEAF). It is worth flagging that the original May 31, 2024 Nissan complaint swept in several additional patents that LAG also asserted against other automakers — the '803, '238, '353, and '002 "common" patents — RPX reports 5 patents-in-suit and 22 accused products in this docket; by the September 10, 2025 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in the consolidated case, however, the '666 is identified as "the Nissan Patent" asserted "against Nissan only." The case metadata's focus on the '666 is consistent with that current Nissan-specific framing, and I note the original-complaint scope only to reconcile the two records.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed May 31, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Case No. 2:24-cv-00397-JRG-RSP, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (with the "-RSP" magistrate designation). It is a member case consolidated for pretrial purposes into lead case 2:24-cv-00554-JRG (Longhorn v. Hyundai/Kia), part of a coordinated LAG campaign against essentially the entire auto industry — parallel suits against Hyundai/Kia (2:24-cv-00554, filed July 19, 2024), Volvo (2:24-cv-00603, July 30, 2024), Mitsubishi (2:24-cv-00685) and Mazda (2:24-cv-00686, both Aug. 20, 2024), and Volkswagen (2:24-cv-00933, Nov. 15, 2024, also designated a lead case). Venue matters because E.D. Tex./Judge Gilstrap is among the most active and experienced patent dockets in the country, with local patent rules and a reputation for moving cases to trial quickly — a meaningful leverage factor for an NPE. The case is notable on several fronts: (1) it is a method/indirect-infringement pleading battleground — on September 26, 2025, Judge Gilstrap granted Nissan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed LAG's direct-infringement claims, holding that LAG's allegation that Nissan "regularly travel[s] to the United States to test and/or troubleshoot the Accused Products" was an insufficient "formulaic recitation" under Twombly, though he granted leave to amend (reported in Fish & Richardson's Texas Round-Up, September 2025; headline coverage at IPFray: "Hyundai, Nissan defeat parallel automotive patent infringement complaints in Eastern District of Texas"); (2) it sits in a dense IPR/PTAB and reexam web — Nissan filed IPR2025-01089 against the '238 patent on June 3, 2025 (petitioner counsel Foley & Lardner; patent-owner counsel Fabricant LLP), which the Board denied institution on October 17, 2025 under §314(a) discretionary denial, while Volkswagen challenged the '353 in IPR2025-01064 and Koito challenged the '803 in IPR2025-00955, and Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against the '002 (granted April 22, 2025); and (3) the defensive aggregator angle is prominent — Unified Patents ran PATROLL prior-art contests on the '666 (winner announced January 14, 2025), '002, '353, and '803, signaling coordinated third-party validity attacks on the LAG portfolio. The market context is significant because the accused Renesas R-Car SoCs are a widely deployed automotive platform, so a plaintiff win on the '666 could implicate crypto/security features across many OEMs using the same silicon, while conversely the patent's long prior litigation history and the pending defensive challenges cut against LAG's leverage.

Sourcing caveat: the 12(b)(6) dismissal, consolidation structure, IPR dispositions, and PATROLL activity above are grounded in the cited PTAB filings, Unified Patents postings, RPX, and law-firm case reporting; I was not able to independently pull the PACER docket in this session, so specific docket-entry numbers for the dismissal (referenced in secondary sources as Dkt. 84 in the lead case) and the exact chain of title for the '666 (CityU → Intellectual Ventures → Longhorn) should be confirmed against PACER and USPTO assignment records before being relied on as final.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and patent details.

Let me dig into the docket, consolidation, and any IPRs on the '666 patent.

Good material. Let me get the lead case docket and search for more PTAB proceedings and 2026 developments.

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. — Litigation Development Timeline

Case: 2:24-cv-00397-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — member case; consolidated for all pretrial purposes into lead case 2:24-cv-00554-JRG, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. & Kia Corp.
Judge: Rodney Gilstrap (Magistrate: Roy S. Payne)
Patent(s) at issue (per case metadata): U.S. 7,634,666 ("'666") — crypto-engine for RSA/ECC cryptographic processing
Plaintiff's counsel: Vincent J. Rubino III; Alfred Ross Fabricant; Peter Lambrianakos; John Andrew Rubino; Michael Mondelli III (Fabricant LLP)
Defendant's PTAB counsel (Nissan): Pavan K. Agarwal, Roberto J. Fernandez (Foley & Lardner LLP)

