Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket developments, the voluntary dismissal, and any refiling.

The docket shows a voluntary dismissal — let me verify whether the case was refiled or terminated, and check the IPR landscape.

Case Overview and Background — Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al., No. 6:25-cv-00016-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is the plaintiff — an inventor-founded patent holder that began life as an operating company (its CEO John Giobbi is a named inventor on many of its patents) and is now widely characterized as a patent assertion entity/NPE. RPX describes Proxense as "inventor-controlled," and Unified Patents flatly labels it "an NPE." Ip fray reports Proxense claims a portfolio of roughly 65 patents in the biometric/PDK ("personal digital key") authentication and wireless-proximity space, and that Giobbi has said litigation is the only route because "tech giants today just aren't willing to license patents that they infringe unless you sue them." The defendants are the Hyundai and Kia corporate families: Hyundai Motor Company (KR), Hyundai Motor America (US distributor), Genesis Motor America LLC (luxury brand), Kia Corporation (KR), and Kia America, Inc. (US distributor). The complaint pleads that Hyundai-KR holds 33.88% of Kia-KR and that the two groups commingle management, facilities, distribution, and development, so they should be treated as a "unitary business" and held jointly and severally liable (complaint, ip fray PDF).

The accused technology. The accused instrumentalities are Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis vehicles equipped with "Digital Key" functionality, plus the OEM servers that back the system (complaint analysis, ex parte AI lab). Proxense's theory is a standards-implementation theory: the vehicles allegedly practice the Car Connectivity Consortium's "CCC Digital Key" standard, which uses NFC, Bluetooth Low Energy, and Ultra-Wideband to let a phone act as a key — enabling passive keyless entry, remote start, and key sharing (Compl. ¶¶36–44). Notably, ip fray stresses that these are not standard-essential patents and carry no FRAND encumbrance, since Proxense does not appear to have participated in CCC standardization. The complaint reproduces the "CCC Digital Key ecosystem" diagram as the architecture it says infringes (Compl. ¶44, Fig. 1), and pleads induced/contributory theories premised on the standard, not merely Hyundai/Kia's own conduct.

The patents asserted. Four patents, each with actual or prospective PTAB/reexam exposure: (1) U.S. 10,073,960, "Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use" — a battery-powered device with integrated secure memory and an integrated wireless interface operating within a proximity zone (asserted claim 1; the complaint maps "battery," "integrated secure memory," and NFC/BLE/UWB readers onto the vehicle). (2) U.S. 9,251,332, "Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources" — a "detection engine" that gates access to a computing resource based on a PDK being within a predefined range of a reader (asserted claim 10). (3) U.S. 9,450,956, "Proximity-based system for automatic application initialization" (proximity-triggered app startup). (4) U.S. 11,095,640, "Proximity-based system for automatic application or data access and item tracking" — automatic proximity-based login plus automatic logout/securement when the PDK moves out of range (asserted claim 17). Patent titles and claim identifications come from ip fray's case write-up and the complaint analysis above; the '960 patent's named inventor is identified as David L. Brown in Google's IPR exhibit list (IPR2024-00784, Ex. 1001).

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed January 14, 2025 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses — not Judge Alan D. Albright, whose courtroom hosts Proxense's related Microsoft ('319) and Google ('320) cases and who had already construed at least one of these patents; ip fray predicted the case would land before Albright given the related-case flag, and that prediction did not hold. Proxense moved for an intra-district transfer on February 20, 2025 (Dkt. 5), which Judge Moses denied on February 25, 2025 (Dkt. 7). Then, on April 14, 2025, Proxense filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 9), and the Clerk transmitted the AO-120 termination report to the USPTO the next day (Dkt. 10); PacerMonitor and ex parte's AI docket both list the case as closed/terminated. I could not confirm any refiled Hyundai/Kia action, and the scope of the dismissal (all defendants/all patents, and whether with or without prejudice) is not visible in the free sources retrieved — nor is any license or settlement publicly documented. This creates a genuine record conflict I want to flag: the case metadata supplied to me marks the matter "active," while the docket entries indicate termination, and Unified Patents' later PATROLL notices still describe the '332 and '640 patents as "asserted against Hyundai" (while a July 21, 2025 post uses the past tense — "had been asserted against Hyundai"). Treat the status as unresolved pending PACER verification. Defense counsel is likewise unconfirmed beyond a sealed-document motion filed by Paul Steadman (Dkt. 8) and Docket Alarm's index linking DLA Piper to the case; plaintiff's counsel is David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners LLP (per the docket), the same firm that filed Proxense's Google/Apple/Microsoft/Intel/LG suits and was later joined by Susman Godfrey in several of them.

