Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case across dockets, legal news sources, and patent records.

Case Overview — Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Sol IP, LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE) organized as a Virginia LLC with a Vienna, Virginia address; it does not make or sell products, and derives revenue from licensing. Its portfolio is built overwhelmingly on patents acquired by exclusive license from the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), South Korea's government-funded ICT research institute, which transferred "all substantial rights" to Sol IP while retaining no substantial rights of its own — a structure Sol IP has itself represented to the PTAB (see Sol IP's Mandatory Notices as exclusive licensee in IPR2020-00242, re U.S. 10,080,204, Dec. 31, 2019). Sol IP is also a long-standing Avanci licensor, participating in Avanci's 4G and 5G Vehicle pools and — as reported by ip fray in 2026 — having joined Avanci's newer Wi-Fi 6 Vehicles program as its newest licensor, alongside licensors such as BlackBerry, Canon, NEC, NTT, Oppo, and Sharp. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is the Japanese parent of the Honda group; notably, the complaint names the Japanese parent entity, not American Honda Motor Co., Inc., which raises potential service-of-process and personal-jurisdiction questions that have not yet been tested on this docket (the parallel case against Volkswagen likewise names Volkswagen AG). Sol IP is represented by the Nelson Bumgardner firms (Brent N. Bumgardner, John P. Murphy, Timothy E. Grochocinski, Christopher Granaghan), with plaintiff's appearances entered September 1–2, 2026.

The accused technology. Sol IP targets the Wi-Fi/MIMO connectivity stack in Honda vehicles — the radios and firmware that enable in-car Wi-Fi hotspots, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, telematics, and over-the-air updates. The operative technical theory is that Honda's implementation of MIMO (multiple-input/multiple-output) antenna signaling in its WLAN chipsets practices the asserted claims. Public reporting on the complaint (GreyB Insights, Sept. 2026) states the complaint does not identify specific Honda models by name, and notes a discrepancy in how the standards version is characterized — GreyB's headline references Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7 while its body describes the accused behavior as Wi-Fi 5 / IEEE 802.11ac (MIMO), which is the version consistent with the asserted patents' March 2010 priority. I could not independently verify the accused models, the specific asserted claims, or the accused-products section of the complaint from a primary source; PACER docket entries recovered via PacerMonitor show only the complaint (Dkt. 1), the AO 120 patent form (Dkt. 2), and a Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 3). Readers should treat the accused-product details as reported rather than confirmed.

The asserted patents. Both patents share a common ETRI family and the same general specification:

• U.S. 9,900,067 B2, "Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving data in a MIMO system" — issued Feb. 20, 2018. It claims wireless data transmission in a MIMO/WLAN system using variable channel bandwidths, in which control/signal fields are repeated or structured differently depending on the frequency band in use to improve reliability. It is a family member of U.S. 8,761,881, which Sol IP litigated in its 2018 carrier cases (E.D. Tex. claim construction addressed "WiFi" patents including the '881 and the '095 patents).
• U.S. 10,090,894 B2, "Method and apparatus for transceiving data in a MIMO system" — issued Oct. 2, 2018. A sibling MIMO/WLAN data-transmission patent in the same family.

Posture and venue. Filed August 28, 2026, Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Nature of Suit 830. It was filed the same day, on the same two patents, against Volkswagen AG (No. 2:26-cv-00766), and the two are widely read as a coordinated campaign. Venue matters for the usual E.D. Tex. reasons — speed to trial, Gilstrap's patent-heavy docket, and a plaintiff-friendly track record — though E.D. Tex. has moved toward random case assignment in recent years and any local-venue advantage should not be overstated. Honda had not entered an appearance as of the sources reviewed, so no motion practice, scheduling order, or transfer motion is yet on file.

