Petitioner v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC, a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an entity of Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC, is actively engaged in patent litigation, primarily asserting patents acquired from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) against automotive companies. The entity has launched an automotive campaign, filing lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas targeting a range of automobile products, including driver assistance systems and headlights.

The patent at the center of IPR2025-00955 is U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803, titled "Lens system". This patent describes a fragmented lens system designed to create an invisible light pattern, useful for computer vision systems to determine the position and distance of an object. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC acquired this patent in March 2024, following its transfer from Intellectual Ventures. While specific accused products directly linked to patent 8,810,803 within a district court case were not explicitly detailed in the IPR information, Longhorn's broader litigation campaign generally targets automotive technologies such as driver assistance systems and headlights, suggesting these as potential areas of alleged infringement.

This inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00955, was initiated by Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. (the Petitioner) against Longhorn Automotive Group LLC (the Patent Owner) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The IPR was not instituted and resulted in a "Discretionary Denial" on September 18, 2025. The procedural posture highlights the PTAB's increasing use of discretionary denials, often based on factors such as parallel district court litigation or "settled expectations," rather than a full review of the patentability merits. This venue is significant because IPRs were intended to provide a more efficient and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, but recent policy shifts, including those related to Fintiv and "settled expectations," have limited access to this administrative forum. The denial in this case, a "Director Discretionary Decision," underscores the USPTO Director's heightened role in institution decisions, impacting the strategies of both patent owners and challengers.

The case is notable due to Longhorn Automotive Group LLC's identity as an NPE that asserts patents originating from Intellectual Ventures, illustrating a common pattern of patent assertion in the automotive industry. The non-institution of the IPR, specifically through a discretionary denial, reflects the evolving landscape of PTAB proceedings. This outcome is particularly relevant in the current market context where the PTAB has been implementing more stringent rules for instituting IPRs, often prioritizing "settled expectations" of patent owners or the timing of parallel district court litigation, even in the absence of a parallel proceeding for the challenged patents. The discretionary denial here, without a full merits review, demonstrates how recent policy changes at the PTAB can significantly influence the ability of accused infringers to challenge patent validity through administrative proceedings.

The case IPR2025-00955 involves U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803, with Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. as the Petitioner and Longhorn Automotive Group LLC as the Patent Owner. The IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on September 19, 2025.

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE) associated with Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC, and has been actively asserting its patents in district court litigation against various automotive manufacturers. U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803 is one of several patents that Longhorn Automotive Group LLC has asserted in these lawsuits.

Here's a chronological overview of legal developments related to U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803 and Longhorn Automotive Group LLC:

District Court Litigation - Examples Involving Patent 8,810,803:

• 2024-05-31: Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:24-cv-00397)

  • Longhorn Automotive Group LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., asserting five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803. This case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit targeted a wide array of automobile products, from driver assistance systems to headlights. The status of this specific case is "Closed".

• 2024-07-30 (approximate): Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Volvo Car Corp. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:24-cv-00603)

  • Longhorn Automotive Group LLC filed a complaint against Volvo Car Corp. (and AB Volvo) in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803. The complaint claimed that Volvo's headlights, driver assistance, and remote start technologies infringed the asserted patents.

• 2024-XX-XX: Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:24-CV-00554-JRG)

  • Longhorn Automotive Group LLC sued Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation for patent infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803.
  • Motion to Dismiss & Outcome: Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing insufficient pre-suit knowledge and specific intent allegations. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to adequately plead pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and specific intent for induced infringement. The Court granted Longhorn Automotive leave to amend its complaint within 14 days to address the deficiencies in pleadings, including those for induced, willful, and contributory infringement. The initial complaint mapped infringement exclusively to vehicles of Audi AG, a non-party.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings Involving Patent 8,810,803:

• 2025-04-24: IPR2025-00925 - Volkswagen AG et al. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

  • Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America Inc., and Audi AG filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,085,192. This IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on September 12, 2025. While this IPR is not for 8,810,803, it's related as it involves Longhorn Automotive Group LLC and a patent from a similar family of asserted patents. The underlying district court case also asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803.

• 2025-04-29: IPR2025-00955 - Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

  • This IPR challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803.
  • Outcome: The IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on September 19, 2025. The specific procedural reason for the non-institution is not detailed in the provided search results but could relate to various factors such as real party in interest issues, statutory bars, or discretionary denials under evolving PTAB rules regarding parallel litigation or "settled expectations".

• 2025-05-30: IPR2025-01064 - Volkswagen Group Of America Inc v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC

  • This IPR was filed against Longhorn Automotive Group LLC. It was "Instituted" on December 8, 2025, and later terminated as "Terminated-Settled". The specific patent challenged in this IPR is not identified in the immediate snippet, but it highlights ongoing challenges to Longhorn Automotive's patents.

In summary, Longhorn Automotive Group LLC has been actively asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803, and other related patents, in district court against various automotive companies. These litigations have seen initial challenges like motions to dismiss for insufficient pleading. Concurrently, several IPRs have been filed against Longhorn Automotive's patents, including IPR2025-00955 against patent 8,810,803, which was not instituted due to procedural reasons.

Counsel of Record for Petitioner in IPR2025-00955

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-00955, where Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. is the Petitioner (plaintiff) and Longhorn Automotive Group LLC is the Patent Owner (defendant), William Mandir is listed as counsel for the Petitioner.

Further details on William Mandir and any other "et al." counsel representing the Petitioner are being gathered. The IPR was filed on April 29, 2025, and was ultimately not instituted due to a discretionary denial on September 18, 2025.

As of May 18, 2026, the specific firm and office location for William Mandir, as well as a detailed one-line note on his relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases, are not immediately available in the provided search results. Further investigation would be required to fully detail these aspects of the Petitioner's legal representation.

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC, the defendant in IPR2025-00955, is represented by a team of attorneys primarily from Fabricant LLP and Rubino Law LLC/Rubino IP.

The counsel of record includes:

• Vincent J. Rubino, III (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Note: Mr. Rubino is frequently involved in patent litigation for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in various forums, including the PTAB and district courts.

• Alfred Ross Fabricant (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Note: Mr. Fabricant is a named partner at Fabricant LLP and represents Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in patent infringement and IPR proceedings.

• Peter Lambrianakos (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Note: Mr. Lambrianakos is also part of the legal team representing Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in patent disputes.

• Enrique W. Iturralde (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Note: Mr. Iturralde has appeared as counsel for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings.

• John Andrew Rubino (Counsel)

  • Firm: Rubino Law LLC / Rubino IP
  • Note: Mr. Rubino represents Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in various patent litigation matters, including IPRs and district court cases.

• Michael Mondelli, III (Counsel)

  • Firm: Rubino Law LLC
  • Note: Mr. Mondelli is part of the counsel team for Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in patent litigation.

• Justin Kurt Truelove (Counsel)

  • Firm: Truelove Law Firm
  • Note: Mr. Truelove has represented Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in patent infringement complaints.

While IPR2025-00955 was not instituted due to procedural reasons, the identified attorneys have consistently represented Longhorn Automotive Group LLC in other related patent validity and infringement cases.