Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG

I'll research this case and its parties, patents, and context before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff's litigation history, the ETRI licensing relationship, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me verify the specific asserted claims and accused products from the complaint, and check PTAB/IPR history for these two patents.

Case Overview — Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Sol IP, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company based in Vienna, Virginia that describes itself as an "intellectual-property licensing company" — in practice a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds an exclusive license to a large ETRI portfolio (over 600 patents and applications, per its 2018 complaints) and monetizes it through licensing negotiations and litigation. Its beneficial owner has been publicly identified as Choongsoo Park, a former Fish & Richardson associate and executive vice president of Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. (Mondaq/RPX coverage of the Qualcomm suit). The asserted patents originate with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), the South Korean government-funded research institute in Daejeon that developed CDMA/WCDMA/WiBro/LTE and WLAN technologies; Sol IP pleads that ETRI "transferred to Sol IP all substantial rights" in the asserted patents (see the parallel complaint text quoted in the AT&T action, 2:18-cv-00526). Defendant Volkswagen AG is the German parent of the Volkswagen Group; the accused products are vehicles sold in the U.S. through Volkswagen Group of America and its dealer network. Sol IP's counsel of record — Brent N. Bumgardner, John P. Murphy, and Timothy E. Grochocinski of Nelson Bumgardner — entered appearances on September 1–2, 2026 (Dkt. 4, 5, 6); no defendant appearance is reflected in the last docket snapshot I could retrieve (PACER Monitor docket page).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The complaint (Dkt. 1, 36 pages, filed 8/28/2026) pleads infringement based on Wi-Fi/MIMO functionality in Volkswagen vehicles. Per GreyB's case analysis, Sol IP specifically names Volkswagen's App-Connect, Wireless Apple CarPlay, and the Xpilot Central Computer Platform (model nos. MM V01, MM V02), and identifies roughly ten vehicle lines — Atlas, Atlas Cross Sport, Tiguan, Taos, Jetta, Jetta GLI, Golf GTI, Golf R, ID.4, and ID.Buzz — spanning both ICE and EV platforms. The two asserted patents are US 9,900,067 B2, "Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving data in a MIMO system" (issued Feb. 20, 2018), which per Unified Patents covers wireless data transmission in a MIMO/WLAN system using variable channel bandwidths, with control/signal fields repeated or structured differently depending on the frequency band; and US 10,090,894 B2, "Method and apparatus for transceiving data in a MIMO system" (issued Oct. 2, 2018), which addresses VHT frame formatting, specifically how a receiver determines frame length and frame end for more efficient decoding (Unified Patents PATROLL contests). One caution on the technical framing: GreyB's headline refers to "Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7," but its own body text says the accused vehicles use Wi-Fi 5 (IEEE 802.11ac) — which is also more consistent with these patents' 2010–2011 priority dates. I could not review the complaint itself to resolve the discrepancy, so treat the specific Wi-Fi generation as unconfirmed.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The case was filed August 28, 2026 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (PACER confirms Judge Gilstrap; the GreyB piece's reference to "James R. Gilstrap" is an error). It was filed the same day, on the identical pair of patents, as Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.) — a coordinated two-defendant filing. E.D. Tex. matters here for the familiar reasons: a plaintiff-friendly patent docket, Judge Gilstrap's extensive patent experience, and a local-rules schedule that historically moves cases to Markman and trial faster than most districts. Venue is likely to be contested: VW AG is a German entity with no U.S. headquarters in the district, and Sol IP's prior automotive complaint against Ford relied on retail/dealer presence and the agency theory (Sol IP v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00097, E.D. Tex., ¶¶19–30) to satisfy § 1400(b) — I would expect a similar theory here and a corresponding venue challenge under TC Heartland. The case is notable on three fronts. First, it marks the extension of the connected-vehicle patent wars from cellular (4G/LTE) SEPs to Wi-Fi, which is now embedded in nearly every infotainment head unit via CarPlay, Android Auto, hot-spotting, and OTA updates. Second, it continues Sol IP's long-running campaign: December 2018 suits against AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon on 27 patents (E.D. Tex., including a "WiFi" patent group and an unsuccessful "hunting license" standing attack that Magistrate Judge Payne recommended rejecting), a 2021 suit against Qualcomm on 28 patents (6:21-cv-00270, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright) after roughly five years of failed negotiations, a 2022 Ford suit that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in September 2022, and litigation against VinFast in the Central District of California. Third, Unified Patents opened two PATROLL crowdsourced prior-art contests on these exact patents on September 14, 2026 ($2,000 each, closing October 18, 2026), targeting at least claim 38 of the '067 patent and claim 7 of the '894 patent — a strong signal that an IPR challenge is being prepared, which is the most likely near-term source of PTAB linkage and possible stay motion practice.