The case is notable on three fronts. First, industry impact: it is an early, high-stakes attempt to assert ordinary (non-SEP) patents against automakers purely because their products implement a widely adopted industry standard — a theory that, if viable, exposes every other CCC charter/core member and adopter (BMW, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Volvo, and their tier-one suppliers) to similar demands, as ip fray notes. Second, NPE assertion pattern: it fits Proxense's serial campaign against deep-pocketed implementers — Samsung (6:21-cv-00210, resolved after Albright canceled the jury trial days before it began, dismissed with prejudice), Google (6:23-cv-00320, settled January 2025), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319, stayed), Apple (6:24-cv-00143), Intel (6:24-cv-00283, reportedly settled March 2026), and LG (6:24-cv-00302) — with Proxense apparently rotating the same patents across defendants ('332 from Hyundai to LG; '956 previously against Hyundai). Third, IPR linkage: the '960 patent is already the subject of Google's IPR2024-00784 (with an Andrew Wolfe declaration and references including Giobbi's own earlier publications), and Proxense is litigating broader validity issues — parallel IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, a PTAB-versus-Central-Reexamination-Unit conflict, and a Federal Circuit APA/claim-construction appeal over U.S. 8,886,954 — that bear directly on the strength of the asserted claims. Unified Patents has also run PATROLL prior-art bounties on the '332, '956, and '640 patents ($2,000 and $3,000 awards, contests dated July–September 2025), a signal that defensive interests are actively building invalidity positions irrespective of whether the Hyundai/Kia case itself is still live.

Sourcing caveats: Party names, court, case number, filing date, patents, judge, and docket entry numbers are grounded in Docket Alarm/Justia/PacerMonitor and the complaint PDF. The named inventor attribution for the '960 patent, the CCC-standard framing, and the campaign history come from ip fray, RPX, and Unified Patents. The post-April-2025 status of the litigation, the terms of the dismissal, and defense counsel are not well sourced and should be verified on PACER before being relied upon. (Note: a July 2025 Korean-language report about Hyundai/Kia "winning" a patent case concerns a different NPE — Infogation — in E.D. Tex., not this matter, and should not be conflated.)

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search. Let me start with several parallel queries.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the dismissal, and PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

The searchable record indicates this is a short-lived case: Proxense filed the complaint on 2025‑01‑14, its own intra-district transfer motion was denied by Chief Judge Alia Moses on 2025‑02‑25, and Proxense filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2025‑04‑14 (AO‑120 form sent to the USPTO on 2025‑04‑15). There is no answer, no counterclaims, no Markman order, no summary-judgment ruling, no trial, and no IPR petition by Hyundai/Kia that I could find. The only substantive rulings in the docket are the denial of the transfer motion.

⚠️ Conflict flag: the case metadata I was given labels the matter "active," and at least one aggregator (Ex Parte) labels it "Closed" while PacerMonitor shows a Terminated date. The docket entries themselves (Dkt. 9 notice of voluntary dismissal; Dkt. 10 AO‑120) point strongly to a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal around 2025‑04‑14. I could not confirm whether Proxense refiled against Hyundai/Kia under a new case number, and I did not find a settlement announcement or joint stipulation of dismissal (which is what a license-driven resolution typically looks like). Treat the "present posture" as unverified and check PACER directly.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Patents asserted (Compl. Exs. 1–4): U.S. 10,073,960 ('960 – "Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit"); U.S. 9,251,332 ('332 – "Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources"); U.S. 9,450,956 ('956 – "Proximity-based system for automatic application initialization"); U.S. 11,095,640 ('640 – "Proximity-based system for automatic application or data access and item tracking"). (Complaint PDF via ip fray; claim-chart summary at Ex Parte)

Accused products/theory: Hyundai, Kia and Genesis vehicles implementing the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) Digital Key standard, plus associated OEM servers. Asserted claims identified include '960 cl. 1, '332 cl. 10 (and 10–12, 14–16, 21–23), '640 cl. 17. Theories: direct infringement (§271(a)), inducement (§271(b)), contributory infringement (§271(c)), willfulness, reasonable-royalty damages "no less than," and a permanent injunction demand. Notably, CCC Digital Key uses NFC, BLE and UWB for passive entry, remote start, and key sharing.

