Litigation

Neo Wireless, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

pending

2:22-cv-11403-TGB

Patents at issue (1)

10965512

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Neo Wireless sued American Honda Motor Co. and others in S.D. Ohio (2:22-cv-01824); the case was transferred into MDL 3034 as 2:22-cv-11403-TGB. It remained pending in the MDL, with the '512 patent asserted.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me gather more on the '512 patent specifics, the IPR outcomes, and the current posture.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania, and a textbook non-practicing entity (NPE)/patent-monetization vehicle. It does not make or sell any product. Neo acquired its asserted portfolio in November 2019 from Neocific IP (records show the patents moving from Neocific, Inc. → CFIP NCF LLC → Neo Wireless LLC in late 2019/early 2020), and the campaign is widely reported to be financed by Fortress Investment Group (a SoftBank-affiliated asset manager); Unified Patents and RPX both describe Neo as a "Fortress-backed"/"SoftBank entity." The inventions trace to Neocific founders Dr. Xiaodong (Alex) Li and Dr. Titus Lo (plus Kemin Li and Haiming Huang), who began filing OFDMA-based wireless patents in the 2004–2005 timeframe after prior work on WiMAX. Neo's co-CEOs are David Loo and William Marino; its litigation counsel is Caldwell Cassady & Curry (Dallas), with Latham & Watkins and Fish & Richardson also appearing in the MDL. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. , and affiliate Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, are the operating automaker entities (Honda is the accused infringer/end-product manufacturer, not an NPE).

Accused technology and asserted patent. This case is one of nine consolidated automaker suits in MDL No. 3034, in which Neo alleges that Honda vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular connectivity (telematics features such as remote lock/unlock, remote start, parked-vehicle location, Wi-Fi hotspot, and automatic collision notification) infringe by implementing the 3GPP LTE and 5G-NR standards. The theory is standards-compliance = infringement ("the Asserted Patents read onto portions of the 4G/LTE or 5G/NR standards… each defendant… must practice one or more claims"). Per the case metadata, the patent at issue in this Honda action is U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 ("Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and Common Pilot Subcarriers in Multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication Networks"), issued March 30, 2021 from Application No. 17/012,813 (filed Sept. 4, 2020). In one line: the '512 patent claims a multi-carrier/multi-cell OFDMA system that transmits two classes of pilot signals — "cell-specific" pilots (e.g., for channel estimation) and "common" pilots (e.g., for frequency synchronization) — so a receiver can perform different functions despite inter-cell interference. Neo's complaint charts at least claim 15 and ties infringement to LTE reference-signal schemes such as Transmission Mode 7 UE-specific reference signals. (More broadly, the MDL asserts six patents — the '366, '908, '941, '450, '512, and '302 patents — of which the '512 is the one named in the Honda case caption metadata.)

Procedural posture and why venue matters. Neo originally filed against Honda in the S.D. Ohio (No. 2:22-cv-01824, filed March 29, 2022, assigned to Judge Edmund Sargus with Magistrate Judge Kimberly Jolson). The JPML centralized the automaker suits into MDL No. 3034, and by transfer order dated June 23, 2022 moved them to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division (Detroit), before Judge Terrence G. Berg, as Case No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB. Venue is significant for several reasons: Neo had pushed to centralize in the Eastern District of Texas (a favored plaintiff forum), but the JPML rejected that and chose Detroit because two defendants are headquartered there and most others have a "substantial presence," providing convenience and a single judge to construe the patents consistently across nine cases; the JPML also rejected defendants' "forum shopping" accusations against Neo. Judge Berg has actively managed the MDL: a Markman hearing on June 21, 2023, a Claim Construction Order on Nov. 20, 2023 (ECF No. 198) construing 14 terms and holding "low peak-to-average power ratio in the time domain" indefinite in the '366 patent, denial of reconsideration (ECF No. 218), and denial of defendants' motion to stay pending IPR (2024), with the court calling IPR stays "extremely disruptive." Defendants filed summary-judgment motions in mid-2024 (Honda/Ford) on non-infringement, no pre-suit damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) (failure to mark), and no willfulness. The case remains pending; several co-defendants (including Mercedes-Benz) have settled with with-prejudice dismissals, and Neo has continued to litigate against the remaining automakers.