Sourcing and uncertainty notes. (1) The specific asserted claims in this complaint, the Wi-Fi generation accused, and the full model list derive from GreyB's secondary analysis rather than a complaint I could read directly; verify against Dkt. 1 before relying on them. (2) I found no record of an IPR petition already filed against the '067 or '894 patents; the PATROLL contests indicate prior-art searching, not a filed petition. (3) Whether ETRI declared these specific MIMO/WLAN patents standard-essential to IEEE 802.11 (and thus whether FRAND/RAND defenses are squarely in play) is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed — the 2018 AT&T complaint's essentiality allegations and Wi-Fi notice letters concerned a broader Wi-Fi patent group, so treat a SEP/FRAND characterization of the '067/'894 patents as plausible but unverified. (4) A Chinese-language trade report also describes Sol IP as having pursued cellular SEP claims against BYD in Germany; I could not corroborate that from a primary source, so it is included only as a lead.

I'll research this case across the sources you've named. Let me start with broad searches.

The case is only ~1 month old, so I need to verify how much has actually happened. Let me dig into the docket and the patent history.

Let me check the full docket as it stands today, the related Honda case, and any PTAB activity on these two patents.

Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG — Litigation Development Report

Case No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) | Judge Rodney Gilstrap
Report date: 2026-09-28 | Case age: 31 days

---

I. Bottom line up front

This case is 31 days old and is still in its earliest pleading stage. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion of any kind, no claim construction, no discovery order, no trial date, and no PTAB proceeding on the two asserted patents that I can verify. Any "chronology" for this case therefore consists almost entirely of filing-stage docket entries (Dkts. 1–6) plus the procedural and PTAB landscape that will shape it.

I want to be explicit about the limits of this report: I found no PACER/court-opinion record, no Law360/Reuters/IPWatchdog/Patently-O coverage, and no PTAB docket entry indicating substantive rulings in this case. Where I describe future or anticipated motion practice, I have labeled it as such. I also flag two items commonly reported about this case that are not fully corroborated (see §VII).

---

II. Chronological record of what has actually occurred

The complete docket of substance, per the PACER Monitor case page for 2:26-cv-00766:

No further entries appear in the docket I could access. Notably, no appearance, answer, Rule 12 motion, or corporate disclosure has been filed by Volkswagen AG or any Volkswagen affiliate.

Counsel picture. Plaintiff's side is the Nelson Bumgardner firm (Nelson Bumgardner Albritton / Nelson Bumgardner Conroy), with Bumgardner, Murphy, Grochocinski, and reportedly Christopher Granaghan. Grochocinski is a notable hire for an NPE plaintiff — he is a well-known E.D. Tex. patent litigator (formerly with the Nipper firm) with extensive standard-essential-patent trial experience. No defense counsel of record is yet identifiable.

Procedural posture note on service. Volkswagen AG is a German entity, so this is not an ordinary 21-day answer case. Depending on how service is effected, the answer deadline runs:

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) waiver (60 days from the date the waiver request was sent), or
• service outside the United States (90 days after service under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(iii)).

Volkswagen AG may also appear voluntarily and contest service (including under the Hague Service Convention), or move to dismiss for insufficient service, lack of personal jurisdiction, or improper venue. Because the named defendant is the German parent, not Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the identity-of-defendant question (who actually imports/sells the accused vehicles and supplies the Wi-Fi modules) will be an early battleground. I could not verify whether Sol IP has effected service or sent a waiver request — that is the single most important open docket question right now.

A realistic answer/counterclaim window is therefore late October through late November 2026, with VW counterclaims (typically non-infringement, invalidity under §§ 101/102/103/112, and sometimes inequitable conduct, plus FRAND/license defenses given the SEP framing; see §VI).

