Automotive technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
77 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 3 · 77 total
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully petitioned for institution against The Noco Company's patent covering portable jump starter apparatuses. The Board found that the prior art presented in the petition was not substantially the same as what was before the Office during prosecution, satisfying the Advanced Bionics framework. This allows the case to proceed to substantive review on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging 17 claims of iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,829,002) in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Kudo-325 and Kudo-066.
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.