Short Summary
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
Detailed Summary
This IPR petition challenges the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188, which pertains to Electronic Key/Access Control Systems within Automotive Technology. The petitioner, Kia Corporation et al., asserts that the patent is invalid under Section 103 due to obviousness. Multiple grounds are presented, utilizing combinations of prior art references including Kleve, Sekiyama, Zaid, Harris, Mottla, and Patenaude. These combinations combine existing vehicle rental/sharing systems with features like e-keys, GPS tracking, GUI enhancements, and predictive profiles.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kia Corporation et al. vs Emerging Automotive LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al.vsLumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd.vsShenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’896 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Be Smarter, LLC et al.vsYondr, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.
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.