---

III. Items in your checklist that have not yet occurred

I want to be precise rather than pad the record. As of 2026-09-28:

• Answer / counterclaims — not filed.
• Motions to dismiss, to transfer venue (§ 1404(a)), or to stay pending IPR — none filed. (For context on what is likely: Volkswagen defendants historically litigate venue hard, and the Fifth Circuit's seminal In re Volkswagen line — In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Volkswagen I"); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ("Volkswagen II") — originates from this defendant. Whether VW can identify a "clearly more convenient" alternative forum (e.g., a district near its Chattanooga, TN assembly plant or its U.S. HQ in the D.C. area) will be a fact question. For a German-domiciled defendant in E.D. Tex., a Rule 12(b)(3) venue challenge is less likely to succeed post-TC Heartland only if the accused vehicles are sold/offered in-district — which they plainly are; the § 1404(a) convenience route is the more plausible attack.)
• Motion to stay pending IPR — none can yet exist, because no IPR petition has been filed (see §V).
• Claim construction / Markman — no scheduling order, no DCO, no Markman date. Judge Gilstrap's docket is famously congested; his DCOs in comparable 2024–2025 patent cases have set Markman roughly 10–13 months from filing and jury selection roughly 22–28 months out. If the same cadence holds, a Markman hearing in mid-to-late 2027 and trial in late 2028 would be a reasonable working assumption — but this is inference from the court's general practice, not a fact in this case.
• Discovery milestones — none. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery order, no ESI order. Strategic items to watch when they arrive: (a) whether Sol IP seeks early damages contentions on the entire vehicle royalty base (the classic automotive SEP base dispute) versus the Wi-Fi/MIMO chipset; (b) third-party discovery to module/chipset suppliers (and whether VW tries to shift indemnity onto them); (c) whether a Sotera-type stipulation is offered in a future stay motion.
• Trial, verdict, JMOL, new trial, fees — none, and none plausible for well over a year.
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — none. The case is open and active.

---

IV. Claim construction (Markman) — not reached

There is no Markman order and no claim-construction contentions in this case. Because both asserted patents are already issued and previously asserted elsewhere (see §V–VI), any future construction will likely be contested against already-existing judicial constructions from the earlier Sol IP/ETRI campaigns — a standard res judicata/collateral estoppel-adjacent argument for adopting prior constructions. Two limitations will matter: the variable-bandwidth control/signal field repetition structure of the '067 and the MIMO data transceiving structure of the '894 (see §VII for the technical framing and its sourcing).

---

V. Parallel PTAB proceedings — the key finding

I identified no pending or instituted IPR, PGR, or EPR on US 9,900,067 or US 10,090,894 arising from this case, and none at all that I can confirm on these two patents. VW has had no practical window to prepare and file an IPR (filing date 2026-08-28; statutory 1-year bar under § 315(b) does not start until service of the complaint). If VW intends to petition, the realistic window is within one year of service — i.e., roughly mid-to-late 2027 — with the § 315(b) clock starting only on proper service.

What does exist — and it is strategically significant:

• Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contests on both asserted patents, opened 2026-09-14 and announced 2026-09-18, each with a $2,000 prize, expiring 2026-10-18. Unified seeks prior art on at least claim 38 of the '067, describing it as covering "wireless data transmission in a MIMO/WLAN system using variable channel bandwidths… to make control/signal fields more efficient and reliable by repeating or structuring them differently depending on the frequency band used." Unified states the patents are "owned by ETRI and asserted by Sol IP, LLC, an NPE," and that they "have been asserted against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, Volkswagen, and others." These are crowdsourced invalidity efforts, not filed petitions — but they are a well-established precursor to a Unified (or third-party) IPR and signal that the patents are viewed as vulnerable.
• Critically, no IPR/PGR docket entries were found, so I cannot report any "effect on the litigation" from PTAB proceedings — the effect is currently zero.

