Short Summary
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Detailed Summary
In a joint motion filed on March 27, 2026, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Longhorn Automotive Group LLC seek to terminate IPR2025-01064 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353, which relates to respiratory motion reduction in PET/CT imaging. The parties report that they have resolved their underlying dispute through a confidential settlement agreement and that the Eastern District Court of Texas has dismissed the associated infringement action. With no other petitioners remaining, they request termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing the Board’s authority to end the proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. vs Longhorn Automotive Group LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.
Oracle CorporationvsVirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and a lack of written‑description support. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial, noting parallel filings by Google and Microsoft.
LiveIntent, Inc.vsIntent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
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.