Why it is notable. Three threads converge. First, NPE assertion patterns: Sol IP has an unusually long and varied enforcement history — 2018 suits against AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (2:18-cv-00526, -00527) and later Qualcomm (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00270, asserting 28 ETRI patents); a 2022 campaign against Ford over 5G/4G LTE SEPs in E.D. Tex. (5 patents, then 16 more), which Ford settled within roughly seven months by taking an Avanci license; a 2024 suit against VinFast (C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05959); and German/UPC actions against BYD in 2025 that were withdrawn after BYD evidently took an Avanci pool license. The Honda and VW suits mark a shift from cellular to Wi-Fi patents in the automotive target set. Second, pool/enforcement linkage: with Sol IP now a licensor to Avanci's Wi-Fi 6 Vehicles program — whose announced licensees include Mercedes-Benz, Ford, and GM — these complaints fit the familiar Avanci playbook of pressuring unlicensed automakers (here, two large non-signatories) toward a pool license rather than a bilateral deal. Third, IPR/PATROLL linkage: Unified Patents has already opened a PATROLL prior-art bounty on claim 38 of the '067 patent (announced Sept. 14, 2026, closing Oct. 18, 2026), and describes the '067 as previously asserted against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, and Volkswagen. Unified Patents has run additional Sol IP MIMO prior-art bounties, so IPR petitions challenging these two patents are a realistic near-term development — though as of today no IPR against the '067 or '894 in connection with these suits has been confirmed on the record. The broader market context is the connected-vehicle SEP squeeze: features consumers treat as standard (Wi-Fi hotspots, wireless smartphone projection, OTA updates) are now the front line of automotive SEP monetization.

Sourcing note: Docket facts (case number, judge, filing date, complaint/AO 120/7.1 entries) are corroborated by PacerMonitor and Justia dockets; party structure and ETRI licensing by Sol IP's own PTAB filings and Mondaq's analysis of the Qualcomm complaint; the Avanci Wi-Fi program and Sol IP's licensor role by ip fray; the PATROLL bounty by Unified Patents' PATROLL portal; and the accused-technology description by GreyB Insights. Points I could not verify from primary sources and that should be treated as unconfirmed: the specific Honda models or claims asserted, the exact Wi-Fi standard version accused, and any IPR already filed against the '067 or '894.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Now let me dig into the PTAB history on these patents, related Sol IP cases, and recent docket activity.

Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.) — Litigation Development Report

As of: 2026-09-28 (case is 31 days old)

Bottom line first

This case is in its very first month. There is no answer, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no PTAB proceeding on the two asserted patents that I could verify. Anyone asking for "the outcome" is asking about a case that has not yet produced one. What follows is (a) what is documented on the docket and in press as of today, (b) the directly relevant prior history of this plaintiff and these two patents, which is the best available predictor of how this plays out, and (c) clearly labeled expectations. I flag every place where I could not source a fact.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Parties and posture. Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC is a non-practicing patent-licensing entity that runs an "LTE/LTE-A licensing program" and a separate "Wi-Fi licensing program," built on patents acquired from South Korea's Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). Defendant is named as Honda Motor Co., Ltd. — the Japanese parent — and, notably, not American Honda Motor Co., Inc. That naming choice is significant for both personal jurisdiction and venue (see § 2 below). (Source: GreyB case analysis, dated 2026-09-07; Sol IP corporate/licensing descriptions.)

No answer or counterclaim yet. As of the GreyB write-up (2026-09-07), neither Honda nor Volkswagen had entered an appearance through counsel in either case. I found no docket entry reflecting an answer, Rule 12 motion, or counterclaim in 2:26-cv-00764 as of 2026-09-28. Because Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a foreign defendant subject to service under the Hague Convention, its responsive-pleading deadline will run from completion of service — plausibly late November 2026 if it waives service under Rule 4(d), later otherwise. (Timing is my estimate under the Federal Rules, not a docket fact.)

Asserted patents.

Infringement theory. Sol IP frames this as a standard-essential patent (SEP) case, not a conventional hardware case. The Honda complaint does not identify specific Honda models. Instead it targets IEEE 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5) compliance itself, alleging that any Honda vehicle containing a device that implements 802.11ac infringes, and arguing that 802.11ax and 802.11be are backward-compatible and therefore also captured. Accused functionality is the consumer-facing Wi-Fi stack: wireless Apple CarPlay / Android Auto, in-car Wi-Fi hotspots, and OTA software updates. (Source: GreyB, 2026-09-07.)

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None filed. No motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment motion appears on the docket as of 2026-09-28. The following are the motions that are realistically available and that I would expect to be briefed, flagged as anticipation, not fact:

