Industry Sector

Automotive — US PTAB Patent Cases

43 decisions indexed

Page 2 of 2 · 43 total

patent Final Written Decision · Jul 15, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-01167

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.

patent null · Jun 2, 2024

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00545

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.

patent denied · May 29, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00981

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).

patent instituted · May 29, 2024

Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00981

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.

patent denied · May 2, 2024

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00541

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.

patent denied · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00785

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.

patent · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00785

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.

patent denied · Apr 23, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00785

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.

patent final · Apr 15, 2024

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· IPR2024-00786

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.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 29, 2024

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.

· IPR2024-00756

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.

patent · Mar 29, 2024

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.

· IPR2024-00754

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.

patent final · Feb 2, 2024

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00543

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.

patent instituted · Jan 25, 2024

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00499

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →