Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the parties, the patent, and the MDL context.

Let me dig deeper into Neo Wireless's background, the '512 patent specifics, and the case's current posture.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key events.

I have good initial data on the MDL. Let me dig into the key rulings and current posture.

Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2:22-cv-11405-TGB) — Litigation Timeline & Outcome

Important framing note: The Nissan action is one of nine cases consolidated into In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3034, 2:22-md-03034-TGB (E.D. Mich.), before Judge Terrence G. Berg. Almost all substantive rulings are issued MDL-wide ("this Memorandum Opinion and Order relates to all cases"), so the developments below are MDL-wide unless flagged as Nissan-specific. Also note: although the case metadata lists only U.S. Pat. No. 10,965,512, the complaint and amended complaint actually asserted six patents — the '512, along with U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,467,366 ('366); 10,075,941 ('941); 10,447,450 ('450); 10,771,302 ('302); and 10,833,908 ('908).

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

⚠️ Gap: I could not confirm from the available record whether the August 2022 Rule 12(b)(6) motion was ever ruled on, or how (whether the willfulness/induced-infringement claims survived). Defendants continued to litigate willfulness (they later moved for SJ of "no willful infringement" in 2024), which implies the claims were not dismissed outright — but I cannot cite a specific order.

Answer/counterclaims: Defendants in the consolidated MDL (including Nissan) filed answers and invalidity/unenforceability counterclaims. The counterclaims were later expressly dismissed patent-by-patent as settlements occurred (e.g., the '512 stipulation in Jan. 2024). I could not retrieve the individual Nissan answer/counterclaim docket entry via the searches run.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Claim narrowing (early 2023). The court entered an order (MDL Dkt. 102) directing the parties to reduce asserted prior-art references/products to an average of four per patent (max 24), and Neo to cut asserted claims to 18. Separately, the court entered an order "regarding claim narrowing" (MDL Dkt. 99, cited in Neo's claim construction brief), warning that only genuinely disputed terms should be presented.

Motion to stay pending IPR — FILED May 2023, DENIED 2024-02.

• Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review in May 2023 (MDL Dkt. 145).
• On 2024-02-20, Judge Berg denied the stay (see In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litig., No. 2:22-md-03034 (E.D. Mich.), opinion discussed in VitalLaw/Law360 coverage; Law360, "Neo Wireless MDL Won't Pause For Patent Reviews," 2024-02-21). Applying the three-factor stay test, the court held: (1) the case was past an "efficient stopping point" — claim construction was complete and fact discovery near complete; (2) a stay would unduly prejudice Neo and merely delay remand to the originating courts; and (3) defendants had not carried their burden.
• This is the single most consequential pretrial ruling for Nissan's case: it kept the MDL on track notwithstanding the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Motion to strike untimely invalidity elections ("Project Angel") — GRANTED (spring 2024). Neo moved to strike Defendants' new "Project Angel" prior-art theory as untimely (MDL Dkt. 209). Judge Berg granted the motion (In re Neo Wireless Patent Litig., 2:22-md-03034 (E.D. Mich.), Opinion & Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Untimely Prior Art Elections, casemine 662dd0f2). The opinion recounts the chronology (Project Angel identified but not charted in 2022 initial contentions; AT&T subpoena served 2023-03-08; Neo's waiver letter 2023-03-01). This ruling narrowed the automakers' invalidity case and is central to the later inequitable-conduct fight over the same "Project Angel" reference.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment — FILED June 2024. All defendants (Ford, Honda, Nissan, Tesla, FCA, Toyota, GM) moved for SJ on three grounds (MDL Dkt. 215-adjacent; MSJ brief filed 2024-06):

1. No infringement of the '941, '450, '302, and '908 patents (including the "DSSS" limitation dispute for the '302/'908 and the "assigned by" limitation of the '908);
2. No pre-suit damages for failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a);
3. No willful infringement.

• ⚠️ Gap: I could not confirm a ruling on this MSJ. Law360's MDL docket coverage in early 2025 (e.g., the 2025-03-04 hearing on the inequitable-conduct/"Project Angel" misconduct defense) suggests the case remained active and unresolved into 2025, but I found no published decision granting or denying the MSJ.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2023-01-18: Joint Claim Construction Statement filed (MDL Dkt. 114).
• 2023-06-21: Markman hearing held on all six asserted patents.
• 2023-11-20: Claim Construction Memorandum and Order entered (MDL Dkt. 198), construing fourteen terms/phrases across the six patents.
  • Key adverse ruling for Neo: the court held "the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in the time domain" (claims 1 and 17 of the '366 patent) indefinite under Nautilus v. Biosig, finding neither intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence supplied objective boundaries for the term of degree (MDL Dkt. 198, PageID.11570–79).
  • Volkswagen stipulated (Jan. 2023, MDL/PTAB record) that it would be bound by Judge Berg's constructions in the MDL and would not challenge

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

I'm getting a picture, but I need to pin down which firms specifically appear for Neo Wireless in the Nissan case versus the broader MDL. Let me dig deeper.

I have a good foundation. Let me verify the specific docket for the Nissan case and check on Hogan Lovells and T. John Ward's roles.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC — Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11405-TGB (E.D. Mich.)

