Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00785, challenger Toyota Motor Corp. and affiliates submitted a request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,407,026 owned by Emerging Automotive LLC. The Director’s email instructs the patent owner to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, no more than five pages, within five business days, and prohibits new evidence or further briefing. The outcome of the Director Review request remains pending.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Toyota Motor Corp. et al. vs Emerging Automotive LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al.vsAirspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.