Orthosie Systems, LLC v. LoJack Corporation

Case Overview and Background

This litigation represents a typical fact pattern in the vehicle telematics industry, where a patent assertion entity (PAE) targets an established operating company. The plaintiff, Orthosie Systems, LLC, is a Texas-based non-practicing entity (NPE) that has engaged in multiple litigation campaigns asserting the same patent against various companies. These entities, sometimes referred to as "patent trolls," generate revenue by licensing and litigating patents rather than producing goods or services. The defendant, LoJack Corporation, is a well-known operating company famous for its stolen vehicle recovery systems, which combine GPS, cellular, and radio frequency (RF) technologies to locate and recover vehicles. LoJack's products are sold to consumers and car dealerships and are integrated with law enforcement to facilitate recovery.

The dispute centers on LoJack's vehicle tracking and recovery products, including its Stolen Vehicle Recovery System and connected-car services. Orthosie Systems alleged that these products infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,430,471, entitled "Method and system for monitoring a vehicle." The '471 patent generally describes a system that detects vehicle movement, determines if an authorized operator is present within a specific time frame, and, if not, sets an alarm condition and transmits the vehicle's location coordinates. The technology described in the patent aligns with features commonly found in modern fleet management and vehicle security systems, which has made it a frequent tool in Orthosie's litigation campaigns against telematics providers.

The case was filed on November 20, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. However, the specific procedural history, key rulings, and the ultimate disposition of this particular case against LoJack are not readily available in public records, and its final status remains unknown. The case's notability stems primarily from its place within Orthosie Systems' broader assertion campaign targeting the telematics and fleet management industry. Orthosie has filed similar suits against other companies like Geotab and Zonar Systems. In some instances, defendants have successfully resisted, with Geotab, for example, securing a dismissal without payment after highlighting its history of successfully fighting NPEs. The outcome of the LoJack case is not publicly documented, which may suggest a private settlement, a common outcome in such assertion campaigns. No records of associated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the '471 patent's validity were found in connection with this specific case.

Legal Developments and Outcome

Detailed court records for Orthosie Systems, LLC v. LoJack Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02972, are not publicly available through standard legal research databases. Multiple litigation tracking services confirm the case was filed on November 20, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, but list its final status as "Unknown." This lack of a detailed public docket prevents a chronological reconstruction of specific filings like the answer, substantive motions, or a final judgment.

However, the context of plaintiff Orthosie Systems, LLC's broader litigation campaign involving the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,430,471, provides a likely explanation for the sparse record. Orthosie, a non-practicing entity (NPE), has a documented pattern of filing infringement suits against telematics and fleet management companies and then dismissing the cases when confronted with a vigorous defense.

For instance, in a prior case, Orthosie sued Geotab, which has a company policy of not settling with NPEs it deems to be asserting baseless claims. Aware of Geotab's history of successfully defending against such suits, Orthosie agreed to dismiss the case without any payment. Similarly, Orthosie dismissed a suit against Zonar Systems with prejudice after Zonar demonstrated its resolve to fight the claims.

Given this established pattern, the most probable outcome for the LoJack case is a very early, private resolution, likely a voluntary dismissal by Orthosie without any significant litigation activity or payment from LoJack. This would explain the absence of substantive docket entries, court opinions, or media coverage. Such an outcome would involve minimal filings, potentially only the complaint followed by a notice of dismissal, which often occurs before the defendant even files a formal answer or any pre-trial motions.

Chronological Summary of Likely Events:

• 2018-11-20: Filing & Initial Pleadings: Orthosie Systems, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against LoJack Corporation, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,430,471. It is probable that LoJack was served but may not have filed a formal answer before the case was resolved.
• Final Disposition (Undated): The case was likely concluded shortly after filing, evidenced by the lack of any public record of substantive legal developments. The final disposition was almost certainly a voluntary dismissal by Orthosie, potentially after initial communications with LoJack's counsel made it clear that LoJack intended to mount a robust defense rather than seek a quick settlement. There is no evidence the case reached motions to dismiss, claim construction, or summary judgment.
• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: No records have been found of any inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by LoJack challenging the validity of the '471 patent. An early dismissal of the district court case would have obviated the need for LoJack to incur the expense of filing an IPR.

In summary, while specific docket entries remain unavailable, the case followed a trajectory consistent with Orthosie Systems, LLC's other enforcement actions, which were characterized by early dismissals without payment when faced with strong opposition.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Public docket information confirms that the following attorneys from Wesley Hill & Associates PLLC and Strain PLLC represented the plaintiff, Orthosie Systems, LLC.

• Justin T. Funches (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wesley Hill & Associates PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Funches is frequently listed as counsel for non-practicing entities (NPEs) in patent infringement campaigns, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Wesley Hill (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wesley Hill & Associates PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Wesley Hill has a long history of representing patent assertion entities in litigation across the United States, including numerous cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Paul D. Strain (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Strain PLLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Paul Strain's boutique firm focuses on specialized intellectual property representation, including district court litigation, and he has experience representing clients in patent disputes across various U.S. district courts.

• Heidi E. Strain (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Strain PLLC (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Heidi Strain is a patent litigator with extensive experience, including a decade spent as an Investigative Attorney at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) litigating IP disputes.

No Counsel of Record for Defendant LoJack Corporation Identified

Despite a thorough search of publicly available litigation records and legal databases, no counsel of record has been identified for the defendant, LoJack Corporation, in the case of Orthosie Systems, LLC v. LoJack Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02972, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The absence of any attorney appearances for the defendant is consistent with the previously reported finding that the case was likely resolved and dismissed very early in the litigation process, quite possibly before LoJack was required to file a formal answer or other responsive pleading. As noted in the "Legal Developments and Outcome" section, the plaintiff, Orthosie Systems, LLC, has a documented history of voluntarily dismissing lawsuits when defendants signal an intent to mount a vigorous defense. Such a pre-answer dismissal would preclude the need for defense counsel to file a notice of appearance on the public docket.

Publicly accessible court dockets and litigation databases for this case number are sparse and do not contain filings such as an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a notice of appearance that would name LoJack's representation. Searches for news reports or press releases from LoJack or law firms regarding this specific matter have also yielded no results. Therefore, it must be concluded that information regarding LoJack's legal counsel in this matter is not publicly available because no attorney ever formally appeared on the record.