Automotive — US PTAB Patent Cases
52 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 52 total
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle has filed an IPR petition challenging Neapco’s 11,598,376 drivetrain joint‑assembly patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious in view of that manual combined with Krude ’422 and Sugiyama.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle & Manufacturing successfully petitioned to challenge the patentability of Neapco Components' propeller shaft joint assembly claims before the PTAB. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,743, prompting a joint motion to dismiss the pending IPR before it was instituted.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled their IPR dispute over patent 6,292,743 B1, leading the Board to dismiss the case before a trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential under statutory provisions.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp. and Infogation Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,107,628 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue dismissal is appropriate at this early stage.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent 10,829,002, challenging claims related to vehicle destination prediction and power management.
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.