Counsel of record: Proxense is represented by David L. Hecht (Hecht Partners LLP) — the same firm handling Proxense's broader campaign (Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, LG). ip fray notes that in the Apple/Google/Microsoft cases Hecht Partners was later joined by Susman Godfrey as co-counsel; a Paul Steadman (Susman Godfrey) filing appears in this docket on 2025‑04‑14 (Dkt. 8). Defense counsel is not clearly reflected in the sources I could retrieve — a Docket Alarm firm filter returned this case under DLA Piper, but I could not verify that DLA Piper is Hyundai/Kia's counsel here, so do not rely on it.

No answer or counterclaim appears in the docket before dismissal — consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal, which is available only before the defendant serves an answer or an MSJ.

2. Pre-trial motions — the intra-district transfer fight

This is the one merits-adjacent episode in the case, and it is notable that Proxense, not the defendants, sought the transfer.

• 2025‑02‑20 — Proxense filed MOTION to Transfer Case (Intra-District) (Dkt. 5), with a Hecht declaration and 19 exhibits consisting almost entirely of prior Proxense case documents from Proxense v. Samsung (claim construction order, pretrial conference order, cancellation of jury trial, joint stipulation of dismissal), Proxense v. Google (transfer order, order denying transfer, claim construction order, order cancelling jury trial), Proxense v. Microsoft (scheduling order, transfer order, denial of transfer), and Proxense v. Apple and v. LG (complaints, transfer orders). The evidentiary thrust: Proxense wanted its Hyundai/Kia case where its related Microsoft/Google cases were being handled and where claim construction had already been done on overlapping patents.
• 2025‑02‑21 — Deficiency notice (missing proposed order under Local Rule CV‑7(g)); proposed order filed as Dkt. 6.
• 2025‑02‑25 — ORDER DENYING the Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 7), signed by Chief Judge Alia Moses.

Strategic read: Proxense's related Microsoft and Google actions were before Judge Alan D. Albright (W.D. Tex., 6:23‑cv‑00319‑ADA for Microsoft). ip fray's January 2025 reporting assumed the new Hyundai/Kia case would be "deemed related" and routed to Judge Albright, and expressly predicted judicial economy would keep it in that court. Instead the case went to Chief Judge Moses, Proxense moved to move it, and lost. The dismissal followed roughly two months later — timing that is at least consistent with a venue/assignment-driven voluntary dismissal and refiling rather than a settlement. I could not confirm a refiling.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached in this case. No Markman order, no claim-construction briefing, and no scheduling order appear in the docket. For context on what Proxense was relying on, the prior constructions that bear on the same patents include:

• Proxense v. Samsung claim construction order (W.D. Tex., 6:21‑cv‑00210‑ADA, filed 2022‑01‑18) — cited as MS‑1009 in Microsoft's '960 IPR petition.
• Microsoft's own opening claim construction brief and the order cancelling the Markman hearing in 6:23‑cv‑00319‑ADA (cited as MS‑1013, MS‑1016).

Those existing constructions are presumably why Proxense's transfer motion leaned so heavily on the prior case files.

4. Discovery milestones

No discovery of record. The case terminated roughly three months after filing, before any answer, scheduling order, or infringement/invalidity contentions deadline. There are no discovery orders or disputes in the docket. (Contrast with the Samsung case, where Proxense litigated amended infringement contentions, supplemental invalidity references, and ex parte reexamination-driven supplementation — a fight Proxense lost on the prejudice prong.)

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. Judge Moses denied the transfer motion and the case was dismissed.

6. Dismissal / final disposition

A unilateral Rule 41(a)(1) notice (as opposed to a joint stipulation) normally means dismissal without prejudice and without a settlement — Proxense preserved its right to refile. There is no judgment, no injunction, no fee award, and no appeal in this docket. No Federal Circuit appeal of this case exists to my knowledge.

Aggregators list the case as terminated/closed (PacerMonitor; Ex Parte).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

No IPR or PGR was filed by Hyundai, Kia, or Genesis against these patents in the period I could search. The PTAB activity on the asserted patents comes from other Proxense defendants (Microsoft, Apple, Google), and it materially weakened the '960 — the lead patent here.

