Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Company

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, ownership, procedural history, and outcomes.

Let me pin down the key rulings, the PTAB outcomes, and the ownership structure.

Case Overview: Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Co., No. 2:22-cv-11407-TGB (E.D. Mich.)

The parties. Neo Wireless, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wayne, Pennsylvania (First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 32, ¶ 1). It is a non-practicing entity: it makes no products, sells no services, and does not practice the asserted technology. It acquired its portfolio from Neocific, Inc. (Neocific IP) — the transfer closed in November 2019, when Neo was still named CFIP NCF LLC — and it is routinely identified in trade press and by Unified Patents as a Fortress Investment Group (SoftBank Group) entity; IPWatchdog's Q2 2022 docket roundup tagged the auto cases as "Neo Wireless LLC [Softbank Group, Fortress IP]." The defendant here, General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (collectively "GM"), are the Detroit-headquartered OEM affiliates (principal place of business, 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit), represented in the MDL by Latham & Watkins LLP and Honigman LLP (Joint Claim Construction Statement, Jan. 18, 2023). Neo is represented by Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C. and Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, P.C.

Accused technology. Neo's theory is standard-implemented infringement: GM vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular connectivity — delivered largely through the OnStar telematics platform and compliant with 3GPP Releases 8–17 — are alleged to necessarily practice the asserted claims. The accused models identified in the complaint include the Blazer, Bolt, Equinox, Sierra, Cadillac XT5, and Encore, and the accused functionality spans in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, remote diagnostics, emergency/collision notification, stolen-vehicle tracking, remote lock/start, and the myGMC mobile app (Complaint as analyzed by third-party complaint-analysis sources; the MDL transfer order likewise lists remote lock/unlock, remote start, parked-vehicle location, fuel-level checks, roadside assistance, and Wi-Fi hotspot). The patent framing this particular case is U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 ("the '512 patent"), titled "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. In one line: it claims a multi-cell OFDMA system in which base stations transmit two classes of pilot subcarriers — "cell-specific" pilots used for cell-unique functions such as channel estimation, and "common" pilots shared across cells for system-wide functions such as frequency synchronization — so a receiver can perform different functions even amid neighbor-cell interference. Neo asserted at least claim 15, accusing LTE transmission mode 7 (UE-specific reference signals). For context, the '512 patent is one of six patents Neo asserted across the MDL — also the '366 (8,467,366), '908 (10,833,908), '941 (10,075,941), '450 (10,447,450), and '302 (10,771,302) patents — all in the OFDMA/LTE/5G family and all traced to common Neocific inventors and assignment history.

Procedural posture and venue. Neo originally filed against GM in the Eastern District of Texas on March 29, 2022 (No. 2:22-cv-00094). The JPML centralized seven actions from five districts into MDL No. 3034 on June 23, 2022 (In re Neo Wireless, LLC, Patent Litig.), and — over Neo's request for E.D. Tex. and over the opposition of VW, Nissan, Honda, and Ford — selected the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, before Judge Terrence G. Berg, reasoning that two defendants are headquartered in Detroit, most others have a substantial presence there, and a single judge could construe the patents consistently (J.P.M.L. Transfer Order, MDL No. 3034). GM's case entered the MDL as 2:22-cv-11407-TGB (docketed June 28, 2022). Venue mattered enormously here: E.D. Mich. is a materially less plaintiff-friendly patent venue than Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. or E.D. Tex., and Judge Berg has proven skeptical of IPR-based stays — after the Volkswagen-led IPR filings, he denied the defendants' joint motion to stay, calling stays "extremely disruptive" and faulting the defendants' "staging of IPRs and reexamination requests" as a tactical-delay mechanism (Opinion & Order, Feb. 21, 2024; see ECF No. 198 Markman opinion, Nov. 20, 2023, construing 14 terms).

Why the case is notable. Three things stand out. (1) Industry impact / market context: this is a coordinated NPE campaign against the connected-vehicle ecosystem — Neo's earlier wave targeted Apple, Dell, and LG in W.D. Tex. in 2021, then pivoted to automakers (Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Tesla, Toyota, VW in March 2022; Mercedes-Benz and FCA/Stellantis that July), asserting patents said to read directly onto the LTE/4G and 5G/NR standards by virtue of 3GPP compliance. (2) IPR linkage: the MDL generated a dense PTAB and reexam docket. VW filed IPR2022-01537 ('941, instituted), -01538 ('302, denied), and -01539 ('512, instituted May 2, 2023); Mercedes filed IPR2023-00079 ('512); GM filed IPR2023-00962/-00963/-00964; Ford and Honda filed follow-on petitions (e.g., IPR2023-00763/-00765/-00794, IPR2023-00790). The follow-on disputes produced a Director-review decision (then-Director Kathi Vidal, March 22, 2024) holding that the Board erred in finding a "significant relationship" among MDL co-defendants merely from court-ordered pretrial coordination — a ruling with broad implications for how defendants in an MDL may file separate IPRs without triggering General Plastic discretionary denials. Unified Patents separately pursued ex parte reexamination (e.g., of Neo's '488 patent, granted March 14, 2024), and parallel German/UPC proceedings are ongoing (Toyota's UPC revocation action; the UPC Court of Appeal's June 2024 ruling invalidating Neo's opt-out of EP 3 876 490). (3) Resolution: the litigation has largely settled out — Mercedes-Benz settled June 6, 2023, another defendant on Jan. 11, 2024, and VW on Dec. 18, 2023 — and on July 24, 2026 the court granted the parties' joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims between Neo and GM with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs (ECF No. 332). The case metadata supplied to me still lists the matter as "pending," but the docket reflects that GM was dismissed in July 2026.

