Neo Wireless v. Volkswagen: Six LTE/5G Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice After 562 Days
Neo Wireless, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan asserting six US patents covering 4G/LTE and 5G wireless protocols against Volkswagen AG and its US operations, targeting connected-car platforms including Volkswagen Car-Net, Audi Connect, Porsche Connect, and My Bentley. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after 562 days, each bearing its own costs.
Six-patent LTE/5G assault on Volkswagen’s connected-car ecosystem ends in mutual walk-away
Neo Wireless, LLC filed this patent infringement action on 28 June 2022 in the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge Terrence G. Berg. The complaint asserted six US patents — US10965512B2, US8467366B2, US10771302B2, US10833908B2, US10447450B2, and US10075941B2 — all directed at wireless communications technology spanning 4G/LTE and NR/5G standards. The accused products were Volkswagen AG’s connected-car platforms: Volkswagen Car-Net, Audi Connect, My Bentley, and Porsche Connect systems operated through Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations LLC.
The case closed on 11 January 2024 via a joint motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Judge Berg granted the motion and dismissed all claims and counterclaims — both current and previously pled — with prejudice. Crucially, the order specified that each party would bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, indicating no economic concession was publicly extracted or awarded. Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Neo Wireless’s right to refile identical claims against these Volkswagen entities in any federal forum.
The 562-day duration and joint nature of the dismissal motion are consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or cross-party agreement — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing order is a common feature of confidential settlements, as it avoids either party appearing to have capitulated. What remains unknown is whether Neo Wireless secured any ongoing royalty stream or one-time payment from Volkswagen’s sprawling connected-vehicle business across its luxury and volume brands.
Filing to dismissal in 562 days
562 days — resolved before trial in a multi-patent wireless connectivity dispute
Joint dismissal with prejudice — what the order means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(2) Joint Motion — court-ordered finality by consent
A Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal requires court approval and is typically sought when the parties have already reached agreement and need a judicial order to formally close the docket. The joint nature signals both parties affirmatively requested termination — neither was forced out. The court’s role here was largely ministerial, confirming the parties’ agreed disposition rather than adjudicating the merits.
Consensual court closureWith prejudice bars Neo Wireless from refiling identical claims
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, even absent a trial. Neo Wireless cannot refile the same six patent claims against Volkswagen AG or Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations LLC in any US federal court. This is a meaningful concession by Neo Wireless — it permanently surrenders litigation leverage on these specific patents against these defendants. It does not, however, bar suit against other automakers or for different infringement periods.
Permanent bar on refilingMutual cost-bearing — no fee-shifting, no public winner declared
The order that ‘each party will bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses’ is a standard feature of negotiated resolutions. It avoids triggering an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and signals neither side sought to publicly characterise the other as having litigated in bad faith. In practice, mutual cost-bearing in a six-patent wireless case of this scale is consistent with a confidential commercial resolution rather than a pure defendant win.
No § 285 fee awardSix-patent assertion across four luxury and volume brands signals licensing intent
Asserting six patents simultaneously across Volkswagen’s entire connected-car ecosystem — from mass-market Car-Net to Porsche and Bentley premium tiers — is a pattern consistent with a licensing-oriented plaintiff seeking to establish value across a broad OEM customer base. Neo Wireless has filed similar suits against other automotive and technology companies, suggesting a systematic patent monetisation programme targeting cellular connectivity in vehicles.
Patent monetisation patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Neo Wireless, LLC | Company | Wireless technology licensing entity — holder of six 4G/LTE and 5G standard-essential-adjacent patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Volkswagen, AG | Company | Volkswagen AG and US manufacturing subsidiary — operator of multi-brand connected-car telematics platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher S. Stewart | Attorney | Counsel for Neo Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Dodd Cassady | Attorney | Counsel for Neo Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jaye Quadrozzi | Attorney | Counsel for Neo Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anna G. Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Yonan | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deirdre Marie Wells | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin Weiner | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rob Niemeier | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan D. Levy | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Richardson | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Susan M. McKeever | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Milliken | Attorney | Counsel for Volkswagen, AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Terrence G. Berg | Chief Judge | Michigan Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order grants the joint motion and dismisses all claims and counterclaims ‘currently and previously pled’ with prejudice — the phrase ‘currently and previously pled’ is notably broad, suggesting the parties intended to extinguish any claim that could have been raised, not merely those on the docket at closing. The mutual cost-bearing instruction forecloses any post-judgment fee motion. For Volkswagen, the with-prejudice bar provides clean closure; for Neo Wireless, it signals either a satisfactory commercial outcome or a strategic concession to focus enforcement resources elsewhere.