• Venue / personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)–(3)). Because only the Japanese parent was named and no U.S. subsidiary or U.S. place of business is pleaded in the materials available to me, Honda may contest whether it "resides" or has a "regular and established place of business" in E.D. Tex. under TC Heartland / In re Cray. Sol IP has litigated this exact issue before: in its 2022 Ford case it pleaded detailed agency and regular-place-of-business facts, including Ford's Plano, Texas market-area office and authorized dealerships as agents. (See Sol IP's Ford complaint, ¶¶ 19–26, reproduced at RPX Insight.) Whether an equivalent Texas footprint exists for Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is an open question I could not verify.
• Motion to transfer under § 1404(a) — the standard E.D. Tex. defense move, and worth watching given that Honda's U.S. operations are concentrated elsewhere.
• Motion to stay pending IPR. Not yet available; Honda must first file a petition. See § 7.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Local Patent Rule 4-1/4-2 disclosures, and no Markman hearing have occurred. For context on this judge and division, recent Gilstrap patent cases in Marshall have set Markman hearings roughly 12–13 months after filing and jury selection roughly 18 months after filing (e.g., in a comparable Gilstrap case in this district, Markman was set for 2025-12-10/11 and jury selection for 2026-06-01 on a case filed in late 2024). (Those dates are from a different, unrelated Gilstrap case found in a PTAB exhibit; they are illustrative of his pacing, not this case's schedule.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

None. Because the case is 31 days old with no Rule 26(f) conference reflected and no scheduling order entered, no discovery of strategic significance has occurred. The first meaningful milestones to watch are the Rule 26(f) conference, the court's docket control order, Sol IP's P.R. 3-1/3-2 infringement contentions, and Honda's P.R. 3-3 invalidity contentions — the point at which Honda's prior-art theory and any standard-essentiality/FRAND defense will first become visible.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion. Nothing.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

Present posture: active, pre-answer. The case remains open. There is no judgment and no appeal, and E.D. Tex. docket aggregators list it as open with Nature of Suit 830 (Patent). (Note: the Justia docket listing oddly characterizes the cause of action as "35 U.S.C. § 145," which appears to be a docketing artifact; the substantive claim is a § 271/§ 281 infringement action.)

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on US 9,900,067 or US 10,090,894 was found. I could not locate any instituted or pending PTAB proceeding challenging either asserted patent, and none would yet exist on this docket's schedule. Practical constraints and timing:

• § 315(b) one-year bar: any Honda IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of the complaint — i.e., roughly by late August 2027, assuming service in late August 2026.
• Fintiv / discretionary denial: E.D. Tex. defendants routinely pair an IPR with a Sotera stipulation to neutralize discretionary denial, and this district's practice of setting early trial dates cuts both ways on that analysis.

⚠️ Important patent-number caution: Searching for PTAB activity on "9,900,067" surfaces IPR2021-00389 (Samsung Electronics v. Garrity Power Services LLC), which concerns U.S. 9,906,067 — a different patent, directed to wireless battery charging, asserted in Garrity Power Services v. Samsung, No. 2:20-cv-00269-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Do not conflate the two. Likewise, the ex parte reexamination request and IPR filings that appear for a "9,906,067" belong to the Garrity wireless-power family, not to Sol IP's ETRI MIMO portfolio.

Related PTAB history that does touch Sol IP's portfolio: the consolidated 2018 campaign (see § 8) generated PTAB work on Sol IP patents — e.g., IPR2020-00241 concerning U.S. 9,888,435, in which Sol IP's First Amended Local Rule 3-1/3-2 Disclosures were filed as an exhibit. I could not confirm the petitioner or the outcome in that IPR from the retrieved material, so treat the identity and disposition as unverified.

---

8. The most relevant litigation/press context (and why it predicts the outcome)

These are not events in this docket, but they are the record that will drive settlement leverage here.