Sourcing caveats. The party descriptions, patent mapping, and the GM dismissal order are well grounded in the complaint (ECF No. 32), the JPML transfer order, the MDL docket (ECF Nos. 148, 186, 198, 215, 283, 332), and the Bloomberg Law docket excerpt. The Fortress/SoftBank ownership characterization rests on RPX and Unified Patents reporting plus IPWatchdog's roundup rather than on a court finding. I was unable to verify the disposition of the defendants' June 2024 summary-judgment motion (non-infringement of the '941, '450, '302, '908 patents; no pre-suit damages under § 287(a); no willfulness) and cannot state with confidence whether the court ruled on it before the settlements; similarly, I could not confirm the specific outcome of the 2023–2025 IPRs directed at the '512 patent itself (as opposed to the Sept. 4, 2025 Law360 report that the PTAB found Ford, GM, and Nissan had not proven claims of "a Neo Wireless patent" invalid). Those points should be verified against PACER/PTAB before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically across multiple sources.

Substantial findings already. Let me dig into claim construction, the summary judgment ruling, settlements, and the PTAB proceedings.

Key Legal Developments — Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Co., No. 2:22-cv-11407-TGB (E.D. Mich.) / MDL No. 3034

Note up front: This case is a constituent action within In re Neo Wireless, LLC, Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3034 (E.D. Mich.) (Judge Terrence G. Berg). Most substantive rulings, claim construction, discovery orders, and PTAB activity occurred on the MDL docket (2:22-md-03034-TGB) and apply across all eight automaker cases, not on the GM-specific docket alone. I flag below where I could not independently verify a specific ECF number or date.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

Patents asserted (six across the MDL): U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,467,366 ('366); 10,075,941 ('941); 10,447,450 ('450); 10,771,302 ('302); 10,833,908 ('908); and 10,965,512 ('512) — the '512 is the patent designated as at issue in this GM action in the case metadata. Against GM, Neo's first amended complaint asserted at least the '450 (claim 7), '512 (claim 15), and '302 (claim 23), with the '512 theory keyed to Transmission Mode 7 / UE-specific reference signals.

---

2. Early Case Management & Claim-Narrowing

• 2022-11-28 — Status conference. The Court asked the parties to submit periodic status updates on PTAB post-grant proceedings (this drove a series of notices: ECF 186, 194, 197, etc.).
• 2022-12-09 — ECF No. 102: The Court ordered Defendants to cut asserted prior art to an average of four references per patent (≤24 total), two weeks after Neo reduced asserted claims to 18. This order later became the fulcrum of the "Project Angel" waiver fight.
• 2023-01-18 — **ECF No.

I'll research the counsel of record for Neo Wireless in this MDL case.

Let me dig deeper into the specific docket and counsel appearances.

Let me get the actual docket sheet and attorney listings for the specific case number.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC

Neo Wireless, LLC v. General Motors Company (and General Motors LLC), No. 2:22-cv-11407-TGB (E.D. Mich.) — MDL No. 3034

Sourcing caveat up front: I could not query PACER directly. The roster below is reconstructed from docket-aggregator attorney listings (UniCourt's mirror of the E.D. Mich. docket for 2:22-cv-11407), MDL filings and hearing transcripts available via Docket Alarm, USPTO PTAB papers, and the Federal Circuit docket for the related appeal. Individual pro hac vice orders and any post-dismissal withdrawals are not verifiable from these sources.

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

Local counsel — Michigan

PTAB and appellate counsel — Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (Santa Monica, CA)

I'll research GM's defense counsel across the docket, firm announcements, and PTAB filings.

Now let me pin down which firms actually represent GM specifically (as opposed to the MDL-wide liaison counsel for other defendants).

Good progress — Honigman is confirmed as GM's counsel. Now let me determine GM's national/lead counsel via the PTAB petitions GM filed.

Let me nail down whether Latham represents GM or Ford, and identify GM's non-local trial counsel.