Why the case is notable. First, it is a high-profile example of NPE assertion against the connected-vehicle/telematics market — Neo's second-wave campaign after earlier handset suits against Apple, Dell, LG, and Verizon, reportedly validating its portfolio via ~$65M in handset licensing. Second, it illustrates aggressive IPR linkage and parallel PTAB/invalidity strategy: Volkswagen, Honda, Ford, GM, Nissan, Tesla, and MBUSA filed numerous IPRs and ex parte reexaminations against the same six patents (e.g., VW's IPR2022-01539 on the '512 was instituted; Honda filed/joined IPRs on the '512 such as IPR2023-00764 and the joined IPR2023-00961), and defendants moved to stay the MDL pending those proceedings — a motion Judge Berg denied. Third, it has international spillover: Neo (through Neo Wireless GmbH) litigated related European patents, and a UPC Court of Appeal ruling (June 2024) held Neo's opt-out invalid for failure to obtain consent from all national-part proprietors. Because the patents are alleged to be standard-essential-adjacent to LTE/5G-NR, the outcome could shape FRAND/marking and standards-compliance exposure for automakers and Tier-1 suppliers. Sourcing caveat: the specific final outcomes of the '512-related IPRs and the precise current trial date are not fully confirmed in the sources reviewed, and the JPML/venue specifics, claim-construction findings, and stay denial are drawn from the MDL docket (ECF Nos. 98, 114, 149, 186, 198, 218) and the JPML transfer order; some date details (e.g., the "May 4, 2023" IPR deadline line in one filing) appear internally inconsistent and should be verified against PACER/PTAB before being relied on.

Key source URLs:

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, court opinions, PTAB records, and legal press.

Good detail emerging. Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings on the '512 patent and the district court's claim construction and dispositive rulings.

Important lead: the '512 IPR terminated by settlement in Feb 2024. Let me trace what happened to the '512 claims in the district court and the overall MDL trajectory.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research counsel of record for Neo Wireless in this MDL case using multiple targeted searches.

Good initial leads. Let me verify the plaintiff's counsel roster and check for any changes over time.

Now let me verify the local counsel and any pro hac vice appearances specific to the Honda case, plus check for recent counsel changes.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC

Important caveat up front: I could not open PACER directly in this session, so the roster below is reconstructed from (a) docket sheets reproduced as exhibits in the parallel IPR filings, (b) the MDL filings republished on Docket Alarm/CourtListener, (c) the November 27, 2023 MDL status-conference transcript, and (d) firm/Chambers/Law360 profiles. Because 2:22-cv-11403-TGB is pretrial-consolidated into In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB (E.D. Mich.), the operative appearances are on the MDL docket. There may be additional Caldwell Cassady associates or pro hac vice entrants on the full PACER docket that I could not confirm; no in-house counsel appears of record (Neo Wireless is an NPE; its corporate parent is CFIP NCF Holdings LLC).

Lead / trial counsel — Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. (Dallas, TX)

Attorney Role Firm & office Note
Jason D. Cassady (Tex. Bar No. 24045625; jcassady@caldwellcc.com) Lead counsel — MDL plaintiff's lead; argued the JPML §1407 motion Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., 2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75201; (214) 888-4848 Filed the E.D. Mich. Notice of Appearance for Neo Wireless on July 15, 2022 (MDL ECF No. 26); presented Neo's JPML oral argument seeking E.D. Tex. centralization (Law360, May 26, 2022). Chambers USA describes him as lead trial counsel for Neo Wireless in the consolidated automaker litigation; wireless/telecom patent focus.
Christopher S. Stewart (Tex. Bar No. 24079399; cstewart@caldwellcc.com) Lead counsel (co-lead with Cassady) Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C., Dallas, TX Entered appearance for Neo Wireless in the MDL/constituent cases (e.g., ECF No. 5, 2:22-cv-11402, July 20, 2022); appeared for Neo at the Nov. 27, 2023 MDL status conference ("Chris Stewart for NEO Wireless… my colleague Jason Cassady"). Longtime Neo Wireless counsel, incl. the earlier W.D. Tex. Dell and Apple actions.

Local counsel (Michigan) — Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, PC

Attorney Role Firm & office Note
Jaye Quadrozzi (Mich. Bar No. P71646; quadrozzi@youngpc.com) Local counsel (E.D. Mich.) Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, PC (a/k/a Young & Associates), 2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125, Farmington Hills, MI 48334; (248) 353-8620 Entered appearance for Neo Wireless on Aug. 31, 2022 (MDL ECF No. 16); sits at counsel table for Neo per the Nov. 27, 2023 transcript. Michigan general/complex-litigation practitioner (admitted MI 2008; also IL/CA); served as Neo's Michigan-local counsel across the MDL constituent cases.

