Vehicle Infotainment Campaign Pushes Into Third Forum: The Middle District Of Tennessee – Intellectual Property



United States:

Vehicle Infotainment Campaign Pushes Into Third Forum: The Middle District Of Tennessee


To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

MicroPairing Technologies LLC has filed
separate Middle District of Tennessee suits against
Mitsubishi (3:21-cv-00631) and Nissan (3:21-cv-00633), the two automakers joining
GM, Honda,
Hyundai, Kia,
Mazda, and Toyota, all of which
have active cases against them in this campaign—two each, in
fact, for GM and Toyota. In late July, the plaintiff filed
additional suits against each of those defendants in the Western
District of Texas, asserting three more patents apiece. Ten patents
total are now asserted, in overlapping sets, across the
campaign’s cases, now filed in Tennessee, as well as California
and Texas.

Each new Tennessee complaint asserts four of those patents (7,178,049; 7,793,136; 8,006,117; 8,020,028), each generally related to an
application management system in a multiprocessor system. The
‘049, ‘117, and ‘028 patents are at issue in the second
West Texas complaints filed against GM and Toyota. MicroPairing, a
Texas entity, received its portfolio from a Canadian counterpart,
including patents previously asserted by Eagle Harbor Holdings, L.L.C. and MediusTech LLC against Ford.
Automobiles equipped with infotainment systems are targeted
throughout.

To trace the path of these patents into MicroPairing’s
hands, as well as for coverage of the individuals controlling the
plaintiff, see “Another Round Filed in MicroPairing’s
In-Vehicle Infotainment Campaign
” (May 2021). That
“another round” refers to May 2021 cases filed against
Honda, Hyundai, Kia, and Mazda in the Central District of
California, which followed the campaign’s initial suits, filed
against GM and Toyota in the Western District of Texas. Those cases
have entered claim construction, the hearing date for which having
been postponed to October 1, 2021 and District Judge Alan D.
Albright having yet to resolve a motion filed by Toyota, asking the
court to issue preclusion to dismiss certain claims based on
activity in the Ford case.

The new Tennessee suits have been assigned to District Judges
Eli J. Richardson (relatively new to the bench, having been
appointed in 2018) and Aleta A. Trauger (more experienced, having
been seated on the federal bench 20 years earlier). 8/13, Middle
District of Tennessee.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from United States

Disclaimers And Unitary Marks

Cowan Liebowitz & Latman PC

When can the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office require you to make a disclaimer in your application to register a mark, what does it mean, and when can you resist doing so?

Game Changer

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

On 1 July 2021, the US National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) adopted a new Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy1 for college athletes, forever altering the college athletics landscape.

Does Arthrex Matter?

Winston & Strawn LLP

Arthrex grabbed headlines, but will it actually be a useful tool for PTAB oversight.

Objective Indicia Of Nonobviousness Overturns PTAB Decision

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., Nos. 20-2344 and 21-1019 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021), the Federal Circuit reversed the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs on design patents…



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *