Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Now let me verify the patent and fill in key details.

Now let me dig into the '894 patent's identity, Sol IP's structure, and why the Ford case ended.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business at 8287 Spring Leaf Court, Vienna, Virginia, which describes itself as "an intellectual property licensing company." It is not a university or an operating company; it is a patent-assertion entity that holds an exclusive license to more than 600 patents and applications covering wireless telecommunications, all originating with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), South Korea's government-funded research institute in Daejeon, which the complaints say "transferred to Sol IP all substantial rights." Unified Patents characterizes Sol IP as an NPE ("owned by ETRI and asserted by Sol IP, LLC, an NPE"), and Sol IP is simultaneously an Avanci licensor (Vehicle 4G/5G programs, and, as of 2026, the Avanci Wi‑Fi platform), meaning it monetizes the ETRI portfolio both through pool licensing and through bilateral litigation (Unified Patents PATROLL; ip fray). Defendant Ford Motor Company is the Dearborn, Michigan automaker (a Delaware corporation). The accused technology was not a Ford product per se but the 4G LTE/LTE‑Advanced-connected vehicle ecosystem — the complaint points to Ford vehicles complying with 3GPP Releases 8/10/11 and specifically to FordPass Connect (formerly SYNC Connect), described in the complaint (quoting Ford) as "powered by a 4G LTE modem and the AT&T network," plus Ford's dealers, which Sol IP alleged act as Ford's agents for sales and warranty service (Amended Complaint, Dkt. 9, ¶¶ 39–40).

The patents actually asserted — and the '894 discrepancy. This is where the case metadata and the filed papers diverge, and it is worth stating plainly. The metadata lists US 10,090,894 ("Transceiving Data in a MIMO System," an ETRI patent covering MIMO/WLAN (IEEE 802.11) VHT frame formatting — how a receiver determines frame length and frame end for more efficient decoding; asserted in Sol IP's other campaigns against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, VinFast, and, in 2026, Volkswagen and Honda — see Unified Patents and PACER Monitor, Sol IP v. Volkswagen, 2:26‑cv‑00766). However, the '894 patent does not appear in either Ford complaint. The original complaint (Dkt. 1, 3/31/2022) asserted five ETRI LTE/Wi‑Fi patents: 10,938,534 (carrier aggregation), 10,231,211 (paging in a cellular system), 10,932,298 (uplink control signal transmission), 8,320,571 (downlink frame generation and cell search), and 10,148,477 (ACK/NACK transmission). The amended complaint (Dkt. 9, 4/22/2022) expanded to 21 patents in 21 counts, adding: 10,206,207 (error control/MAC frame design/terminal registration), 10,244,559 (uplink control signal), 8,311,031, 9,496,976 and 10,080,204 (cell search / forward-link frame structure), 8,320,565 (downlink frame/cell search), 10,749,722 (ACK/NACK), 10,271,349 and 10,687,351 (MBMS scheduling), 8,593,936 (carrier aggregation), RE48,101 (downlink rank information via PUSCH), 10,405,277 and 10,863,439 (reducing terminal power consumption in a multi-carrier system), 10,462,776 (control information transmission/reception), and 10,009,896 and 10,893,525 (control channel transmission/reception) (FOSS Patents, Apr. 23, 2022). So the "contradiction" flagged in the existing summary resolves toward the docket: the Ford action was a 4G/LTE (and companion cell-search/control-channel) SEP case, not an '894 MIMO/WLAN case — though I found no source affirmatively explaining why '894 is listed in the case metadata. Treat that attribution as unsourced.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed 3/31/2022 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division under 35 U.S.C. § 271, jury demanded, assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 1; Justia docket). Sol IP pleaded venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), anticipating TC Heartland, by alleging Ford's "regular and established place of business" in-district: Ford's Central Market Area office in Plano (Collin County) and Ford dealerships — notably Marshall Ford in Marshall — as Ford's agents (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 19–27). Ford was served (4/6/2022, re-served 4/29/2022), obtained two unopposed Local Rule CV‑12 extensions (answer due 6/21/2022, Dkts. 10, 14), and never answered or appeared substantively; Sol IP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on 5/31/2022 (Dkt. 15), and Judge Payne entered the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal order on 9/21/2022 (Dkt. 16), with the AO 120 form filed the same day (Dkt. 17). Plaintiff-side appearances included Brent N. Bumgardner, Christopher Granaghan, David DeZern, Seong Jun Park, and Jonathan Rastegar; the docket attributes the two defense extension applications to a "Rastegar," which appears inconsistent with the entries listing Rastegar as Sol IP's counsel — I could not confirm Ford's counsel of record, and Ford filed no appearance reflected in the public docket excerpt. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it was part of a 2021–22 wave of Avanci licensors suing Ford (Sisvel in Delaware and Munich, IP Bridge in Munich, Longhorn IP's L2 in Delaware, and MiiCS), i.e., an SEP-licensing pressure campaign against an unwilling automaker, against the backdrop of Continental v. Avanci; (2) the 21-patent single-complaint assertion was described by FOSS Patents as potentially a record number of SEPs in one action, raising litigation-economics and In re Katz case-management issues and defense costs that dwarf a per-vehicle pool royalty; and (3) it shows the recurring ETRI/Sol IP portfolio playbook — the same family of patents had been litigated against wireless carriers in Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility (No. 2:18‑cv‑00526, E.D. Tex., 25 counts, with Ericsson and Nokia intervening and Ericsson filing IPR2020‑00242 against Sol IP), and continues in Sol IP v. VinFast (C.D. Cal. 2:24‑cv‑05959) and the 2026 EDTX suits against VW and Honda before Judge Gilstrap. The Ford case's rapid, unopposed, without-prejudice dismissal before any answer, motion practice, Markman order, or inter partes review is consistent with an early licensing resolution, but I found no public source confirming a settlement or an Avanci 4G license by Ford in that period, so that inference should be treated as unverified.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specifics — the patents, parallel cases, and the stay/dismissal context.

Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Bottom line: This case never advanced past the pleadings. It is a short, single-defendant NPE action that opened with 5 asserted ETRI/4G patents, ballooned to 21 patents via amended complaint three weeks later, and ended with a plaintiff's unilateral voluntary dismissal without prejudice — filed on the very day Ford's Avanci pool license was announced (2022‑05‑31). There was no answer, no counterclaims, no Markman, no discovery, no dispositive motion, no trial, and no identified PTAB proceeding on the Ford‑case patents.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022‑03‑31 — Complaint (DI 1). Sol IP, LLC (Vienna, VA NPE; exclusive licensee of Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute ("ETRI") of South Korea) sued Ford Motor Company for infringement of five ETRI‑originated wireless/4G‑LTE patents: US 10,938,534; 10,231,211; 10,932,298; 8,320,571; 10,148,477. Complaint includes Exhibits A–G and a jury demand; corporate disclosure statement filed same day (DI 3); AO‑120 notice (DI 2). Docket, complaint text
• Venue/personal jurisdiction pleaded on two theories: Ford's Central Market Area Office in Plano, TX, and Ford's authorized dealerships (e.g., Marshall Ford) as agents. RPX document
• 2022‑04‑22 — Amended Complaint (DI 9). Expanded the case from 5 to 21 counts / 21 asserted patents (23 attachments, Exhibits A–W). Full set per the Patexia related‑patent table: 10,938,534; 10,231,211; 10,932,298; 8,320,571; 10,148,477; 10,206,207; 10,244,559; 8,311,031; 9,496,976; 10,080,204; 8,320,565; 10,749,722; 10,271,349; 10,687,351; 8,593,936; RE48,101; 10,405,277; 10,863,439; 10,462,776; 10,009,896; 10,893,525. Amended complaint · Patexia summary
• Answer / counterclaims: NONE. Ford never answered. The docket shows only service of process and two unopposed extensions under Local Rule CV‑12:
  • Served 2022‑04‑06 (answer due 2022‑04‑27); re‑served on the amended complaint 2022‑04‑29 (answer due 2022‑06‑06).
  • 2022‑04‑26 — first unopposed extension (DI 10) → answer due 2022‑06‑06.
  • 2022‑05‑17 — second unopposed extension (DI 14) → answer due 2022‑06‑21.
  • No Rule 12 motion, no invalidity contentions, no DJ counterclaim was ever filed. Ford therefore obtained no U.S. adjudication of infringement or validity.
• Counsel of record (from appearance notices, DI 6–8, 13): Brent Bumgardner, Christopher P. Granaghan, Seong Jun Park, David T. DeZern, Jonathan H. Rastegar (docket entries attribute them to Sol IP). Note: the same docket text attributes Ford's extension applications to "Rastegar, Jonathan," which is internally inconsistent with the appearance notice listing him for Sol IP; I could not reconcile Ford's counsel of record from the retrieved docket excerpt and would treat that attribution as unverified.

