Automotive electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
33 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 33 total
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. faces a PTAB Director Review petition after the Board instituted an IPR on AutoConnect’s infotainment patent. The patent owner argues Ford’s settled‑expectations narrative and claim‑construction positions are inconsistent, warranting discretionary denial of institution.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect Holdings seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that granted institution based on Ford’s supplier‑based settled‑expectations argument. The patent owner contends the factual basis is unsupported and asks for denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all seven claims of The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over prior‑art jump‑starter and USB‑charging references. The decision follows a petition by Deltran USA LLC asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The USPTO Director denied Microchip Technology's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00558 involving Aptiv's patent 9,460,037. The order provides no further substantive analysis.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The USPTO Director denied Microchip's request to review the institution denial of Aptiv's automotive electronics patent.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.
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.