1. The same two patents were asserted in Sol IP's 2018 carrier campaign. Sol IP's First Amended Disclosures in Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.), consolidated with the Sprint (2:18-cv-00527) and Verizon (2:18-cv-00528) actions, list both 10,090,894 (claims 1–30) and 9,900,067 (claims 1–21, 23–27, 30–44) among roughly eleven asserted patents. That campaign terminated on 2020-05-20 as "Dismissed – Other." Ericsson and Nokia intervened in the related AT&T action (3:20-cv-00137). (Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database; Patexia litigation summary; Docket Alarm exhibit.)
2. Sol IP v. Qualcomm, No. 6:21-cv-00270 (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright) — a 5G/4G LTE/Wi-Fi SEP case against Qualcomm Technologies — "was successfully settled." (Source: Finnegan experience page.)
3. Sol IP v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex.) — Ford reportedly capitulated in under seven months and joined Avanci rather than litigate. (Source: Kangxin analysis of Sol IP's enforcement record.)
4. Sol IP v. VinFast, No. 2:24-cv-05959 — the case has closed; VinFast is not publicly listed as an Avanci licensee, indicating either a bilateral license or a non-public Avanci license. (Source: Kangxin.)
5. Sol IP's real commercial engine is Avanci. Sol IP is a licensor in Avanci's 4G and 5G Vehicle programs and, per ip fray, has joined Avanci's Wi-Fi platform as its newest licensor, alongside Atlas Global, BlackBerry, Canon, ISG, KPN, Malikie, Meizu, NEC, NTT, Oppo, and Sharp. Ford and General Motors have just signed on as Wi-Fi 6 Vehicles licensees. This means Sol IP's playbook is: sue an implementer, then monetize through a pool license rather than a court judgment. (Source: ip fray, 2026.)
6. German / UPC enforcement tracks the same pattern. Sol IP sued BYD in Munich I (EP 2575281, EP 2624516; German action surfaced 2025-02-19, filed 2025-02-07); those cases settled around September 2025 after BYD took an Avanci pool license. Sol IP then sued AGCO in Munich I for 4G SEP infringement (reported 2026-09-09). (Sources: Kangxin; ip fray.)
7. The coordinated Honda + Volkswagen filings. Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766, was filed the same day (2026-08-28), on the same two patents, before the same judge. The VW complaint is materially broader and more specific — it names App-Connect, Wireless Apple CarPlay, and the Xpilot Central Computer Platform (MM V01, MM V02), and sweeps in roughly ten vehicle lines (Atlas, Atlas Cross Sport, Tiguan, Taos, Jetta, Jetta GLI, Golf GTI, Golf R, ID.4, ID.Buzz). The Honda complaint, by contrast, pleads to the standard rather than to products. (Source: GreyB, 2026-09-07.)

Defenses to expect, given the SEP framing (anticipatory): FRAND/RAND royalty obligations and a breach-of-FRAND counterclaim (Sol IP's commitment to license through Avanci and its Avanci membership will be central); essentiality disputes over whether the ETRI claims actually read on 802.11ac; and § 101/§ 112 challenges. None of these has yet been pleaded.

---

9. Chronology (compact)

10. What to watch next

1. Honda's appearance and Rule 12 response — venue/PJ challenge, transfer motion, or answer with FRAND counterclaims.
2. Whether Honda petitions for IPR on either asserted patent before the § 315(b) deadline (~late August 2027), and whether it files a Sotera stipulation.
3. A scheduling order setting Markman (~late 2027) and trial (~2028) dates.
4. Signs of resolution via Avanci — the single strongest predictor of outcome here, given that Ford, VinFast, and BYD all ended in pool or bilateral licenses rather than adjudication.

Sourcing note: the docket-level facts above come from PacerMonitor's public docket pages for 2:26-cv-00764 and 2:26-cv-00766, the GreyB case analysis (2026-09-07), the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Patexia, Justia dockets, Finnegan's case page, Kangxin's enforcement analysis, and ip fray. I could not retrieve the complaint PDF, the VW complaint's full text, or any ruling; where I have inferred timing or defenses, I have labeled it as such. No counsel for Honda, no docket-level motion, and no PTAB proceeding on the two asserted patents could be verified.

I'll search for docket and counsel information on this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the named attorneys/firms.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC — Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.)

Caveat up front: This case was filed less than a month ago (2026-08-28) and is in its earliest pleading stage. The docket as reflected on PACER Monitor (case no. 66511847) shows only three entries — the complaint (Dkt. 1), the AO 120 patent form (Dkt. 2), and the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement (Dkt. 3) — each filed/signed by Brent N. Bumgardner. No defendant has appeared, and there is no scheduling order, no consolidated counsel list, and (per the sources available to me) no separate local-counsel designation. Anything beyond Bumgardner's signature block comes from secondary reporting on the coordinated filing campaign, and I flag below which items are docket-confirmed versus reported.

Docket-confirmed / primary-source

Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511847/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Honda_Motor_Co,_Ltd — docket text: "COMPLAINT Original Complaint for Patent Infringement against Honda Motor Co., Ltd. … filed by Sol IP, LLC … (Bumgardner, Brent)"; "Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by Sol IP, LLC (Bumgardner, Brent)."

Important nuance on "local counsel": Sol IP does not appear to be using a separate E.D. Tex. local-counsel firm in this case. Bumgardner is Texas-barred and practices out of Fort Worth, so the Nelson Bumgardner firm itself serves the local-counsel function (consistent with how Sol IP litigated its Ford case in this district). No Tyler/Marshall-based local firm is identified in the filings I can see.

