Automotive technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
77 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 77 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review, contending that the PTAB abused its discretion in denying institution of an IPR against Cerence’s ‘486 patent. The arguments focus on misapplication of Fintiv factors, unfounded settled‑expectations claims, and a breach of §314(c) notice requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial on Cerence’s patent 8,825,486. The order confirms the original denial of institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google filed Director Review requests for two IPRs challenging Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The Board limited the patent owner’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs challenging Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital seeks an IPR of FBA Operating Co.’s RV‑leveling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Thorpe, Clark, Garceau and TealLevel. The petition urges the PTAB to institute review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,026,428 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,026,428 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy and resource efficiency.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 7,395,078. The Board found good cause to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Dialect’s in‑vehicle voice‑command patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread the Coffman prior art and ignored expert testimony.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its vehicle voice‑control patent (U.S. 7,502,738). The petitioner contends the Board misread the Coffman prior art and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that factual disputes should be decided on a full record.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla Inc.'s IPR against iQar Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, allowing claims related to vehicle power management logic to proceed to trial. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
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.