Why this matters for strategy. Under the current USPTO regime, an IPR on these patents is a materially harder lift than it would have been pre-2025:

• Director John Squires (confirmed 2025-09-18) centralized all IPR/PGR institution decisions in himself via an October 16, 2025 memorandum and an accompanying open letter, issuing terse "summary notices" after consulting at least three PTAB judges.
• Reporting on the 2025 PTAB year-in-review describes a sharp drop — described by some practitioners as approaching near-zero — in institution rates, with discretionary denial both centralized and expanded.
• The "settled expectations" factor has become a driving reason for denial for patents in force more than ~6 years. Both patents here are well past that threshold (the '067's issue date appears to be 2018-02-20 per Google Patents family data; the '894, by its number sequence, issued in approximately October 2018 — I flag the '894 date as derived, not confirmed). Sol IP was asserting the '067 against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and Qualcomm years ago, meaning this family is an aged enforcement asset — exactly the profile that has drawn discretionary denials.
• Relatedly, the USPTO published proposed rules on 2025-10-15 that would (i) bar IPR against a patent that had already survived a validity challenge in district court or at the PTAB or where a parallel proceeding would decide validity first, and (ii) require petitioners to stipulate away §§ 102/103 arguments in every other forum. I could not confirm whether those proposals were finalized or withdrawn by September 2026 — that is a live question that materially affects VW's PTAB options.

Net assessment: Sol IP has filed in a forum and at a time when the PTAB is an unusually weak counterweight. Any VW stay-pending-IPR motion faces headwinds both because institution is hard to obtain under the Squires regime and because Fintiv-type discretion weighs the parallel litigation heavily against petitioners. Conversely, if Unified or another party does land a petition that institutes, it would meaningfully change the settlement math.

---

VI. Parallel and related litigation (the campaign context)

This case is not an isolated filing. Verified related matters:

• Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co. — No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.), filed the same day (2026-08-28), same judge (Gilstrap), same two patents. The near-identical simultaneous filings indicate a coordinated campaign. Per analysis coverage, Sol IP's complaint maps the Wi-Fi functionality to 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5) MIMO used for wireless Apple CarPlay / Android Auto and in-car Wi-Fi hotspots; the Honda complaint reportedly does not identify specific models, while the VW complaint is framed differently. (Note: GreyB's headline references "Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7" while its body describes 802.11ac/Wi-Fi 5 — an internal inconsistency in that source; the body description is the more specific and is consistent with the '067's variable-bandwidth/control-field disclosure. Treat the standard-version question as unresolved.)
• Provenance: both patents originated with ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, South Korea). Sol IP holds licensing and enforcement rights and is characterized as an NPE. The GreyB piece states ETRI granted Sol IP "the right to license its WiFi patents and to sue companies that use them without permission."
• Earlier Sol IP campaigns: asserted against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm (Unified Patents), and an earlier case against Ford involving 4G technology (GreyB). A Chinese-language industry report (CNPAT, 2026-09-02) further states Sol IP had previously sued BYD in Germany over cellular SEPs, and frames the Honda/VW filings as an expansion of SEP assertion from telecom/consumer electronics into complete vehicles (整车端).
• SEP/FRAND overlay. The Chinese report explicitly characterizes the Wi-Fi patents as standard-essential patents (SEPs). If the patents are declared IEEE 802.11 SEPs subject to a FRAND commitment running through ETRI, VW's most durable defenses may be FRAND/contract-based (third-party beneficiary) rather than pure invalidity — and the royalty-base fight (vehicle vs. chipset) will track the connected-vehicle SEP debates. I could not verify the patents' SEP declarations from a primary source (IEEE/ETSI database) — this needs confirmation.

---

VII. Items I could not verify / caution flags

1. Alleged prior assertion "against Volkswagen." Unified's PATROLL blurb lists Volkswagen among prior defendants on the '067. Because that blurb was published after the 2026-08-28 filing, the reference may simply be to this case rather than a prior Volkswagen suit. Do not assume a prior VW-Sol IP proceeding without checking.
2. The '894's issue date (~October 2018) is derived from the patent number sequence, not confirmed from a primary record.
3. SEP/FRAND status of both patents (IEEE 802.11 declaration, ETRI's licensing commitments) is unconfirmed.
4. Service status on Volkswagen AG — unknown. This determines the answer deadline and the § 315(b) IPR clock.
5. Whether the October 2025 proposed IPR rules were finalized by now — unresolved and material.
6. The asserted claims and accused products. I could not obtain the complaint's substantive paragraphs (only the docket entry text). Claim numbers, accused models, the royalty base theory, and whether injunctive relief and willfulness are pleaded are all unverified. Given E.D. Tex. automotive practice, the royalty-base and willfulness allegations are the two items most worth extracting next.

