Short Summary
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for post‑grant review (PGR2026‑00008), Kia America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., and related entities challenge U.S. Patent No. 12,337,715 owned by Emerging Automotive LLC. The petition asserts two grounds: (1) obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining Sekiyama (Toyota), Kleve (Ford), Hatton (Ford), and Xiao (Verizon) to anticipate the claimed method of sharing electronic vehicle keys; and (2) lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for claim limitations requiring a “message‑caused” initiation and confirmation steps that are not disclosed in the specification. The petition requests that the PTAB institute the proceeding and cancel claims 1‑24. No decision has been issued yet.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kia America, Inc. et al. vs Emerging Automotive LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al.vsInterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme‑based contraceptive patent, arguing that the claims lack sufficient written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the vast, undefined genus of modified PH20 polypeptides and the impossibility of testing all variants.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsLowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
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.