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

None. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment practice. The case was resolved before the first case‑management deadline.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing or order. (For contrast, Sol IP's earlier carrier campaign against AT&T/Sprint/Verizon did reach claim construction rulings and summary judgment briefing before settling/dismissing in 2020 — different patents and parties. Mondaq)

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery served, no depositions, no damages or invalidity expert work is reflected on the docket.

5. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. No trial date was set, no verdict, and therefore no JMOL, new‑trial, or fee motions under § 285.

6. Final disposition — voluntary dismissal without prejudice

• 2022‑05‑31 — Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice (DI 15) filed by Sol IP.
• 2022‑09‑21 — Order (DI 16) by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne accepting the dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims without prejudice; AO‑120 mailed to the USPTO (DI 17). Case terminated 2022‑09‑21. Docket
• Legal mechanics: a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is self‑executing, so the dismissal was effective on filing 2022‑05‑31; the September order and AO‑120 merely formalized the closure. Because Ford had not served an answer or MSJ, Sol IP needed no court leave — it bought itself the right to refile, subject to the license and fee exposure.
• No appeal. Sol IP is the dismissing party; Ford had nothing to appeal.

7. Why it ended — the Avanci license (the decisive event)

• 2022‑05‑31 (same day as the dismissal notice) — Avanci announced a patent license agreement with Ford covering 2G/3G/4G SEPs of all 49 Avanci licensors, current and future, for Ford's connected vehicles. Ford was the fifth U.S. automaker and 41st brand to license; >65 million vehicles covered. Avanci press release PDF · Light Reading
• Sol IP is itself an Avanci licensor — its amended complaint expressly pleads that it licensed its 2G/3G/4G portfolio non‑exclusively through Avanci, and that Ford, unlike 30+ other auto brands, had refused the pool license. The pool license therefore moots the exact portfolio at issue, which explains a dismissal sought the same day and without prejudice.
• Trigger/pressure: In May 2022, the Munich Regional Court (7th Civil Chamber) held Ford infringed IP Bridge's EP 2 294 737 B1 (LTE channel‑quality indicator) via the FordPass‑Connect module in case 7 O 9572/21, granting an injunction, recall, and damages/accounting; enforcement required IP Bridge to post €227 million security. Ford took the Avanci license days later, mooting the German injunction and the related U.S. and German suits. JUVE Patent · Mobile World Live
• Practical read: this case is one of the "connected cars round two" U.S. filings — pure portfolio‑pressure litigation designed to move Ford into the pool, not to reach a merits judgment. Commentators (and Chinese-language coverage of Sol IP's later BYD/Munich filings) characterize Ford as capitulating "in under seven months." Autohome summary

8. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR activity

• No IPR/PGR on this case's asserted patents is reflected on the docket or in my searches, which is unsurprising: the case died on 2022‑05‑31, before Ford's answer deadline (2022‑06‑21), so Ford had no reason to file (and no statutory 1‑year bar clock running from service that mattered). Sol IP and Ford apparently did not litigate validity anywhere.
• Subsequent/adjacent PTAB‑ecosystem activity on the same ETRI/Sol IP portfolio exists but on different patents and years later: Unified Patents ran PATROLL prior‑art bounty contests on US 10,090,894 ("Transceiving data in a MIMO system") and US 9,900,067 (claim 7 and claim 38 respectively, contest window 2026‑09‑14 to 2026‑10‑18), describing those patents as "asserted by Sol IP" against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, Volkswagen and others. These are crowdsourced prior‑art efforts, not instituted IPRs, and they do not involve the Ford‑case patents. Unified '894 contest · Unified '067 contest
• Background only: in Sol IP's earlier carrier campaign, Ericsson and Nokia intervened, Markman rulings issued, and multiple SJ motions (validity, eligibility, infringement, standing/"hunting license") were pending when the remaining defendants were dismissed in May 2020 — again, different patents and parties. Mondaq