Identified PTAB matters touching the asserted patents:

• IPR2024‑00405 — Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC ('960), petition filed 2024‑01‑16. Petition relies on Giobbi‑157, Giobbi‑139, Dua, Broadcom EP 1 536 306, and attacks '960 cl. 1 and dependents; it cites the Samsung claim construction order and Microsoft's own transfer/MSJ papers. (Petition exhibits)
• IPR2024‑00784 — Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC ('960) — institution granted 2024‑11‑18 under §314. The Board rejected Proxense's §112 ¶6/means‑plus‑function theory for "local secured information," "wireless communication interface," and "enablement signal," and declined to be bound by the prior judicial construction of "enabled" by a PDK. (Institution Decision)
• IPR2024‑01319 and IPR2024‑01320 — Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC (U.S. 10,073,960), both filed 2024‑08‑22.
• 2025‑08‑05 — Final written decision invalidating '960 claims. Bloomberg Law reported that the PTAB held the challenged claims of the '960 patent unpatentable as obvious, over prior art disclosing a PDK storing biometric profiles in tamper-proof memory and a PDK digital-content-security system — in an IPR by Microsoft and Apple. (Bloomberg Law) This is the single most consequential development for the patents Proxense asserted against Hyundai/Kia, and it postdates the dismissal of this case by four months.
• IPR2024‑00573 — Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC ('042) — pending into 2025; petitioners objected to Patent Owner's sur-reply exhibits consisting of Proxense's final infringement contentions from the Microsoft and Apple district court cases (2025‑03‑18). Shows the PTAB cases are being fought with the parallel district-court record.
• IPR2024‑00233 — references IPR2024‑00775 (Microsoft v. Proxense, '730) (terminated after Patent Owner requested adverse judgment) and IPR2024‑00846 (Microsoft v. Proxense, '954) (pending). (bannerwitcoff PDF)
• '332 patent: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest and awarded $2,000 for prior art on U.S. 9,251,332, noting it "has been asserted against Hyundai and LG." (Unified Patents) This is the clearest sign that the '332 was the subject of third-party (not defendant) invalidity pressure.
• '956 and '640: I found no IPR/PGR challenging these two patents. Treat that as "not found," not "confirmed none."

Effect on the litigation: None directly — the delay/discretionary-denial dynamics that usually shape a stay motion never materialized because the case was dismissed before any of the '960 IPR final written decisions landed. But the 2025‑08‑05 '960 FWD and the June 2025 Apple '954 FWD (Law360, 2025‑06‑18: claims of a Proxense biometric-verification patent held obvious) show that the patents underpinning this campaign were taking serious damage on the merits in 2025 — relevant to how much leverage a refiled Hyundai/Kia case would carry.

Related USPTO/Federal Circuit layer: Proxense is separately litigating an APA challenge at the Federal Circuit arising from an ex parte reexamination of U.S. 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication") in which the PTAB stayed the CRU reexamination and quashed a positive examiner determination, producing conflicting PTAB/CRU outcomes. Proxense's opening brief argues the PTAB exercised "outcome control." A win would restore claims and increase pressure on the stayed Apple and Microsoft cases. (ip fray)

---

Wider campaign context (for damages/leverage framing)

Per ip fray's 2025–2026 coverage: Proxense is a former operating company (biometrics/PDK, CEO John Giobbi) asserting ~65 patents. Settled/licensed: Samsung (2023), Google (stipulated dismissal 2025‑01‑13/14, which ip fray characterized as a settlement), Intel (March 2026). Still pending/stayed: Apple, Microsoft. Also active: LG. The Hyundai/Kia/Genesis suit was the campaign's first expansion into automotive, and the CCC Digital Key standard means other CCC charter/core members (BMW, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, VW, Volvo) and automotive suppliers are potential targets. Notably, the asserted patents are not standard-essential and carry no FRAND encumbrance — a point ip fray flagged as making the automotive exposure unusual.

---

What I could not verify (please confirm on PACER/RPX before relying)

1. Whether the case is truly closed or whether the metadata's "active" status reflects a refiling of the Hyundai/Kia claims (new case number/division), a partial dismissal, or a stale docket flag.
2. Whether Proxense refiled after the transfer denial — the 2025‑04‑14 dismissal looks like a venue-driven Rule 41(a)(1) exit, but I found no successor case.
3. Defense counsel for Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (one aggregator hints at DLA Piper; unconfirmed).
4. The complete text/grounds of the 2025‑02‑25 transfer denial (Dkt. 7 is 2 pages; the reasoning is not in the search results I retrieved).
5. Docket entries 11+, if any (the retrieved docket snapshot stops at Dkt. 10, 2025‑04‑15).
6. Whether the '956 and '640 patents have any PTAB or reexam challenges.

I'll research press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Let me dig into the specific coverage and the apparent dismissal.

Let me check for coverage in major legal trade press and confirm the dismissal.