Reported by secondary sources (not yet reflected in an appearance on this docket)

A GreyB case-analysis piece on the coordinated Wi-Fi campaign states that Sol IP is "represented by the law firms Nelson Bumgardner Albritton and Nelson Bumgardner Conroy, with attorneys including Brent N. Bumgardner, John P. Murphy, Timothy E. Grochocinski, and Christopher Granaghan, among others."

Source: https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/

No in-house counsel identified

Sol IP, LLC is a non-practicing entity (patent-holding/assertion vehicle working from ETRI-originated Wi-Fi/MIMO patents). No in-house litigation counsel has appeared or been reported.

Usefulness check — does the Plaintiff's team have a track record here?

Yes, and it is a tight, repeat-player group. Sol IP's prior auto-sector enforcement has been run by the same Nelson Bumgardner personnel:

• Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:22-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex., filed 2022-03-31, dismissed without prejudice 9/21/2022) — counsel listed on the docket: Brent N. Bumgardner, Jonathan Hart Rastegar, Christopher G. Granaghan, Seong Jun Park, David Thomas DeZern, all for Sol IP. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2022cv00097/[213523](/patent/213523)
• Sol IP, LLC v. VinFast Auto, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-05959 (C.D. Cal., filed 2024-07-16) — Bumgardner admitted pro hac vice with Ryan E. Hatch designated as local counsel. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2024cv05959/[933542](/patent/933542)

Bottom line for your purposes

1. Lead counsel of record: Brent N. Bumgardner, Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC (Fort Worth) — docket-confirmed as the only signatory/filer on this case so far.
2. Expect a Nelson Bumgardner Conroy (Grochocinski, likely Murphy/Granaghan) entry of appearance to follow, mirroring the companion case Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766, filed the same day before the same judge, where a Notice of Attorney Appearance by Brent Nelson Bumgardner was likewise the first counsel filing.
3. Do not treat the Murphy and Granaghan entries above as verified presence in this case — no appearance notices for them appear on the 2:26-cv-00764 docket in the sources I could reach. If you need certainty, pull the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00764 (Dkt. 1–5) and confirm the signature blocks on the complaint itself, which typically lists the full pre-suit team.

I'll research the docket and any defense-side appearances for Honda in this case.

Let me check for any defense appearances filed since the complaint, and look at the parallel VW case and Honda's known patent counsel.

Bottom line

As of today (September 28, 2026), no attorney has entered an appearance for Honda Motor Co., Ltd. on the Dkt. sheet in No. 2:26-cv-00764. The docket as captured by public aggregators still contains only three case-opening entries, all filed by plaintiff's counsel. There is no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure, and no notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant. I could not identify any defense counsel of record, and I will not name any by inference as if confirmed.

What the docket actually shows

From the PacerMonitor docket sheet (Case No. 66511847) and the mirrored entry on ai-lab.exparte.com:

Sources: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511847/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Honda_Motor_Co,_Ltd ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00764/sol-ip-llc-v-honda-motor-co-ltd ; https://dockets.justia.com/browse/noscat-10/nos-830

Corroborating secondary reporting: GreyB Insights' case note (dated September 7, 2026) states expressly that "as of now, neither company has filed an appearance through an attorney in these cases" — referring to both Honda and Volkswagen. https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/

Counsel who have appeared — all plaintiff-side: Brent N. Bumgardner, John P. Murphy, Timothy E. Grochocinski, and Christopher Granaghan (Nelson Bumgardner Albritton / Nelson Bumgardner Conroy). These are already covered in the prior section and are not defendant counsel.

Flagged contradiction with the prior section

The previously generated overview states that "plaintiff's appearances entered September 1–2, 2026" in this case. The PacerMonitor docket capture for the Honda case (00764) shows only Dkts. 1–3. The September 1–2 appearance notices (Dkts. 4–6, Bumgardner/Murphy/Grochocinski) appear on the Volkswagen docket, 2:26-cv-00766. See https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511849/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Volkswagen_AG. This may be an artifact of an incompletely rendered docket page, or the prior section may have carried the VW appearances over to Honda. Either way, it does not change the key point: nothing on the Honda docket is a defense appearance.