9. Flag on the metadata patent number

The case metadata lists US 10,090,894 as the patent at issue, but I could not substantiate that it was asserted in this Ford case. The original complaint asserts five patents ('534, '211, '298, '571, '477 — no '894), and the amended complaint's 21‑patent list includes US 10,009,896 ("Methods for transmitting and receiving of control channel in wireless communication systems"), a different patent from 10,090,894. US 10,090,894 is a Sol IP/ETRI patent — but it was asserted in Sol IP's suits against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, and Volkswagen, and appears in Unified's 2026 PATROLL contest. The most likely explanation is a data‑entry/transcription error (10,009,896 → 10,090,894) in the metadata source.

10. Verification gaps (stated plainly)

• No PACER‑authenticated copy of the DI 1, 9, 15, 16, or 17 documents was retrieved; docket text is from Justia/Patexia/RPX and secondary reproductions (Scribd), not PACER itself.
• Ford's exact counsel of record and any non‑docketed license/standstill terms (e.g., whether the Avanci deal included a covenant not to sue by Sol IP) are not publicly sourced; the link between the dismissal and the license is a same‑day timing inference, strong but not documented in a court filing.
• I found no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog/Patently‑O report specific to Sol IP v. Ford (the case was too short-lived for merits coverage); the best contemporaneous coverage of the underlying dynamic is Avanci's release, JUVE Patent, and FOSS Patents (as summarized by Mobile World Live).

I'll research the press coverage of this case, starting with the articles listed and then widening the search.

Let me verify the FOSS Patents articles and search for other outlets' coverage.

Let me verify the specific FOSS Patents articles and look for any additional coverage.

Based on my searches, here's what the press and analyst coverage reports.

The core coverage is FOSS Patents, which owned this story. Florian Müller's FOSS Patents reported on 2022‑04‑01 that Sol IP had become the fourth Avanci licensor to sue Ford, asserting five LTE standard‑essential patents originating from Korea's Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) in the Eastern District of Texas — describing Sol IP as a licensor holding "more than 600 patents" that was "not particularly prominent" among Avanci's then‑49 members. A few weeks later, FOSS Patents reported on 2022‑04‑23 that Sol IP had added 16 more SEPs, taking the case to 21 patents‑in‑suit — which the blog characterized as potentially a new record for SEPs asserted in a single complaint. The same outlet framed the case within a broader wave: FOSS Patents noted on 2022‑04‑20 that still another patent suit against Ford had been "discovered," and on 2022‑05‑05 it reported that the Optis/Unwired Planet group had sued Ford over five 4G SEPs — the sixth Avanci licensor to go after the automaker — followed on 2022‑05‑17 by Dutch operator KPN becoming the seventh, with the Munich court scheduling a September hearing. FOSS Patents' coverage is the only detailed, case‑specific reporting I could find; it was treating the Sol IP v. Ford docket as part of a deliberate, multi‑front licensing pressure campaign rather than as a stand‑alone merits dispute.

The endgame — Ford's Avanci license — was covered more widely, though usually without naming the Sol IP docket. JUVE Patent reported that Ford took an Avanci 2G/3G/4G licence days after the Munich Regional Court found Ford infringed IP Bridge's EP 2 294 737 B1 (case 7 O 9572/21) over the FordPass‑Connect module, and that the deal "should end current litigation, which involves seven patent disputes across the US and Germany." Mobile World Live credited "Specialist blog Foss Patents" with reporting that the Avanci deal "puts paid to a threatened injunction on Ford production in Germany" along with "infringement cases filed in the US," and noted Avanci's figure that Ford was the fifth US‑based automaker and 41st brand overall to license. German trade press supplied the numbers: kfz‑betrieb (Vogel) and automobil‑industrie reported, citing Wirtschaftswoche, that the Avanci licence cost €15 per vehicle, covers patents from 49 companies, and that Avanci said it had licensed 65 million cars across 41 brands. JUVE Patent separately flagged the €227 million security IP Bridge would have had to post to enforce the Munich injunction, and reported Ford had made no counteroffer to the Avanci pool — the stated basis for the unwilling‑licensee finding.