Other attorneys publicly tied to Neo's representation (flag as not fully confirmed on the 11403 docket)

  • Alexander A. Waldrop and Bailey A. Blaies — Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas; signed Neo's claim-construction/pleading papers in the pre-transfer Texas actions (e.g., Neo Wireless v. Dell, No. 6:21-cv-0024 (W.D. Tex.)) and appear on the docket sheets for the Toyota/GM/Tesla case (No. 2:22-cv-00093, E.D. Tex., now 2:22-cv-11406-TGB). Their appearances in 2:22-cv-11403 specifically are not confirmed.
  • Xu Zhou — associate, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas; in his Aug. 24, 2023 PTAB pro hac vice declaration he states he "is also representing Neo Wireless LLC in district court proceedings" on the asserted patents (including the '512 patent at issue against Honda). Confirms firm involvement, though I could not confirm a district-court appearance in the Honda case itself.
  • Ward, Smith & Hill (E.D. Tex.) attorneys — Johnny Ward, Jr., Hamad M. Hamad, Daniel R. Pearson, Claire Abernathy Henry — appeared for Neo in the Texas-filed companion case (Toyota/GM/Tesla), not in the Ohio-filed Honda case. Listed here only so they are not mistaken for Honda-case counsel.

Pre-transfer Ohio appearances (S.D. Ohio, No. 2:22-cv-01824)

The S.D. Ohio docket reflects pro hac vice admission of Jason D. Cassady (notation order, Apr. 6, 2022) and of Honda's counsel John T. Johnson; sources I could locate list only Stewart and Cassady as plaintiff's attorneys on the Ohio-side docket. I did not find a documented Ohio-local counsel for Neo before transfer — Neo apparently relied on Caldwell Cassady with pro hac vice admission, and local Michigan counsel (Quadrozzi) appeared only after the MDL transfer.

Separate PTAB representation (distinct from district-court counsel of record)

Neo Wireless's Patent Owner counsel in the ~20 IPRs filed by Honda, Ford, VW, GM, Nissan and Tesla is Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (1016 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA): Kenneth Weatherwax (Reg. No. 54,528, lead), Nathan Lowenstein (backup), and (per the updated power of attorney filed in IPR2023-00426) Xu Zhou. Correspondence: NeoWireless_IPRs@lowensteinweathervax.com. This is a PTAB team, not counsel of record in 2:22-cv-11403 — but note Honda's IPR2023-00961 (with GM, Nissan and Tesla) attacks the '512 patent asserted against Honda, and IPR2023-00791 (Honda v. Neo, FWD Nov. 1, 2024) is now on appeal, so the two teams are cooperating in parallel.

Bottom line

For the Honda case (2:22-cv-11403-TGB), plaintiff Neo Wireless's counsel of record is: Jason D. Cassady and Christopher S. Stewart of Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. (Dallas) as lead counsel, with Jaye Quadrozzi of Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, PC (Farmington Hills, MI) as Michigan local counsel. If you need the exhaustive PACER appearance list (including any 2024–2026 substitutions), a direct PACER pull of the MDL docket (2:22-md-03034-TGB) and of No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB is the appropriate next step — I could not verify whether any additional attorneys have since entered or withdrawn, and I found no sealed appearance records.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Good initial data. Let me verify current counsel, check for any changes, and research the attorneys' backgrounds.

Bottom line

In the member case Neo Wireless, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB (E.D. Mich.), the defendants are American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM") and Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC ("HDMA"). Both are represented by a single combined team: Fish & Richardson P.C. (national/IP lead trial counsel, New York and Washington, D.C.), Bowman and Brooke LLP (Michigan local counsel), and Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (Columbus, Ohio — carried over from the original S.D. Ohio filing).

One important correction to a search-result snippet that circulates widely: the Bush Seyferth PLLC / Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox team that appears adjacent to the "American Honda" caption in some MDL filings is Volkswagen's counsel, not Honda's. The caption in the January 18, 2023 Joint Claim Construction Statement (MDL Dkt. 114) is split across pages, which makes that mis-attribution easy to make.

Counsel of record for Honda (district court)