Press and analyst coverage of Proxense v. Hyundai/Kia

The most substantive reporting is from ip fray. ip fray (Florian Mueller) reported in January 2025 that Proxense — described as "a former operating company" and "biometrics firm" — had "expanded its patent enforcement action to the automotive industry with a lawsuit against Hyundai, KIA and Genesis," filed in the Western District of Texas. The piece framed the suit as a follow-on to Proxense's campaign against Big Tech: Proxense had settled with Google the same day (January 14, 2025), following a license agreement with Samsung and filings against Microsoft, Apple, Intel and LG. According to ip fray, Proxense is asserting four of the roughly 65 patents it claims in the field, all targeting implementation of the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) Digital Key standard, first adopted in 2018 and updated twice since. The outlet identified the patents-in-suit as U.S. 10,073,960; 9,251,332; 9,450,956; and 11,095,640, noted the case was deemed related to the Microsoft (pending) and Google (settled) actions before Judge Alan D. Albright, and predicted the matter would likely land before Albright given the overlap. It characterized the stakes bluntly: "The Hyundai-KIA group faces the risk of a substantial damages award."

ip fray's analysis went beyond the pleadings, and it is where the "significance" framing comes from. The outlet argued the case is "potentially unprecedented" because the patents "allegedly read on a standard without the patentee, as far as we can tell, having been involved in that standardization process," meaning they are "unencumbered by FRAND licensing promises." It contrasted this with automakers' habit of taking cellular SEP licenses through the Avanci pool, and warned that "other members of the CCC could face similar assertions," naming BMW, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen and Volvo as charter/core members, with "various automotive suppliers" also potentially liable. It also noted that Proxense's counsel, David L. Hecht (Hecht Partners), was later joined by Susman Godfrey as co-counsel in the Apple, Google and Microsoft cases — a signal about how Proxense resources its campaigns. No damages figure was reported; the complaint itself seeks "no less than a reasonable royalty" plus a permanent injunction.

A second strand of coverage came from Chinese-language IP trade outlets and from a defensive patent aggregator. The 海外知识产权保护预警平台 (bdipp.cn) republished a 天天IP piece on 2025-01-16 that focused on the same facts — the January 13, 2025 Google resolution, the new W.D. Tex. suit against Hyundai, Kia and Genesis, the CCC Digital Key standard, the four asserted patents out of ~65, the expected assignment to Judge Albright, and the point that (translated) "the patents involved in this case are not standard-essential patents and are not bound by FRAND licensing commitments," adding that the group "faces the risk of huge damages" if the case reaches trial. Separately, the Chinese government IP portal ipr.mofcom.gov.cn cited ip fray in a June 27, 2025 piece on Nokia's automotive Wi-Fi licensing, listing Proxense's suit against Hyundai/Kia/Genesis as evidence that "even if Nokia's cellular patent licensing opportunity ends," automakers remain exposed to other patent monetization — an example of the case being used as a data point in SEP/monetization commentary rather than covered on its own terms.

Industry reaction has been defensive rather than journalistic. Unified Patents ran PATROLL crowdsourcing contests for prior art on the '332 and '640 patents, explicitly stating that each "has been asserted against Hyundai" (adding LG for the '332), and paying $2,000 and $3,000 respectively to winners — concrete evidence that the patents drew a defensive validity challenge, though Unified's contests are not themselves case coverage. Notably, I found no reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, JD Supra, or any mainstream business outlet on this specific case.

One important discrepancy to flag: the court record appears to contradict the "active" case status. Third-party docket aggregators — Justia Dockets, PacerMonitor, and Ex Parte AI Lab — all show a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Proxense (Dkt. 9, April 14, 2025), a sealed-document motion the same day, an AO-120 report sent to the USPTO on April 15, 2025 (Dkt. 10), and PacerMonitor listing the case as "Terminated" on April 14, 2025, with Ex Parte recording the status as "Closed." The only contested motion on the visible docket was Proxense's intra-district transfer motion, denied by Chief Judge Alia Moses on February 25, 2025 (Dkt. 7) — notably not the Albright assignment ip fray anticipated. I could not find any press report of the dismissal, nor a settlement announcement; no source confirms whether the dismissal reflected a license, a settlement, or a re-filing. Treat the dismissal itself as well-sourced to docket aggregators but not confirmed by any news outlet, and treat the prompt's "active" status as superseded by that docket record.