Note on scope of patents. The case metadata identifies only the '666 patent, and the operative pleading asserted claims 1–11 of the '666 against Nissan (accusing Renesas R-Car SoCs in Nissan vehicles, developed by Lee Ming Cheng, Ting On Ngan and Ka Wai Hau). However, the record I retrieved shows the same Nissan complaint also asserted four other patents — the '803, '002, '238 and '353 patents — which were pled against Nissan and Hyundai/Kia as "Common Patents," plus two Hyundai-only patents (RE44,331 and '101). Nearly all of the motion practice and PTAB activity below concerns those common patents. I flag this so the "patents at issue" field isn't read as the full universe of the dispute.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2024)

I did not find a confirmed copy of Nissan's answer or any counterclaims in the sources retrieved; the member docket is frozen at 2024-10-25, and Nissan's answer/counterclaims (if filed) would appear in the lead case docket, which I could not fully retrieve. Treat the answer/counterclaim question as unverified.

---

2. Claim-narrowing and second-round pleadings (2025)

• 2025-01-10 — LAG filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 51 in 00554), which mooted the first motion to dismiss (Dkt. 53). The FAC (against Hyundai/Kia) asserted six patents: the '803, '002, '238, '353, RE44,331 and '101. (Dkt. 83 opinion, Justia)
• Defendants' renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenging the FAC (Dkt. 58), opposed at Dkt. 60.
• 2025-09-10 — Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed under P.R. 4-3 (in the consolidated case), covering the four Common Patents ('803, '002, '238, '353), the two Hyundai Patents (RE44,331, '101) and the Nissan '666 patent, with Exhibits A–F of proposed constructions. The parties estimated 4 hours total (2 hours/side) for the claim-construction hearing and identified no prehearing issues. This places the case at the threshold of Markman as of September 2025.
• 2025-08-25 / 2025-09-25 — Docket Control Orders amended (a "Second Amended DCO," cited as Dkt. 69; the related Volkswagen case had a "Fourth Amended DCO," Dkt. 58) — indicating repeated schedule slippage across the Longhorn campaign. (Cited as IPR2025-01089 Exs. 1025/2001/2002.)

---

3. Dispositive-motion ruling (2025-09-26)

Judge Gilstrap granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed LAG's infringement claims, with leave to amend:

• Dkt. 83 (00554) — Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Hyundai/Kia's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Justia / CourtListener)
• Dkt. 84 (00554), same date — per Fish & Richardson's Texas Round-Up, Judge Gilstrap likewise granted Nissan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing LAG's direct-infringement claims. (fr.com; iPfray headline: "Hyundai, Nissan defeat parallel automotive patent infringement complaints in Eastern District of Texas.")

Holding of note: LAG's allegation that Nissan infringed by "regularly travel[ing] to the United States to test and/or troubleshoot the Accused Products" was held to be an insufficient formulaic recitation under Twombly/Iqbal, even though similar language had sufficed in NorthStar Sys. LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:22-cv-00486-JRG, 2023 WL 5723648 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2023). The court expressly left open whether LAG's other evidence (screenshots, textual analysis) would suffice. LAG was given leave to amend.

No motion to transfer and no motion to stay pending IPR were confirmed in the sources retrieved. (Nissan's IPR papers argued the likelihood-of-stay factor and cited Docket Navigator statistics on Judge Gilstrap's IPR-stay record — Exs. 1020–1024 — implying stay strategy was live, but I could not confirm a stay motion was docketed.)

---

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings

IPR2025-01089 — Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC (U.S. 7,513,238)

This is the confirmed parallel PTAB challenge. Note it targets the '238 patent (direct-injection piston geometry), not the '666.

Sources: Patexia IPR docket; Unified Patents PTAB portal; ipverse/GreyB; PTAB petition files at ptacts.uspto.gov (petition nos. 1557967, 1557992).

Effect on the litigation: the denial means the '238 patent's validity is not being tested at the PTAB; the infringement case proceeds on that patent in Judge Gilstrap's court, and Nissan's invalidity defenses remain in the district court.

The '666 patent specifically

I could not confirm any IPR or PGR petition filed against U.S. 7,634,666. What exists is the Unified Patents Patroll prior-art campaign (bounty opened 2024-06-07, closed 2024-08-30, winner announced 2025-01-14) — i.e., third-party invalidity ammunition, not a PTAB filing. The '666 was previously asserted by Intellectual Ventures entities (IV II v. BBVA Compass, N.D. Ala. 2:13-cv-01106 (2013); IV v. Citigroup, S.D.N.Y. 1:14-cv-04638 (2014)) — relevant to the patent's history. (Stanford NPE Database; Unified Patents)

Other possible IPRs

Nissan's filings share a 2025-06-03 date and sequential numbering around IPR2025-01089, strongly suggesting a batch of petitions against the other Common Patents ('803, '002, '353). I could not verify additional proceeding numbers or their outcomes from the sources retrieved; this should be checked on the PTAB docket.