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes on patent-litigation experience
John T. Johnson Lead trial counsel (docket sheet flags him "LEAD ATTORNEY — ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED"; Reg. No. 37,363) Fish & Richardson P.C., 7 Times Square, 20th Floor, New York, NY Fish principal; Honda's lead/backup counsel in the parallel IPRs, including IPR2023-00791 (American Honda Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless, '941 patent). Admitted pro hac vice in S.D. Ohio June 8, 2022 (Jolson notation order). Entered appearance for Honda as appellee in Fed. Cir. No. 25-1334 on Feb. 7, 2025.
Ruffin B. Cordell Co-lead / trial counsel (listed "attorney to be noticed") Fish & Richardson P.C., 1425 K Street NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. Longtime Fish trial principal; co-lead for Marvell Semiconductor's take-nothing jury verdict in Lake Cherokee HDD Techs. v. Marvell (E.D. Tex. 2013); Ciena v. Corvis (D. Del.); heavy ITC § 337 practice; Chambers-recognized for SEP/high-value patent disputes. Appeared at the MDL status conference on Nov. 27, 2023.
Benjamin J. Christoff Trial team (listed "attorney to be noticed") Fish & Richardson P.C., 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. Signed Honda's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the willful/induced-infringement claims (Aug. 10, 2022) and appeared at the Nov. 27, 2023 status conference.
Thomas P. Branigan (Mich. Bar P41774) Local counsel — the attorney who actually filed Honda's case-specific papers Bowman and Brooke LLP, 41000 Woodward Ave., Suite 200 East, Bloomfield Hills, MI Signed Dkt. 6 in 2:22-cv-11403, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims of Willful and Induced Patent Infringement (Aug. 10, 2022), and Honda's signature block on the Jan. 18, 2023 Joint Claim Construction Statement (MDL Dkt. 114). Bowman and Brooke is an automotive-products defense firm whose Detroit-area office anchors Honda's local presence in this MDL.
Matin Fallahi Local/defense team Bowman and Brooke LLP, Bloomfield Hills, MI Appears on the MDL docket as Honda/HDMA counsel ("attorney to be noticed").
James A. Wilson Listed on the MDL docket sheet as LEAD ATTORNEY for both AHM and HDMA Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, 52 East Gay St., P.O. Box 1008, Columbus, OH Honda's Ohio counsel of record in the originating action, Neo Wireless, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01824 (S.D. Ohio). His "lead attorney" designation reflects the pre-transfer Ohio appearance; I could not confirm from available sources that he has continued to file in the transferred MDL case.

Additional Fish & Richardson attorneys appearing for Honda

  • Jeffrey C. Mok (Fish, New York, NY; NY Bar #5106059) — signed, with Johnson, the Jan. 22, 2024 joint motion to dismiss U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (MDL Dkt. 219); also entered appearance for Honda in the Federal Circuit appeal (25-1334).
  • Timothy W. Riffe (Reg. No. 43,881; Fish PTAB/post-grant practice) — entered appearance for Honda as appellee in Fed. Cir. No. 25-1334 (Feb. 7, 2025).
  • Thomas A. Rozylowicz (Fish, Minneapolis, MN; Reg. No. 50,620) — Honda's lead counsel before the PTAB in IPR2023-00791 and the related Honda IPRs (IPR2023-00790, -00791, -00793, -00794, -00797), with Won S. Yoon as backup. These are the IPR counterparts to this litigation, not district-court appearances.

No in-house Honda counsel is identified in any public filing I located for this case.

Sourcing and caveats

  • Primary source for the district-court appearance list: the E.D. Mich. MDL docket sheet for In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, 2:22-md-03034-TGB, as reproduced in a filing of record — see the docket-sheet exhibit filed in IPR2023-00779 (Ex. 1033, Oct. 19, 2022), which lists Honda's counsel with the "LEAD ATTORNEY"/"ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" designations quoted above.
  • Corroborating filings: MDL Dkt. 50 (Honda & Nissan motion to dismiss, Aug. 10, 2022, signed by Johnson, Cordell, Christoff, Branigan); MDL Dkt. 114 (Joint Claim Construction Statement, Jan. 18, 2023 — Honda block: Johnson/Cordell/Christoff + Branigan); MDL Dkt. 219 (Jan. 22, 2024 — Johnson and Mok); MDL Dkt. 257-13 (Nov. 27, 2023 status-conference transcript: "For Honda: John T. Johnson … Ruffin B. Cordell … Benjamin Christoff," with Johnson introducing "our local counsel Tom [Branigan]").
  • Federal Circuit: Neo Wireless LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25-1334 (Fed. Cir.), Dkt. 25 (Feb. 7, 2025) — entry of appearance for appellee American Honda by John T. Johnson, Jeffrey Mok, and Timothy W. Riffe.
  • Limitation: I was not able to pull a live 2026 PACER docket for 2:22-cv-11403-TGB during this session. The most recent confirmed Honda appearance I can date is February 7, 2025 (Federal Circuit), and the most recent district-court filing I can date is January 22, 2024 (MDL Dkt. 219). The case metadata states it remains pending, but I cannot rule out a substitution, withdrawal, or addition of counsel in 2025–2026 that is not reflected in the sources above. Anything asserted here as "current" should be verified against the live PACER docket for both 2:22-cv-11403-TGB and the 2:22-md-03034 master docket.
  • No sealed counsel-related filings were identified; all the appearances above are on the public docket.