Reporting that went beyond the court record / industry reaction. heise online quoted FOSS Patents' Florian Müller as saying the ruling "weist der Automobilbranche ein rauer Wind aus deutschen Gerichtssälen entgegen" ("there's a rough wind blowing against the auto industry in German courtrooms") while calling the outcome "a confirmation of Avanci's business model." Crowell & Moring's Law360 "3 Auto Industry IP Trends To Watch In 2023" analyzed Ford's position — "Ford litigated prior to striking a deal with Avanci," facing disputes "across the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, and Munich" — and cited the FOSS Patents KPN article directly; it linked a Law360 item headlined "Avanci Now Scores Patent Deal With Ford" (law360.com/articles/1498190), which I could not open to verify its contents. Chinese‑language trade coverage tracked the case as a template: 企业专利观察 via bdipp.cn and Autohome's chejiahao both recount that Sol IP sued Ford over five 4G/LTE patents on 2022‑03‑31 and "one month later" added 16 more, with Autohome asserting Ford "held out for less than seven months" before capitulating — a conclusion not documented in any court filing. More recently, ip fray (2026) reported that Ford and GM joined Avanci's Wi‑Fi 6 Vehicles program and that Sol IP signed on as a licensor, noting Sol IP "is an active enforcer of its cellular SEPs."

Caveats. I found no mainstream or national press coverage (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently‑O) specifically about Sol IP v. Ford — the case was too short‑lived, ending in a voluntary dismissal roughly three weeks before Ford's answer was due. The strongest case‑specific sourcing is FOSS Patents; the dismissal‑license link is a reported inference (same‑day timing, 2022‑05‑31), not something any outlet documented from a court filing, and the FOSS Patents article texts themselves I verified by URL and citation rather than by opening each page, so I have attributed only their headlines and clearly reported substance.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
• 2:22-cv-00097 | Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company | RPX Empower
• Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company > Summary
• Scribd - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Cases
• FOSS Patents
• Somaltus, LLC v. Ford Motor Company - This case was last updated from U
• 第四家Avanci成员，起诉福特专利侵权
• Organisation: Ford Motor Company
• 比亚迪专利侵权？在德国被起诉，针对中国汽车的阳谋_车家号_发现车生活_汽车之家 - 点赞
• FOSS Patents

I'll research the docket and counsel for Sol IP, LLC in this case.

Let me verify the docket details and attorney affiliations.

Bottom line

Sol IP, LLC's plaintiff-side appearances in Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:22-cv-00097-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) consist of four attorneys: Brent N. Bumgardner (functionally lead), Christopher G. Granaghan, Seong Jun Park, and David T. DeZern. A fifth name on the Justia party listing, Jonathan Hart Rastegar, is almost certainly Ford's counsel, not Sol IP's — see the discrepancy note below. No in-house counsel appeared, no pro hac vice motions were filed (the case died before Ford answered), and nothing on this docket is sealed.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC

Discrepancies and limitations you should know about

1. Jonathan Hart Rastegar (Dykema? / firm unconfirmed) is Ford's counsel, not Sol IP's. Justia's party listing (docket ID 213523) shows him under "Represented By" together with the Sol IP attorneys, and docket entry 6 is captioned "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jonathan Hart Rastegar on behalf of Sol IP, LLC." That is contradicted by docket entries 10 and 14, where Rastegar filed "Defendant's Unopposed First/Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Sol IP, LLC" (Dkt. 10, 4/26/2022; Dkt. 14, 5/17/2022) — the standard E.D. Tex. docket text for a defense filing (the "re [plaintiff]" phrasing identifies the complaint being answered, not the filer's client). Ford's answer deadline was extended to 6/21/2022, so Ford had counsel of record; the caption on Dkt. 6 appears to be a docket-text artifact. I have flagged rather than counted him as plaintiff's counsel. If you need certainty, pull Dkt. 6 and Dkt. 10/14 images from PACER.

