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
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)vsMaxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc.vsMidas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
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.