Why there is no defense counsel yet (and when to expect one)

This is not necessarily a "counsel is sealed" situation — it is a service-and-timing situation, and it is worth being precise about the mechanism:

1. The named defendant is the Japanese parent. The complaint names Honda Motor Co., Ltd., not American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (the prior section already flagged this, and the same is true of Volkswagen AG in the companion case). A foreign-domiciled defendant must be served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) and, for Japan, the Hague Service Convention — a process that typically consumes several weeks to a few months through the Central Authority.
2. Answer deadline is 90 days. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), a defendant served abroad gets 90 days after service to respond, rather than 21. With a complaint filed August 28, 2026 and Hague service likely completing in the fall, Honda's response date plausibly lands in late 2026 (roughly November–December) rather than the 21-day mark. An appearance often precedes that deadline, but there is no rule forcing one early — and no Rule 4(m) pressure yet (120-day window, measured from filing).
3. E.D. Tex. local-counsel rule means at least one Texas-barred attorney will appear. E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 requires any non-resident attorney to be associated with a member of the bar of this court who maintains an office in the district; Judge Gilstrap's practice is to require a designated lead counsel and a local counsel on the first filing. So whichever national firm Honda retains, expect a Marshall/Tyler/Dallas-area local counsel to appear on the same first filing.

Prospective counsel — explicitly labeled as not confirmed for this case

No firm has publicly confirmed a retention in 2:26-cv-00764, and I found no Law360, Reuters Legal, Bloomberg Law, or firm-press-release item announcing Honda's counsel here. The only concrete, documented data point I can offer on Honda's patent-litigation representation is from a different proceeding and a different Honda entity:

• In IPR2022-01539 (Neo Wireless, LLC v. automotive petitioners, U.S. Patent 10,965,512), American Honda Motor Co., Inc. was joined as a petitioner. The Board's termination order lists petitioner's counsel for GM, Nissan, Tesla, and American Honda as Timothy Riffe, Usman Khan, John Johnson, and Jeffrey Mok of Fish & Richardson P.C., and Reginald Hill and Nicole Keenan of Jenner & Block LLP. (Ford was separately represented by Latham & Watkins.) Source: PTAB termination order in IPR2022-01539, reprinted at Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/download.../LSC0IRXXGREENX7.pdf

I present that solely as prior-representation context for the Honda corporate family in automotive wireless SEP litigation. It is not evidence that Fish & Richardson, Jenner & Block, or any individual named above has been retained in this case, and no such attorney should be listed as "counsel of record" for Sol IP v. Honda on the strength of that IPR.

Related-angle items worth watching (adjacent to counsel identification)

• IPR side of the house. Given the Unified Patents PATROLL bounty on claim 38 of the '067 patent (announced September 14, 2026, closing October 18, 2026) described in the prior section, defense-side PTAB counsel may appear before district-court counsel does. No IPR petition against the '067 or '894 tied to these suits is confirmed on the record as of today. Note that under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), Honda's one-year IPR clock runs from service of the complaint — which, for a Hague-served foreign defendant, could itself be contested.
• Parallel-venue coordination. If Honda and VW are jointly coordinating (same patents, same day, same judge), it would not be surprising for the two dockets to show overlapping counsel or a joint defense group. As of today, neither docket shows a defense appearance, so there is nothing to compare yet.

What to do to confirm

1. Pull a live PACER docket report (not a cached aggregator page) for 2:26-cv-00764 in the coming weeks — appearances are typically docketed within days of filing and would show as a "Notice of Attorney Appearance" with the attorney's name, bar number, firm, and email.
2. Watch the Rule 7.1 disclosure — Honda Motor Co., Ltd.'s corporate disclosure, when it comes, will be signed by defense counsel and will name the lead attorney.
3. Check the VW docket (2:26-cv-00766) in parallel; if the campaign is coordinated, defense appearances may be filed in tandem.
4. Check for pro hac vice motions in E.D. Tex., which will identify out-of-state national counsel alongside the local counsel.

Sourcing note

• Confirmed from docket aggregators: the Honda docket contains only Dkts. 1–3, all plaintiff-side; no defense entry. (PacerMonitor case 66511847; Ex Parte AI Lab mirror; Justia NOS-830 browse listing.)
• Confirmed from secondary reporting: as of a September 7, 2026 report, no appearance had been filed for either Honda or VW. (GreyB Insights, https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/)
• Not verified / not asserted as fact: any specific firm or attorney retained by Honda in this case. The Fish & Richardson and Jenner & Block names above are documented only as counsel in IPR2022-01539 for American Honda Motor Co., Inc. in the Neo Wireless matter, and are offered as background, not as this case's counsel of record.
• I found no indication that any filing in this case is sealed; the more likely explanation for the absence of defense counsel is that service on the Japanese parent and the resulting 90-day response window are still running.