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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00785
Filing Date
23 April 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01435

Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.

Guardant Health’s ’699 patent on duplex consensus sequencing is challenged by Tempus AI, which alleges the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.

patentIPR2025-00231

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.

patentIPR2024-00821

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsBroadphone, LLC

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.

patentIPR2025-00072

Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.

patentIPR2024-01176

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Amazon successfully instituted an IPR against Nokia regarding video compression standards, arguing that MPEG-1 teaches or suggests the claimed quantization methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success despite initial claim construction disputes over sequence vs. picture parameters.

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 →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call