Sources

• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

• Date	#	Proceeding Text	Details
  			9 Public

• 60. Proxense has been injured and seeks damages to adequately compensate it for Intel's infringement of the 129 Patent
• 33. Proxense also developed sophisticated, proprietary, proximity-based detection, authentication, and automation technology, bu...
• Complaint | 6:25-cv-00016 | Proxense LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co | Ex Parte
• Contest - Proxense: US-9251332-B2 (Personal Digital Keys)
• Contest - Proxense: US-11095640-B1 (Authenticating Users to Access Data)
• Cases filed in the Fifth Circuit Courts
• Category: Hyundai-KIA-Genesis
• Douglas Q

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

Good initial leads. Now let me dig into the docket details and Proxense's litigation team.

Notable: the docket shows an April 2025 voluntary dismissal. Let me verify the case's current posture and check for additional plaintiff-side appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Proxense, LLC — Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 6:25-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex.)

Threshold caveat on case posture

Before the attorney list, one important docket reality that affects how to read "counsel of record": third-party docket mirrors show that on April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 9, signed by David Hecht), followed by a Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO on April 15, 2025 (Doc. 10). PacerMonitor and the ex parte case tracker both list the matter as terminated/closed. The case metadata provided to me lists the case as "active," so I have treated the metadata as authoritative for case status as instructed, but I flag the discrepancy explicitly: the docket evidence I could retrieve indicates the case was likely dismissed in April 2025, and any counsel-of-record list below should be understood as the roster of counsel who appeared before that filing. I could not pull the live PACER docket sheet directly to confirm the scope of the dismissal (whole case vs. certain defendants) or whether it was with prejudice.

I also want to be candid about a second limitation: the docket mirrors I could reach (PacerMonitor, Justia Dockets, ex parte) stop well short of a full PACER attorney-appearance list. Only one attorney is affirmatively shown as signing filings for Proxense in this case. Everything else below is either (a) confirmed in a different Proxense matter or PTAB proceeding, or (b) noted as unconfirmed for this docket.

---

Confirmed counsel of record appearing in this case

1. David L. Hecht — Lead counsel (sole appearing attorney)

Docket footprint in this case: Hecht is the attorney of record on every Plaintiff-side filing reflected in the mirrors — the Complaint (Doc. 1, filed Jan. 14, 2025, with 11 exhibits including all four patents-in-suit); Notice of Filing of AO 120 (Doc. 2); Request for Issuance of Summons (Doc. 3); the intra-district Motion to Transfer (Doc. 5, Feb. 20, 2025) and supporting Declaration and Proposed Order (Doc. 6, Feb. 21, 2025), which Chief Judge Alia Moses denied on Feb. 25, 2025 (Doc. 7); and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 9, Apr. 14, 2025). Note the strategic context: Proxense sought to move the case intra-district, presumably toward the docket of Judge Alan D. Albright, who had already handled related Proxense cases — and lost that motion.

Relevant patent litigation experience:

• Founder and co-managing partner of Hecht Partners; trained electrical/computer engineer and registered patent attorney; previously at Jones Day, Quinn Emanuel, and Steptoe, plus in-house IP-licensing/assertion work.
• Trial-team member in Apple v. Samsung ("patent trial of the century") and part of the trial team that obtained the first-ever ITC exclusion order against Apple; lead counsel for Corellium in its successful defense against Apple (summary judgment win, then Apple dropped remaining claims on the eve of trial).
• He is Proxense's principal enforcement counsel across its W.D. Tex. campaign, including the case against Samsung (settled on the eve of trial; Hecht described in firm press materials as "co-lead counsel") and cases against Google, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, and LG. He also prosecutes Proxense's PTAB work (e.g., IPR2021-01438/01439 oral argument; Proxense's Power of Attorney in IPR2024-01326).
• Recognized in IAM 300 (2025); AV Preeminent rated; Law360 "Legal Lion" for the Hanagami v. Epic Games Ninth Circuit copyright appeal.

Note: Hecht's own firm bio and IAM coverage describe the Apple/Samsung/Qualcomm patent matters; I have not independently verified every item in the firm's self-description, so treat the bio-derived points as firm-sourced.

---

Counsel whose participation is plausible but NOT confirmed on this docket

I want to be explicit here rather than pad the list with names that may not have appeared in this case.

2. James Zak — Hecht Partners LLP (New York) — probable supporting/patent-prosecution-side counsel

• USPTO Reg. No. 60,190; listed alongside Hecht on Proxense's Power of Attorney in PTAB IPR2024-01326 (dated Sept. 27, 2024) and argued the Proxense side in the Samsung IPRs (IPR2021-01438/01439 oral hearing, Nov. 29, 2022).
• Not confirmed: I found no Notice of Appearance or signature by Zak on the 6:25-cv-00016 docket in the mirrors I could access. Do not treat him as counsel of record in this case without a PACER check.