---

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• P.R. 3-1/3-2 infringement contentions (LAG, served ~2024-11-22) — the '238 contentions (Appendix C) were pulled directly into the PTAB petition as the primary §315(b)/§314(a) nexus evidence.
• P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement (2025-09-10) — agreed constructions plus disputed Limiting terms for all seven patents, including the Nissan '666. The disputed '666 terms and Nissan's competing Exhibit F constructions are the key Markman evidence on that patent.
• Repeated DCO amendments (Second and Fourth Amended DCOs in 2025) — the schedule slipped, which Nissan leveraged in its discretionary-denial arguments (Exs. 1019–1025).

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None confirmed. Based on the retrieved exhibit text, the consolidated case's docket control order set a pretrial conference for 2026-04-27 and jury selection for 2026-06-01 — but I could not confirm which of the Longhorn cases that DCO governed (some PTAB exhibits in the same file set reference Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, so the schedule text is not reliably tied to this case). No verdict, judgment, JMOL, new-trial or fee motion was found in any source. No summary-judgment ruling was found either.

---

7. Present posture (as of 2026-09-18)

• Status: ACTIVE, consolidated for pretrial purposes in lead case 2:24-cv-00554-JRG, member case 2:24-cv-00397 remaining live for trial.
• The last confirmed substantive rulings are the 2025-09-26 Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals with leave to amend (Dkts. 83/84) and the 2025-10-17 PTAB denial of institution in IPR2025-01089.
• No settlement, dismissal, judgment, or Federal Circuit appeal was confirmed.
• Key open questions I could not resolve (recommend direct PACER/PTAB pulls before relying on them): whether LAG filed an amended complaint after 2025-09-26 and whether it survived another motion to dismiss; whether the Markman hearing was held and whether a claim-construction order issued for the '666; whether Nissan's answer/counterclaims and any stay motion were filed; whether additional Nissan/Hyundai IPRs on the '803/'002/'353/'666 patents exist; and the current trial setting.

---

Campaign context (useful for the "parallel proceedings" question)

LAG's automotive campaign appears coordinated across at least six suits on overlapping patents: Hyundai/Kia (2:24-cv-00554, 2024-07-19, lead); Nissan (2:24-cv-00397, 2024-05-31); Volvo (2:24-cv-00603); Mitsubishi (2:24-cv-00685); Mazda (2:24-cv-00686); and Volkswagen (2:24-cv-00933) — each cited in the '238 IPR petition as matters that "may be affected." This multi-defendant posture is why the parties have litigated over consolidation and discretionary denial rather than case-specific merits.

Caveats: Party names, court, case number and the '666 as the metadata-designated patent are taken as authoritative per the case record. Counts, docket numbers, dates and counsel for the events above are drawn from the cited docket/opinion/PTAB sources; items marked "unverified" or "not confirmed" should be independently checked, as they were not confirmed by a primary docket retrieval.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the specific appearances and lead case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Important procedural note: The '666 case (2:24-cv-00397) is a consolidated member case. Under the Oct. 22, 2024 consolidation order (Doc. 11), all pretrial filings go forward in the lead case, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2:24-cv-00554-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The member-case docket therefore stops at Doc. 12 (Oct. 25, 2024). Counsel listed below are those who have formally appeared in this Nissan case; the consolidated lead-case docket may contain additional appearances, and the publicly indexed docket for the member case was last refreshed in late 2024, so a very recent appearance could exist that I could not retrieve. No filings in this case appear to be sealed as to counsel.

Plaintiff's counsel appearing in 2:24-cv-00397 (per docket)

Possible additional plaintiff-side counsel — flagged, not confirmed

A PTAB exhibit filed in the Nissan IPR contains a signature block captioned "ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LONGHORN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC" listing Ryan K. Yagura, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope St., Los Angeles, CA, alongside Melissa R. Smith, Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, TX. I could not verify a corresponding notice of appearance in 2:24-cv-00397, and Ms. Smith is docketed in this case acting for Defendant Nissan (Doc. 10, unopposed extension of time). That signature block appears to come from the consolidated Hyundai/Kia lead case rather than the Nissan member case. I therefore list Yagura/O'Melveny as possible co-counsel for Longhorn in the consolidated family, unverified for this case — do not treat it as a confirmed appearance.