2. No designated lead trial counsel. E.D. Tex. does not require a lead-counsel designation at filing, and this case terminated before any docket control order or Local P.R. 3-series deadlines, so the docket never formally designates lead counsel. Bumgardner's role as lead is inferred from his signature on the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure, the dismissal notice, and his status as the firm's registered practitioner.

3. No pro hac vice admissions and no local-counsel designation. With only 17 docket entries (3/31/2022 complaint → 9/21/2022 dismissal order under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)), Sol IP never moved for pro hac vice admission of out-of-state counsel (Park, of Virginia, appeared without one — the case ended before it mattered) and never filed a formal local-counsel notice. Marshall Division practice would normally pair an out-of-town firm with E.D. Tex. local counsel, but no separate local firm appears on this docket.

4. The § 894 question (relates to your existing summary's contradiction). The free docket text does not itemize the patents-in-suit — Justia shows only "Exhibit A … Exhibit G" attachments to Dkt. 1. What is documented is that U.S. 10,090,894 was part of Sol IP's earlier ETRI-licensed assertion campaign in the Sol IP v. AT&T / Sprint / Verizon cases (2:18-cv-526/527/528, all E.D. Tex.), per Sol IP's First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Infringement Contentions, and it is the patent asserted in Sol IP's 2026 Volkswagen action (Ex. 2, 2:26-cv-00766). That supports, but does not by itself prove, that '894 was among the seven exhibits to the Ford amended complaint (Dkt. 9). The only way to settle it is to pull Dkt. 1/9 exhibits from PACER.

5. Context on the client. Sol IP, LLC is an assertion vehicle and exclusive licensee of ETRI patents (it represented in PTAB filings that ETRI "transferred … all substantial rights" and retained none; its infringement contentions carve out devices licensed through the Sisvel UK pool). Its PTAB counsel of record in the related IPRs was separate: Richard F. Giunta and Elisabeth H. Hunt of Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (Boston). Those attorneys did not appear in this Ford case, so do not list them here.

Sources relied on

• Justia docket, Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:22-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex.), docket ID 213523 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2022cv00097/213523 (docket entries 1, 3, 5–15, 16, 17)
• Law360 firm page for Seong J. Park, Fidelis Law Group (Tysons Corner, VA) — lists Sol IP v. Ford (3/31/2022) and Sol IP v. Qualcomm (3/17/2021)
• USPTO practitioner data for Seong Jun Park, Reg. No. 73534, Fidelis Law Group PLLC — https://www.patentbots.com/patentverse/practitioner/73534-Park-SeongJun
• PTAB papers establishing Granaghan's role and Bumgardner's lead/registered-practitioner status for Patent Owner Velos Media (IPR2019-00635, Paper 34/38; IPR2019-00710) — Docket Alarm
• G. Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung, 2:20-cv-00342 (E.D. Tex.), Notice of Appearance of Christopher G. Granaghan (Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC)
• Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. PTAB power of attorney (IPR2025-01182) listing Austin Ginnings, Christopher G. Granaghan, Timothy E. Grochocinski, Taryn Trusty — 3131 W. 7th St., Ste. 300, Fort Worth
• Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.) docket (Bumgardner, Grochocinski, Murphy appearances; Ex. 2 = US 10,090,894)
• Sol IP's First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Disclosures, Sol IP v. AT&T/Sprint/Verizon, 2:18-cv-526/527/528 (E.D. Tex.) (Table listing 10,090,894)
• Sol IP/ETRI Mandatory Notices, IPR2020-00242 (lead counsel Richard F. Giunta; backup Elisabeth H. Hunt, Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.)

Caveat: Item 4 (DeZern's firm) and the Rastegar attribution in item 1 are the two facts I could not nail down from public sources; everything else is grounded in the docket entries or the filings cited above. I have not named any attorney or firm not appearing in those sources.

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

The docket shows Ford's extension applications but I need to confirm who actually appeared for Ford. Let me dig deeper.

Let me verify the docket directly on CourtListener/RECAP and check whether Ford ever appeared.

Bottom line

No attorney entered an appearance on behalf of Ford Motor Company in this case, and the docket does not identify any counsel of record for the defendant. Ford was dismissed out on a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice roughly three weeks before its extended answer deadline, and it never filed an answer, motion, corporate disclosure statement, or notice of appearance.

