Automotive technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
77 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 3 · 77 total
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against AutoConnect’s ’186 patent, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics partnership and AutoConnect’s maintenance‑fee lapses.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motive’s driver‑monitoring patent (US 12,062,243), asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art CNN references.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the earlier decision that refused to institute an IPR against Cerence’s patent 7,680,334. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect’s request for review of a discretionary denial, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics relationship and AutoConnect’s lapses in fee payments and commercialization. The filing argues that these factors preclude any expectation that the ’153 patent would be enforced against Ford.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford’s IPR petition for patent 9,020,697 faces a director‑review brief from AutoConnect arguing that Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness positions warrant denial of institution.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor’s TPMS patent, arguing that 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and that Samsung lacks a right to an IPR. The patent owner also asserts the Acting Director’s discretionary denial was lawful.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00526 and related cases, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent, alleging procedural abuse and statutory non‑compliance.
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.