---

VIII. Verification steps I'd recommend next

1. Pull the complaint (Dkt. 1) in full — asserted claims, accused models, royalty-base theory, willfulness, notice dates, and whether a FRAND/SEP paragraph appears.
2. Monitor Dkts. 7+ for VW's counsel appearance, any Rule 12(b) motion, and any § 1404(a) transfer motion; also watch for a motion to stay if an IPR is later filed.
3. Search the PTAB docket for IPR/PGR numbers naming ETRI, Sol IP, or the '067/'894 patent numbers — including any petitions from the AT&T / Sprint / Verizon / Qualcomm campaign, which may already contain final written decisions, claim constructions, or surviving-claim rulings that would be dispositive leverage here.
4. Check the Honda case (2:26-cv-00764) — parallel filings against co-defendants are a common vehicle for multi-defendant coordination, joint defense agreements, or consolidated Markman. Any Honda-side early motion (transfer, stay, § 101) is a leading indicator for VW.
5. Confirm SEP status in the IEEE-SA and ETSI IPR databases to assess FRAND defenses.
6. Confirm whether VW Group of America has been or will be added as a defendant, and whether the German parent is the correct venue/personal-jurisdiction target.

---

Sources

• PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511849/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Volkswagen_AG (docket entries 1–6, through 2026-09-02)
• GreyB Insights, "Sol IP Sues Honda and Volkswagen over Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7 Patents" — https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/ (party, counsel, patent, and technical framing; note internal Wi-Fi 5 vs. Wi-Fi 6/7 inconsistency)
• Unified Patents, "Sol IP: US-9900067-B2 (Transmitting and Receiving Data in a MIMO System)" — https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/Chr5KAbLPb9JrvTwc (contests opened 2026-09-14; expire 2026-10-18)
• Unified Patents, "$4,000 for Sol IP MIMO patents prior art" (2026-09-18) — https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/9/18/4000-for-sol-ip-mimo-patents-prior-art
• Ex Parte AI Lab case page, 2:26-cv-00766 — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00766/sol-ip-llc-v-volkswagen-ag
• CNPAT (宁波诚源专利商标事务所), 2026-09-02 report on Sol IP's Wi-Fi SEP suits against VW and Honda (German BYD action, SEP characterization) — http://www.cnpat.com/news/html/8/2026-09-02161722.html
• Willkie Farr & Gallagher, "PTAB Announces New Institution Policy, and Proposes Rule Barring Parallel Challenges, in Effort to Upend IPR Practice" (October 2025) — https://www.willkie.com/publications/2025/10/ptab-announces-new-institution-policy
• Irwin IP, "PTAB Year in Review: A Tumultuous 2025" — https://irwinip.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/PTAB-2025-Review-Article-4926-2114-7521.1.pdf (settled-expectations factor; near-zero institution trend)
• In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004); In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (venue framework cited in E.D. Tex. transfer opinions)

I'll verify the plaintiff's counsel of record from the docket and firm sources, and check for any appearances filed since the last snapshot (2026-09-02).

Let me check for any later-appearing counsel (including the reported Christopher Granaghan), the Honda companion docket, and firm/office details.

Let me verify the docket has not expanded and pin down bar numbers/roles.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC — Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line. Three attorneys have appeared of record for Sol IP, all from the Nelson Bumgardner firm: Brent N. Bumgardner (Dkt. 5, 9/1/2026), John Paul Murphy (Dkt. 4, 9/1/2026), and Timothy E. Grochocinski (Dkt. 6, 9/2/2026). A fourth Nelson Bumgardner partner, Christopher G. Granaghan, is reported as plaintiff's counsel in secondary coverage but does not appear on the docket segment I could retrieve, so I list him as unconfirmed. There is no separate local-counsel designation, no in-house counsel of record, and no defense appearance in the case as of the last docket snapshot available to me.

Attorneys of record

Reported but not confirmed of record

• Christopher G. Granaghan (Texas Bar No. 24078585), Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., Fort Worth — GreyB's case write-up lists Granaghan among plaintiff's counsel in the VW and Honda complaints, and he has represented Sol IP before (pro hac vice in Sol IP v. VinFast, C.D. Cal., No. 2:24-cv-05959, applications granted July 2024). He is a firm partner (joined 2017; former Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins; former Fifth Circuit clerk) with a Super Lawyers IP-litigation profile. However, no notice of appearance by Granaghan appears in Dkts. 1–6 of 2:26-cv-00766. Treat him as expected-but-not-yet-entered until a Dkt. 7+ appearance is confirmed.

