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
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully moved its IPR against Align Technology's dental scanning patent to the trial phase. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution on all 20 claims.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.vsIono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
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.