Automotive components — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00091 covering a drivetrain patent.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components jointly moved to terminate two IPRs after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual was publicly accessible in 2016, establishing it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). This finding allows American Axle & Manufacturing to challenge all 18 claims of Neapco Components' patent.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.