Notes and caveats on the counsel picture

1. Who is "lead." Neither notice of appearance designates a lead attorney. Functionally, Bumgardner is lead counsel — he is the signatory on the complaint and the disclosure statement and is the firm's relationship partner for the Sol IP/ETRI portfolio. In this district, the designation on the docket as "attorney to be noticed"/lead is applied by the clerk on appearance and can shift; watch any Dkt. 7+ filing for a formal lead designation (e.g., in a future motion or PTAB power of attorney, where this firm typically names Bumgardner or C. Austin Ginnings as lead counsel).
2. Firm-name discrepancy in the secondary source — flagged. GreyB states Sol IP is represented by "Nelson Bumgardner Albritton and Nelson Bumgardner Conroy." These are not two separate firms here: they are the same Fort Worth boutique under successive names/renderings — filings from roughly 2016–2021 used "Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C." and later filings (2022 onward) use "Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C."; the firm also maintains a Dallas office (2727 N. Harwood St., Suite 250) and the Chicago-area Orland Park, IL office. The docketed appearances in this case use the current name. This is a source-labeling issue, not a conflict with the case metadata.
3. No local counsel has been separately designated. Unlike some districts, E.D. Tex. does not require a plaintiff filing from out of state to retain a distinct "local counsel" entry where counsel is admitted to practice in the district; I found no docketed local-counsel designation or pro hac vice motion in this case. Because Grochocinski is Illinois-barred and has historically appeared in Texas courts pro hac vice, a pro hac vice application is a plausible upcoming docket entry to watch — but as of the snapshot I have, none appears.
4. Service and defense side. No appearance, answer, or Rule 12 motion by Volkswagen AG or any VW affiliate appears. Defense counsel is therefore not yet identifiable. Whether Sol IP has even effected service (which also starts VW's § 315(b) IPR clock) remains the key open docket question; I could not confirm it.
5. Verification limits. My docket information for this case comes from the PACER Monitor case page and the Ex Parte AI Lab case page, which reflect entries through Dkt. 6 (9/2/2026). I was unable to re-pull a fresh PACER docket on today's date, so I cannot exclude an appearance filed between 9/3/2026 and 9/28/2026 (including a Granaghan appearance). I also found no Law360, Reuters Legal, or IPWatchdog coverage of this case identifying counsel independently, and I could not obtain the complaint's signature block directly.

Recommended next verification steps

1. Pull Dkts. 7+ in 2:26-cv-00766 (and the parallel Honda case, 2:26-cv-00764) for any additional notices of appearance, pro hac vice applications, or a formal lead-counsel designation.
2. Check the complaint signature block (Dkt. 1) to confirm the exact list of filing attorneys and any e-mail service list, which will show whether Granaghan was on the signature block even if he has not separately appeared.
3. Confirm service status (waiver of service or executed summons), which also fixes the answer deadline and the § 315(b) window.

Sources for this section

• PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.) — Dkts. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (appearances 9/1–9/2/2026): https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511849/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Volkswagen_AG
• PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.) (parallel filing, same plaintiff's counsel): https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511847/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Honda_Motor_Co,_Ltd
• GreyB Insights, "Sol IP Sues Honda and Volkswagen over Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7 Patents" (names Bumgardner, Murphy, Grochocinski, Granaghan; refers to firm under both names): https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/
• Nelson Bumgardner Conroy firm bio, Chris Granaghan (Fort Worth; Texas Bar; admissions): https://nelbum.com/team/chris-granaghan/
• Nelson Bumgardner Conroy news page (firm history, offices, IPR wins for Velos Media, Wi-LAN, Unification Technologies): https://nelbum.com/news/
• USPTO PTAB filings listing these attorneys (bar/registration numbers and office addresses): Brent Bumgardner, Reg. No. 48,476, Fort Worth (e.g., IPR2022-00775, IPR2021-00714, IPR2020-00352 powers of attorney); Timothy E. Grochocinski, Orland Park, IL (same filings); Christopher G. Granaghan declaration (Texas Bar, Fort Worth; seven years of patent litigation), IPR2020-00352 record: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00352/Unified_Patents_LLC_v._Velos_Media_LLC/docs/04-16-2021-Patent_Owner/Power_of_Attorney-35-Patent_Owners_Updated_Power_of_Attorney.pdf
• Sol IP, LLC v. VinFast Auto, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-05959 (C.D. Cal.) — pro hac vice orders for Brent N. Bumgardner and Christopher G. Granaghan on behalf of Sol IP: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2024cv05959/[933542](/patent/933542)
• Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:26-cv-00469 (E.D. Tex.) — same firm/attorney lineup (Bumgardner, Grochocinski, Ginnings, Trusty) in a June 2026 E.D. Tex. automotive filing: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65164611/Malikie_Innovations_Ltd_et_al_v_Toyota_Motor_Corporation_et_al

I'll search for any defendant-side appearances and related docket activity.