3. Susman Godfrey LLP — co-counsel in other Proxense matters, unconfirmed here

• Susman Godfrey attorneys are documented Proxense counsel in the related W.D. Tex. actions: Brian D. Melton (Houston, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100) appears as Proxense's counsel in PTAB proceedings concerning Proxense patents (e.g., IPR2025-00074), and Lear Jiang's firm bio states he "represents Proxense, LLC against Google, Microsoft, and Apple in three separate patent infringement litigations pending in the Western District of Texas," citing two defeated transfer motions and a favorable claim-construction ruling.
• Trade press (ip fray, Jan. 2025) states that in the Apple/Google/Microsoft cases "Mr. Hecht's firm was later joined by Susman Godfrey as co-counsel."
• Not confirmed: I found no Susman Godfrey appearance in the Hyundai/Kia/Genesis docket. Given the case appears to have been dismissed roughly three months after filing, it is entirely possible Susman Godfrey never entered an appearance here. Flagged as "does not appear in the retrieved docket."

4. Patent Law Works (Greg Sueoka, Salt Lake City) — PTAB back-up counsel only

• Listed as "Patent Law Works/Proxense" patent-owner correspondence in IPR2025-00074 alongside Susman Godfrey. No district-court appearance in this case that I could verify.

5. In-house counsel

• None identified. Proxense is a small enforcement-oriented entity (CEO/chief inventor John Giobbi), and no in-house attorney is named in the retrieved docket or in any filing signature block I could review. If in-house counsel exists, they are not of record in this matter as reflected in available sources.

---

One loose thread worth checking on PACER

Doc. 8 (Apr. 14, 2025) — "Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document," filed by Paul Steadman, appears on the docket immediately before Proxense's voluntary dismissal. This is not a Hecht Partners signature, and I could not verify Steadman's firm or which party he represented from the sources available to me. Given its timing and the sealed nature of the filing (potentially a settlement agreement or license submitted under seal), it is plausible but unproven that this relates to the resolution of the case. I am not attributing it to Plaintiff or Defendants — it simply does not appear to be a Hecht Partners filing and should be verified against PACER.

Bottom line

Based on everything retrievable, the only attorney with a documented, self-identified appearance for Plaintiff Proxense, LLC in 6:25-cv-00016 is David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners LLP (New York), as lead counsel. No local counsel from a Texas firm appears on the docket for Plaintiff (W.D. Tex. does not require local counsel, and Hecht is Texas-barred as of 2023). Susman Godfrey, James Zak, and Patent Law Works are documented Proxense-side counsel in related matters but are not confirmed as of record in this specific case. Because the case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed in April 2025, no additional plaintiff appearances are likely to have been filed afterward — but a direct PACER docket pull (docket sheet "attorneys" tab) is the only way to make this determination with certainty.

Sources used: Justia Dockets (Case No. 6:2025cv00016); PacerMonitor case page 56504011; ip fray complaint PDF and case commentary; Docket Alarm PTAB filings (IPR2024-01326 Power of Attorney; IPR2021-01439 hearing transcript; IPR2025-00074 notice); Martindale-Hubbell and Equilar bios for David L. Hecht; Hecht Partners firm website; Susman Godfrey attorney bio for Lear Jiang. Facts not directly sourced to a filing or firm/press publication are labeled as unconfirmed above.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record in this case, keeping in mind the prior section's finding that the case was voluntarily dismissed in April 2025.

Let me investigate the sealed-document motion filed by "Paul Steadman" on April 14, 2025 (Dkt. 8), which appears to be defense-side activity.

DLA Piper's Paul Steadman (Chicago) appears to be the defense-side filer. Let me confirm the DLA Piper–defendant link and identify any other defense counsel.

Counsel of record for the Defendants — Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., No. 6:25-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: the defense side of this docket is unusually thin, and that is itself the finding. The case was voluntarily dismissed by Proxense on April 14, 2025 (Dkt. 9) roughly 90 days after filing, before any defendant filed an answer, a Rule 12 motion, a corporate disclosure statement, or a formal notice of appearance. As a result, there is no defense team of record in the conventional sense — no "LEAD ATTORNEY / ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" caption block, no pro hac vice applications for a defense trial team, and no local-counsel entry. The single defense-side attorney identifiable from the docket is the lawyer whose CM/ECF credentials were used to file the last substantive defense filing before dismissal.