US10965512B2 and five further Neo Wireless patents — 4G/LTE and 5G wireless protocols
The six patents asserted by Neo Wireless span US patent numbers US10965512B2, US8467366B2, US10771302B2, US10833908B2, US10447450B2, and US10075941B2. Their application numbers indicate filings across a multi-year window, with US8467366B2 (App. No. 13/205579) representing an earlier generation and the remaining patents maturing through subsequent application cycles. The technical domain covers core aspects of 4G/LTE and New Radio 5G wireless communications — the foundational protocols underpinning modern vehicle telematics, V2X connectivity, and OTA software update infrastructure in connected vehicles.
Wireless patents in this technical space carry significant strategic weight because 4G/LTE and 5G are the backbone of every major OEM’s connected-services platform. A portfolio asserting coverage across both generations of cellular standard creates leverage against the full lifecycle of deployed vehicles — LTE-equipped models already on the road and 5G-ready platforms entering production. For competitors and Tier 1 telematics suppliers, Neo Wireless’s ability to extract a resolution from Volkswagen’s entire brand hierarchy — including Porsche and Bentley — suggests the portfolio has at minimum commercial settlement value, and warrants monitoring for assertions against other automotive and mobility technology companies.
Should you run an FTO against Neo Wireless’s 4G/LTE and 5G connected-car patents?
Any OEM, Tier 1 supplier, or telematics platform provider integrating 4G/LTE or NR/5G connectivity into vehicle systems should treat Neo Wireless’s six-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The Volkswagen action demonstrates willingness to assert across entire brand families simultaneously — a single connected-car platform could expose a full product line. If your company is developing or deploying V2X, OTA update, or in-vehicle connectivity features using LTE or 5G modems, an FTO review against US10965512B2 and the five co-asserted patents is commercially prudent before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s wireless stack against the claim language of all six Neo Wireless patents, flagging overlap risk at the feature level rather than the abstract patent level. Eureka also supports claim monitoring alerts — so if Neo Wireless files continuation patents or new applications in related families, your team is notified before a new assertion lands in your inbox. Run the analysis now to understand your exposure before a litigation demand crystallises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10965512B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 4G/LTE and 5G patent infringement cases against automotive OEMs
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the connected-car cellular IP landscape
Neo Wireless’s campaign against Volkswagen’s full brand stack illustrates how wireless SEP-adjacent portfolios are being weaponised against OEM telematics systems.
Connected-car telematics is a high-value target for wireless patent assertions
The simultaneous assertion against Car-Net, Audi Connect, Porsche Connect, and My Bentley demonstrates that plaintiffs are targeting the entire OEM connectivity stack rather than a single product. R&D teams building LTE or 5G vehicle integration should treat their wireless stack as a litigation risk area and commission FTO analysis before platform launch.
Joint dismissal with prejudice typically signals a private commercial resolution
When both parties jointly request Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing within 562 days of filing, public market experience suggests a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue is the most common underlying driver. Competitors monitoring Neo Wireless’s docket should note this pattern as evidence of a functioning licensing programme rather than failed enforcement.
Neo v Volkswagen — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 11 January 2024 by joint motion under FRCP 41(a)(2). Judge Terrence G. Berg granted the motion, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. No financial terms were disclosed in the public record.
Neo Wireless asserted six US patents: US10965512B2, US8467366B2, US10771302B2, US10833908B2, US10447450B2, and US10075941B2. All cover aspects of 4G/LTE and NR/5G wireless communication technology and were applied to Volkswagen’s connected-car platforms including Car-Net, Audi Connect, Porsche Connect, and My Bentley.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Neo Wireless is permanently barred from refiling the same patent claims against Volkswagen AG or Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations LLC in any US federal court. It does not prevent Neo Wireless from suing other automotive defendants using the same patents.
The accused products were Volkswagen Car-Net, Audi Connect, My Bentley, and Porsche Connect systems — the connected-car and telematics platforms operated across Volkswagen Group’s volume and luxury brands. The infringement theory centred on those systems’ use of 4G/LTE or NR/5G wireless protocols.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, joint dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2), combined with mutual cost-bearing and no public judgment, is consistent with a privately negotiated commercial resolution — such as a patent licence, covenant not to sue, or lump-sum settlement — whose terms both parties agreed to keep confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.