Mimzi, LLC v. Subaru Corporation

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a multi-front litigation campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against major players in the automotive industry. The plaintiff, Mimzi, LLC, is a patent assertion entity that holds and enforces patents but does not produce goods or services. The defendant, Subaru Corporation, is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer known for its line of Subaru vehicles. The lawsuit targets Subaru's in-vehicle infotainment and telematics systems, particularly the Subaru STARLINK platform. These systems are accused of infringing Mimzi's patent by providing features such as voice command, smartphone integration for hands-free calls, and other audio processing functions.

The case centers on a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361, titled "Photographic memory." The technology described in the patent generally relates to using a device to record audio from conversations or dictation and storing the associated data in a searchable repository. Filed on June 4, 2025, the lawsuit is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been and remains a favored jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, due to its experienced judiciary and case management procedures that can lead to quicker trial timelines. The case has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent judges in the country.

This case is notable primarily as part of a large-scale assertion campaign launched by Mimzi on the same day against at least six carmakers, including Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan. The litigation is further complicated by a parallel challenge to the patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On October 29, 2025, the patent defense organization Unified Patents filed for an ex parte reexamination of the '361 patent. The USPTO granted the request on December 4, 2025, having found "substantial new questions of patentability," creating a significant risk that the patent's claims could be invalidated or narrowed during the course of the district court litigation. Several of Mimzi's other parallel cases, including those against Hyundai and Nissan, were dismissed by early 2026, indicating potential settlements.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 9, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Mimzi, LLC and Subaru Corporation remains active, though its trajectory has been significantly influenced by parallel proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and settlements in related cases.

Here is a chronological summary of key developments:

2025

• 2025-06-04: Complaint Filed. Mimzi, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Subaru Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleges that certain Subaru vehicles equipped with voice and data recording functionalities infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361, titled "Photographic memory."
• 2025-06-04: Broader Litigation Campaign Initiated. On the same day, Mimzi, LLC filed nearly identical lawsuits in the same court against several other major automobile manufacturers, including Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Ford, asserting the same patent. This indicates a large-scale assertion campaign targeting connected-car features.
• 2025-10-29: Patent Validity Challenged at the USPTO. Unified Patents, a firm that challenges patents asserted by NPEs, filed a request for an ex parte reexamination of the '361 patent with the USPTO. The challenge sought to invalidate the patent claims based on prior art. The '361 patent relates to using a phone to record communications and store associated data in a searchable repository.
• 2025-12-04: USPTO Grants Reexamination Request. The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the USPTO granted the request filed by Unified Patents, determining that "substantial new questions of patentability" exist regarding the claims of the '361 patent. This decision placed the validity of the patent-in-suit under significant doubt and created a major strategic development impacting all of Mimzi's pending lawsuits.

2026

• 2026-01-08: Settlement and Dismissal in Parallel Case. Mimzi, LLC filed for a voluntary dismissal of its case against Hyundai Motor Company (2:25-cv-00599), which Judge Gilstrap granted. This dismissal suggests the parties reached a settlement.
• 2026-02-18: Second Settlement and Dismissal. Following a stipulation of dismissal, the court terminated the case against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2:25-cv-00601). This second dismissal in a parallel case furthered the pattern of Mimzi settling with defendants, likely influenced by the ongoing reexamination.

Present Posture and Outlook

As of the current date, May 9, 2026, the docket for Mimzi, LLC v. Subaru Corporation indicates the case remains active. However, no substantive rulings on motions to dismiss, claim construction, or summary judgment have been identified in public records.

The primary factor governing the current state of this litigation is the pending ex parte reexamination of the '361 patent. With the USPTO having found substantial questions of patentability, a stay of the district court proceedings is a common outcome. The parties may have agreed to a private stay to await the conclusion of the reexamination, or Subaru may be preparing a formal motion to stay.

Given Mimzi's demonstrated willingness to settle with other automakers after the reexamination was instituted, the most probable outcomes for the Subaru case are:

1. A settlement and subsequent dismissal, consistent with the Hyundai and Nissan cases.
2. A court-ordered or stipulated stay of the litigation pending the final outcome of the USPTO's reexamination of the '361 patent.

There is no public record of a trial date being set, a verdict, or a final judgment in this matter. The focus remains on the parallel USPTO proceedings, which will likely determine the ultimate resolution of this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in Mimzi v. Subaru

Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas identify attorneys from the boutique intellectual property firm Kent & Risley LLC as counsel for the plaintiff, Mimzi, LLC, in its patent infringement lawsuit against Subaru Corporation.

The legal team is led by partners Daniel A. Kent and Cortney S. Alexander, both based in the firm's Alpharetta, Georgia office.

---

Daniel A. Kent

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Kent & Risley LLC (Founding Partner), Alpharetta, GA.
• Note: Kent has over 34 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously been a partner at Jones Day and a founding partner of Fish & Richardson's Atlanta office. He is a seasoned trial lawyer with a national practice focused on patent, trademark, and copyright cases and has been recognized as a "Georgia Super Lawyer" in intellectual property litigation.

Cortney S. Alexander

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Kent & Risley LLC (Partner), Alpharetta, GA.
• Note: With nearly two decades of experience, Alexander focuses on patent enforcement litigation and has served as lead counsel in over 120 patent infringement cases across the country. Before joining Kent & Risley in 2017, he was a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner.

The Alpharetta-based firm Kent & Risley LLC specializes in intellectual property and complex civil litigation. The firm's attorneys have a track record of representing clients in high-stakes patent disputes, including extensive practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

As of May 9, 2026, court records identify the following counsel for defendant Subaru Corporation in the patent infringement lawsuit Mimzi, LLC v. Subaru Corporation (2:25-cv-00602) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Defense Counsel for Subaru Corporation

Based on notices of appearance filed in the docket, the legal team for Subaru is composed of attorneys from the national firm DLA Piper LLP and the Texas-based firm Findlay Craft, P.C., which frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Paul Richard Steadman

  • Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Note: Mr. Steadman is a veteran patent litigator known for representing major technology and automotive companies in high-stakes intellectual property disputes across the country.

• Name: Eric Hugh Findlay

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX
  • Note: Findlay is a seasoned trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas and frequently acts as local counsel for out-of-state defendants in patent infringement cases.

• Name: Stuart Hene

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX
  • Note: Mr. Hene is an attorney at Findlay Craft, P.C., a firm with deep experience serving as local counsel in the patent-heavy Eastern District of Texas.