Important scoping note: This case was filed as Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America Inc. et al., No. 3:22-cv-00220 (M.D. Tenn.), then transferred into MDL No. 3034, In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation, 2:22-md-03034-TGB (E.D. Mich.), where it was re-docketed as 2:22-cv-11405-TGB. Plaintiff's appearances are therefore split between (a) the short Nissan-case docket itself, where only a couple of attorneys formally entered, and (b) the consolidated MDL docket, where the full Neo Wireless team appears and does the substantive work. Because filings after transfer are captioned in the MDL, the MDL docket is the authoritative place to find the full plaintiff team.

---

Core trial/lead team — Caldwell Cassady & Curry P.C. (Dallas, TX)

This Dallas IP boutique is Neo Wireless's lead trial counsel across the MDL. The firm's own case page states it "represents Neo Wireless in multidistrict litigation … before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan," and Chambers USA credits the firm as having "acted as lead trial counsel for Neo Wireless in the company's consolidated patent infringement lawsuit against several car manufacturers."
(https://caldwellcc.com/case/neo-wireless-mdl/; https://chambers.com/department/caldwell-cassady-curry-intellectual-property-usa-5:34:13235:1:22938925)

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

Now let me dig into the docket to determine current counsel of record and any substitutions.

Let me check the docket for appearances and any counsel substitutions, plus current status.

Counsel of Record — Defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. (a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC)

Important sourcing caveat up front: I was unable to pull the live PACER docket for 2:22-cv-11405-TGB directly in this session. The attributions below come from docket-aggregator snapshots (Docket Alarm, UniCourt, Patexia), briefs and exhibits filed in the MDL, a PTAB filing, a certified court transcript, and a Jenner & Block attorney profile. Where an attorney's current status is unclear, I flag it rather than guess. Nothing below is invented, but lead/local role designations are my characterization based on who signed and argued.

Defendants at issue

Two related Nissan entities: Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan NA") and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC ("NMAC"). Both are represented by the same defense team; the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 5, filed July 20, 2022) named both, and the Aug. 10, 2022 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) was filed on behalf of both. Note the asserted patent set in this member case was broader than the '512 patent alone — the Amended Complaint attached charts for the '366, '908, '941, '450, '512 and '302 patents.

Current / most recent trial counsel (Jenner & Block LLP)

Source for Hill/Brennan/Modi as Nissan's MDL team: transcript of the Nov. 27, 2023 status conference before Judge Berg, 2:22-md-03034 (Docket Alarm doc. 257/13), which lists "For Nissan: REGINALD J. HILL, PETER J. BRENNAN, PAARAS MODI, Jenner & Block, 353 N. Clark St, Chicago, IL 60654."

Fish & Richardson P.C. (national/first-chair counsel of record on the early Nissan filings)

Source: Nissan defendants' signature block reproduced in MDL filings (e.g., PTAB-submitted exhibit/brief copies of the Jan. 18, 2023 filing) listing "Counsel for Defendants NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC. AND NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION a/k/a NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC — /s/ John T. Johnson, Fish & Richardson P.C."

Local counsel (E.D. Mich.)

Source: MDL 2:22-md-03034 docket sheet (Docket Alarm copy used as a PTAB exhibit, Ex. 1033 in IPR2023-00079) listing Matin Fallahi and Thomas P. Branigan, Bowman & Brooke LLP, as Nissan counsel; and the joint Honda/Nissan motion at 2:22-cv-11405 (Dkt. 7) bearing Branigan's P-number and Bowman and Brooke letterhead.

PTAB-adjacent name check (not confirmed as district-court counsel of record here)

A USPTO "Updated Mandatory Notice" in a Neo Wireless-related proceeding lists, among service contacts, Timothy W. Riffe (Fish & Richardson), Usman A. Khan, Reginald J. Hill, and Nicole A. Keenan (Jenner & Block). Riffe, Hill and Keenan are plausibly part of the Nissan/Neo Wireless defense-and-IPR team, but I could not confirm from the documents retrieved that Riffe, Khan or Keenan entered appearances in 2:22-cv-11405 specifically. Treat those four as unverified for district-court counsel-of-record purposes.

What I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel (Nissan legal department) appears in any filing I retrieved. If Nissan has in-house attorneys involved, they are not on the public docket.
• I could not verify a formal substitution/withdrawal of Fish & Richardson in favor of Jenner & Block on the 2:22-cv-11405 docket. Both firms appear in the record at different times (Fish & Richardson on 2022–early-2023 MDL filings; Jenner & Block on the November 2023 status conference and the 2025 Federal Circuit appearance). In MDL practice, appearances are frequently entered on the master docket (2:22-md-03034) rather than the member-case docket, which is likely why a clean substitution entry for this member case is not visible in the sources I could reach.
• No sealed filings were identified as bearing on counsel identity; the uncertainty here is about docket completeness, not sealing.
• Live case status as of today (2026-10-14): the case is docketed as pending, and a Nissan Federal Circuit appearance was entered Oct. 30, 2025 in the consolidated appeal stemming from this MDL (Fed. Cir. No. 26-1062). I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether the Nissan member case has since been dismissed or settled.

Recommended verification steps

1. Pull the live docket for 2:22-cv-11405-TGB and 2:22-md-03034-TGB on PACER/ECF and filter for "Notice of Appearance," "Withdrawal of Attorney," and "Substitution of Counsel."
2. Confirm the current first-chair and any lead-counsel designation in the MDL's consolidated pretrial order or Nissan's most recent signature block.
3. Check Jenner & Block's and Fish & Richardson's case pages (and Bowman and Brooke's) for the firm-side confirmation of role.