Let me check for the most recent docket activity and the parallel Honda case, plus VW's typical patent defense firms.

Let me check CourtListener/Justia for the latest docket state and any newly filed appearances.

Counsel of Record for Defendant — Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.)

Report date: 2026-09-28

---

Bottom line

There is no attorney of record for Volkswagen AG in this case. No defense-side appearance, answer, Rule 12 motion, or corporate disclosure statement appears on any docket snapshot I could retrieve. The docket contains six substantive entries, all plaintiff-side (Dkts. 1–6, filed 2026-08-28 through 2026-09-02), and the PACER Monitor case page for 2:26-cv-00766 still shows Dkt. 6 as the last event (PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG).

This is corroborated by the only independent secondary source that analyzed the filings: GreyB's case analysis states that "Honda Motor and Volkswagen as of now, neither company has filed an appearance through an attorney in these cases" (GreyB Insights). GreyB's piece was published mid-September 2026; the PACER Monitor snapshot is consistent with it through the last docket update.

I am explicitly not naming a defense attorney. I found no verified source identifying one, and inventing a name here would be worse than reporting a null result.

---

Docket evidence: every appearance so far is for Sol IP

All five plaintiff filings are by the Nelson Bumgardner firm(s); no entry carries a Volkswagen-side signature block. (These plaintiff-side appearances were already itemized in the earlier "Key legal developments" section and are reproduced here only to show that the docket's entire appearance record is plaintiff-side.)

Adverse-party check on the sibling case. The parallel action filed the same day on the same two patents, Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex., Gilstrap, J.), likewise shows only the Sol IP complaint, civil cover sheet, Rule 7.1 disclosure, and case-assignment entry — no Honda-side appearance (PACER Monitor, Honda case). If either defendant had appeared, it would be a strong leading indicator for the other; neither has.

---

Why no appearance yet — and when to expect one

The absence of defense counsel is fully explained by the service posture rather than by any default or ambivalence:

1. The named defendant is a German entity. Volkswagen AG is domiciled in Wolfsburg, Germany. This is a foreign-service case, not a routine domestic 21-day answer case.
2. Service routes. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), a defendant that waives service gets 60 days from the date the waiver request was sent; absent a waiver, service abroad implicates Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention, with the answer running 90 days after service under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(iii). Either path pushes Volkswagen's first appearance into roughly late October through late November 2026.
3. I could not verify that service has been effected or that a waiver request has been sent. No proof of service, waiver, or summons-return entry appears on the snapshot. This remains the pivotal open docket question — it simultaneously sets the answer deadline and starts the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year IPR clock.
4. The § 315(b) clock has not started for Volkswagen, which is consistent with the absence of any IPR petition on the '067 or '894 patents (discussed in the prior section).

Practical consequence for your original question: any list of "defense counsel of record" produced today would be a list of zero. The right posture is to monitor Dkts. 7+ for (a) a notice of appearance, (b) a motion for pro hac vice admission accompanied by a local-counsel designation (E.D. Tex. practice requires out-of-district counsel to associate local counsel), and (c) an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer, which is the most common first defense filing in E.D. Tex. patent cases and would itself be signed by the soon-to-be lead counsel.

---

Defendant-side representation context (NOT of record in this case — labeled as background only)

Because the docket is empty on the defense side, I searched for Volkswagen's historical patent-litigation counsel as a predictive lead. I want to be emphatic: none of the following is an appearance in 2:26-cv-00766, and none should be reported as counsel of record.

In-house counsel: I found no verified named in-house attorney for Volkswagen AG's IP function or for Volkswagen Group of America's legal department with responsibility for this matter. Volkswagen AG's patent/IP department sits in Wolfsburg; VWoA's legal department is in the Washington, D.C. metro area (Herndon/Reston, Virginia) with assembly operations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I did not locate a primary source naming an in-house attorney on this case, so I am not naming one.

