Short Summary
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2026‑00205, Tesla, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,457, which covers a method for vehicle gear selection and parking assistance. The petitioner alleges that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations: Joos with Kischkat for the core concept, and further incorporating Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer for specific claim subsets. An expert declaration by Dr. Jason Janet is submitted to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. Tesla requests that the Board institute the review and deem the challenged claims unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tesla, Inc. vs Bulletproof Property Management, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google petitioned for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution denial in place.
Starbucks Corporation et al.vsPi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Pi‑Design’s French‑press patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art coffee‑maker references.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.vsHelsinn Healthcare S.A.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Helsinn Healthcare's '515 patent covering anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness (103) and prior art, allowing the challenge to proceed.
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.