Identified defense-side counsel

The single evidentiary anchor for Steadman's appearance: Dkt. 8, Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document , filed April 14, 2025 at 10:16 a.m. and docketed as "(Steadman, Paul)," with nine sealed attachments — filed roughly 16 minutes before Proxense's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 9, filed by Hecht, David). See PacerMonitor docket; Docket Alarm firm-filter result; Justia docket.

What I could not establish — stated plainly

• No defendant-side attorney is listed by name in any docket-aggregator party block. Ex Parte's case page affirmatively records "No Defendant Attorneys" (link), while PacerMonitor shows a truncated "Genesis Motor America LLC — Represented By" line whose content is not retrievable from the public page. I could not confirm from PACER directly whether a defense appearance block exists that the aggregators failed to parse.
• Which defendant(s) DLA Piper/Steadman represented is unconfirmed. The caption includes five entities (Hyundai Motor Company; Hyundai Motor America; Genesis Motor America LLC; Kia Corporation; Kia America, Inc.). The docket text names only the filer, not the party on whose behalf Dkt. 8 was filed. Because the Hyundai and Kia entities are described in the complaint as a unitary conglomerate sharing counsel-relevant interests, a common defense team is likely — but that is inference, not record.
• Additional defense team members cannot be verified. Given DLA Piper's Chicago automotive IP team structure, names such as Matthew D. Satchwell or Shuzo Maruyama would be plausible co-counsel, and DLA Piper's Apple-side team in Proxense v. Apple (Erin P. Gibson, Benjamin Yaghoubian, Sean C. Cunningham, Robert Williams, Martin M. Ellison, Nandan R. Padmanabhan, Jessica Hannah — all appearing on the 6:24-cv-00143 docket sheet) shows the firm's standard staffing pattern in this campaign. I am not asserting that any of these individuals appeared in this case — no docket entry, opinion, or press report ties them to 6:25-cv-00016.
• No in-house counsel identified. None appears on the public docket, consistent with a case that terminated before a Rule 26(f) conference or scheduling order (which would have generated an attorney-conference list).
• No local W.D. Tex. counsel identified, despite the local-rule practice of pairing out-of-district lead counsel with Waco/Austin counsel. None appears in the retrieved docket.

Consistency check against the previously generated sections

• This finding reinforces rather than contradicts the "In the news" section's conclusion that the case terminated in April 2025: a docket with no defense appearances, no answer, and an April 14, 2025 defense sealing motion filed minutes before Proxense's voluntary dismissal is the signature of a case resolved by agreement rather than litigated. The nine sealed attachments to Dkt. 8 are most consistent with a confidential settlement/license package filed under seal — but no source confirms that characterization, and I flag it as inference.
• The metadata's "active" status remains superseded by the docket record, as flagged in the prior section.
• One caution for downstream citation: a USPTO filing shows Hyundai Motor America Inc. represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (Robert C.F. Pérez, Matthew Grillo, Christopher Kao, Brock S. Weber) in PGR2026-00030 concerning U.S. Patent 12,296,061 against Germ Dome Industries. That is a different patent, different opposing party, and different forum; it is not evidence of counsel in this case and should not be cited as such.
• Second caution: Paul Steadman's firm affiliation appears to have changed. Power-of-attorney documents from the DLA Piper era list paul.steadman@dlapiper.com, while current rankings profiles list him at AKD Partners. Anyone filing a notice of appearance or citing his affiliation for the April 2025 docket entries should use DLA Piper LLP (US), Chicago as the operative affiliation as of the filing date, and verify his current firm before relying on it. A 2026 Northern District of California docket (Voltstar Technologies v. Apple, 5:26-cv-10864) shows him appearing for Apple as "Paul R. Steadman," which is consistent with the later affiliation but does not resolve the transition date.

Sources

• PacerMonitor — Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al (6:25-cv-00016)
• Justia Dockets — same case
• Ex Parte AI Lab — same case ("No Defendant Attorneys"; status Closed)
• Docket Alarm — DLA Piper firm-filter hit on this docket
• Paul Steadman bio — AKD Partners and DLA Piper
• Chambers profile — Paul Steadman
• Subaru of America PTAB power of attorney (Steadman/Satchwell, USPTO Reg. Nos.)
• Docket sheet, Proxense v. Apple, 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (DLA Piper Apple-side team)
• Hyundai PGR2026-00030 power of attorney (Pillsbury; unrelated matter)

Recommended next step to close the gap: pull the PACER docket sheet for 6:25-cv-00016 directly (the aggregators were last refreshed February–April 2025) to check for any appearance entries not indexed publicly, and request the unsealed text of Dkt. 8's motion (as opposed to its sealed attachments), which would name the moving party and its counsel on the face of the document.