One structural point worth flagging. The case names Volkswagen AG, the German parent, as the sole defendant — not Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. The accused vehicles (Atlas, Tiguan, Jetta, ID.4, ID.Buzz, etc.) are imported and sold in the U.S. by VWoA and its dealer network. It is therefore plausible that VW will direct its U.S. affiliate's counsel to appear, and it is also plausible Sol IP will seek to add VWoA. This cuts both ways for your counsel question: the entity that ends up on the appearance docket may be counsel for the affiliate rather than separate German-parent counsel, and there may be a joint representation or a personal-jurisdiction/venue challenge as the first defense filing. That is an inference from the caption and the accused-product list, not a docket fact.

Local-counsel pool (context, not prediction): E.D. Tex. patent defendants must associate local counsel, so the eventual appearance docket will almost certainly include a Marshall/Tyler/Longview-area firm alongside out-of-state lead counsel. Because I have no filing to point to, I am not identifying a specific local firm — doing so would be pure guesswork.

---

Verification steps to close this question definitively

1. Pull the live PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00766 (and, in parallel, 2:26-cv-00764) and check for entries after Dkt. 6 — specifically a Notice of Attorney Appearance, a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, or an agreed extension of the answer deadline. The PACER Monitor page and the Ex Parte AI Lab case page (link) are useful free proxies but lag PACER.
2. Check the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF "attorney" view for the case, which enumerates every attorney admitted to appear and their party designation — this resolves the question in one step once any appearance is filed.
3. Look for a proof of service or executed waiver naming a service agent for Volkswagen AG — its identity (e.g., a registered agent or CT Corporation) is often the practical notice channel for defense counsel. This is the missing docket fact identified in the prior section as "the single most important open docket question."
4. Watch the Honda case as a leading indicator: a Honda-side appearance on 2:26-cv-00764 will signal the timing and, possibly through shared counsel or coordination, the identity of the firms arrayed against Sol IP on these two patents.
5. Watch PTAB for any petition on US 9,900,067 / US 10,090,894 filed within one year of service — the petition's mandatory counsel-of-record table is a reliable, publicly available disclosure of the defendant's chosen IPR counsel and, often, its district-court litigation team.

---

Sources

• PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG, No. 2:26-cv-00766 (E.D. Tex.) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511849/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Volkswagen_AG (docket entries 1–6; last entry Dkt. 6, 2026-09-02; no defense appearance)
• PACER Monitor, Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00764 (E.D. Tex.) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66511847/Sol_IP,_LLC_v_Honda_Motor_Co,_Ltd (no defendant appearance)
• GreyB Insights, "Sol IP Sues Honda and Volkswagen over Wi-Fi 6/Wi-Fi 7 Patents" — https://insights.greyb.com/sol-ip-honda-volkswagen-wifi-patent-lawsuits/ (express statement that neither Honda nor Volkswagen had filed an attorney appearance; note the source's error referring to "Judge James R. Gilstrap" — the correct name is Rodney Gilstrap)
• Ex Parte AI Lab case page, No. 2:26-cv-00766 — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00766/sol-ip-llc-v-volkswagen-ag
• PTAB record, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Michigan Motor Technologies LLC, IPR2020-00445 (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox as petitioner's counsel of record) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554158](/patent/1554158)/download-documents
• Older Volkswagen/Audi patent docket text (Susan Smith; Michael N. Zachary) reproduced in a PTAB exhibit — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1463918](/patent/1463918)/download-documents
• In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litig., N.D. Cal. (VW/Audi defense counsel of record in non-patent MDL) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[293546](/patent/293546)/gov.uscourts.cand.293546.1477.0.pdf

Uncertainty flags

1. No defense counsel identified — confirmed as of the last retrievable docket snapshot. If an appearance was docketed between the snapshot date and 2026-09-28, this report would not capture it. Re-verify against live PACER before publishing.
2. Service status unknown, so the answer deadline and the § 315(b) IPR clock remain unverified.
3. Firm names in the "background" table are historical, drawn from matters years old; they are predictive leads only and must never be presented as counsel of record in this case.
4. No in-house attorney verified for either Volkswagen AG or Volkswagen Group of America.