What the docket shows (counsel-attributed entries)

Every appearance notice on this docket is captioned "on behalf of Sol IP, LLC." The only two filings touching Ford are the courtesy extension applications, and both are attributed in the docket text to Jonathan Hart Rastegar — who separately appeared in the same case as plaintiff's counsel (Dkt. 6). Rastegar is a Nelson Bragalone Conroy (now Nelson Bumgardner Conroy) patent litigator in Dallas/Fort Worth who has repeatedly filed these "unopposed application for extension" entries as plaintiff-side counsel in E.D. Tex. patent campaigns (e.g., Kioba Processing LLC v. Bank of America, 2:20-cv-00328; Kioba v. Capital One). So the extension entries are, on their face, plaintiff-side filings extending Ford's deadline — not a Ford appearance and not evidence of Ford's chosen counsel.

Therefore: no Ford lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, or in-house attorney can be identified from this docket. I am not going to name anyone as counsel of record for Ford here, because doing so would be fabrication.

Caution about the usual Ford litigation roster (not counsel of record here)

Ford's frequent patent-defense lineup is well documented in other matters — e.g., in Ford Motor Company v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, IPR2021-00339, Ford's updated power of attorney named Christopher TL Douglas (lead, Reg. No. 56,950), Michael S. Connor (Reg. No. 34,141), and Andrew J. Ligotti (all of Alston & Bird), with Jennifer M. Stec signing as Ford in-house IP Counsel. Alston & Bird also defended a U.S. cellular carrier against Sol IP itself in Sol IP LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00528 (E.D. Tex.) (per Alston & Bird attorney bios). Those facts make Alston & Bird a plausible but unconfirmed candidate for the defense in this case. They are not appearances in 2:22-cv-00097, and I found no filing, opinion, or press report tying any named attorney to Ford in this docket.

Nor did I find any local-counsel entry (e.g., Gillam & Smith, which handled Ford's local E.D. Tex. appearances in later matters such as Bunker Hill Technologies v. Ford, 2:25-cv-01116). Nothing of the kind appears here.

Why Ford likely never appeared

• Service: the patexia docket aggregation shows Ford served 4/6/2022 (answer due 4/27/2022), while Justia's mirror of the same docket shows a second "SUMMONS Returned Executed … served on 4/29/2022, answer due 6/6/2022" entry. Either way, the answer deadline was pushed to 6/21/2022 by the two unopposed extensions.
• Sol IP filed its notice of dismissal on 5/31/2022 — before any responsive pleading was due and before any Ford appearance was entered. The order closing the case was entered 9/21/2022.
• A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before the defendant answers is self-executing and requires no defendant signature — consistent with a defendant that had not yet retained/appeared of record.

Verification notes and limits

• I was working from third-party docket mirrors (Justia dockets for 2:22-cv-00097, RPX Empower litigation ID txedce-213523, and Patexia lawsuit ID 162714), not a live PACER pull or a CourtListener RECAP docket. Aggregators can mis-attribute the filing attorney and can drop entries; the filer attribution for Dkts. 10/14 should be confirmed against the actual PDFs in PACER before being relied on for any purpose.
• No sealed filings are indicated — the absence of a Ford appearance appears to reflect reality, not sealing. But if you need a definitive "no counsel of record," the cleanest confirmation is the PACER docket's "Attorneys" / party-representation panel for this case number, plus a check of the PDFs of Dkts. 10 and 14 to see whose signature block appears on the extension applications (a courtesy plaintiff-filed extension typically carries plaintiff's signature block and a certificate that defendant's counsel consents, which would name Ford's counsel if one had been identified).
• Consistent with the existing case summary's flag, there is also a dispute in the sources about whether US 10,090,894 was the patent actually asserted in the Ford amended complaint — that inconsistency should be resolved from the complaint/exhibit PDFs, and it does not affect the counsel answer above.

If you want, the next step that would actually produce a name is: pull PACER Dkts. 10, 14, and the amended complaint (Dkt. 9) signature blocks, and check whether any "consent" line names Ford's counsel. Until that is done, the correct answer is that the record discloses none.