Notes on structure and experience

• No in-house counsel is identified; Longhorn Automotive Group LLC is a Texas LLC (principal place of business listed as 104 E. Houston St., Marshall, TX) and is characterized in third-party reporting as an NPE affiliated with Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC.
• The plaintiff-side team is effectively a Fabricant LLP / Rubino IP prosecution-and-litigation pairing, with Truelove Law Firm supplying E.D. Tex. local counsel. Fabricant LLP and Rubino IP handle the related Longhorn Automotive campaign against Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, Volvo, Volkswagen, Mazda and Mitsubishi, and are the same counsel designated for Patent Owner in the PTAB proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01089, where Nissan's Foley & Lardner petition was denied institution on § 314(a) grounds).
• Co-counsel relationship: Vincent Rubino, Lambrianakos and Fabricant are the registered practitioners (Fabricant LLP); John Rubino and Mondelli are New Jersey–based (Rubino IP). Truelove is Texas-bar local counsel.

Sources: Justia docket, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00397 (E.D. Tex.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00397/[230526](/patent/230526); Patexia docket mirror (Docs. 1–12) — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Longhorn-Automotive-Group-LLC-v-Nissan-Motor-Co-Ltd-This-is-a-consolidated-MEMBER-case-Docketing-is-required-in-the-LEAD-case-id-[199877](/patent/199877)/documents; Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-01089 (June 23, 2025) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557992; Unified Patents PTAB portal, IPR2025-01089 — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01089; consolidated lead-case opinion, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2:24-cv-00554, Dkt. 83 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2025).

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the district court docket and the joint filings that list Nissan's counsel.

Let me pull the Joint Claim Construction Statement signature block and the lead case docket.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

Bottom line: Nissan is represented by a two-firm team — Foley & Lardner LLP as lead trial/IP counsel (appearing out-of-state) and Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas) as local counsel. This arrangement carried over from the member case into the consolidated pretrial proceeding (lead case 2:24-cv-00554-JRG). No in-house Nissan attorney appears on the district court docket in either case.

Trial / merits counsel — Foley & Lardner LLP

Local counsel — Gillam & Smith, LLP

Not Nissan's counsel (flagging to avoid confusion)

• Nancy L. Schroeder, D. Sean Trainor, Nicholas J. Whitl, Ryan K. Yaguar — appear for Hyundai Motor Company / Kia Corporation only.
• Vincent J. Rubino III, Alfred R. Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Enrique W. Iturralde, John A. Rubino, Michael Mondelli III (Fabricant LLP / Rubino IP, Rye, NY / Short Hills, NJ) and Justin Kurt Truelove (Truelove Law Firm, Marshall, TX) are plaintiff Longhorn Automotive Group's counsel — not Nissan's.

Sourcing and verification notes

• Docket entries: Member-case docket shows Dkt. 10, "Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Smith, Melissa)" (Sept. 20, 2024), and Dkt. 11, Consolidation Order into lead case 2:24-cv-00554 (Oct. 22, 2024). See Justia docket and Patexia docket mirror.
• Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (dated Sept. 10, 2025), signed by Melissa R. Smith under the block "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD." Credit: PTACTS-hosted copy.
• Court calendar entry for the consolidated case lists "Pavan K Agarwal representing Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Consol Defendant)" and "Richard Spencer Montei representing Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Consol Defendant)," plus Melissa Richards Smith for Nissan. Credit: PTACTS-hosted E.D. Tex. calendar.
• PTAB (parallel IPRs, IPR2025-01089 et al., filed June 3, 2025) name Agarwal as lead counsel and Fernandez as back-up for Nissan; service addresses confirmed. See Unified Patents portal.
• Bios: R. Spencer Montei, Foley & Lardner (automotive/ITC focus; E.D. Tex. admission).

Caveats

• I could not retrieve a standalone CM/ECF "Notice of Attorney Appearance" for Agarwal, Fernandez, or Montei in either 2:24-cv-00397 or the lead case 2:24-cv-00554 from the sources available; their counsel-of-record status is established via the court calendar listing, the joint filing signature block (Smith), and the PTAB designations (Agarwal/Fernandez). If you need the exact appearance docket numbers, that requires a direct PACER pull of the lead-case docket (post-Oct. 2024 entries are docketed there, not in the member case).
• The member-case docket on the free mirrors stops at Oct. 25, 2024, so later lead-case filings (including the Sept. 26, 2025 opinion granting Nissan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Dkt. 84) could not be confirmed from the docket itself; the ruling is reported by Fish & Richardson's Texas Round-Up.
• No in-house Nissan attorney (e.g., Nissan North America legal department) has appeared of record in the sources reviewed. Nothing here suggests sealed or ex parte filings affecting counsel identity — counsel listings were publicly available — but I have not verified whether any pro hac vice motions remain pending.