Tesla Inc v. iQar Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00545
• Patent #: 8,972,161
• Filed: February 6, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Tesla, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Power Management Systems and Devices
• Brief Description: The ’161 patent relates to methods for managing a vehicle’s power consumption to determine optimal driving speeds. The claimed method involves segmenting a route, calculating energy values based on variations in target speed between segments, and determining a plurality of efficient speeds that achieve a best summation of those energy values.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Neiss - Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Neiss.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Neiss (Application # 2004/0068359).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Neiss, which teaches a predictive cruise control system, discloses every limitation of the independent claims. Neiss’s system minimizes fuel consumption by optimizing a "vehicle operating cost function" over a future "Prediction Horizon." This horizon is segmented into "frames," and the system iteratively calculates optimal speeds for discrete locations (integration steps) within each frame. Petitioner asserted that Neiss’s cost function, specifically the Jfuel component, represents a summation of energy values calculated for each location based on variations in vehicle speed and throttle. Minimizing this cost function determines a plurality of efficient speeds that achieve a best summation of energy values. For claim 1, Petitioner contended that adding a speedometer to notify the operator of the calculated speed is an obvious modification. For claim 10, Neiss’s system directly controls the vehicle according to the optimized speeds, thus applying power corresponding to the efficient speeds.
  • Motivation to Combine: This is a single-reference ground, with obvious modifications asserted. A POSITA would have been motivated to add a standard speedometer to Neiss’s vehicle to display the current efficient speed. This modification applies a known technique to provide the driver with valuable operational feedback and allow for manual override, a predictable and desirable outcome.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in adding a speedometer, as it is a conventional, common, and predictable component of a vehicle dashboard that presents no unexpected results.

Ground 1B: Obviousness over Neiss and Hirasago - Claim 4 is obvious over Neiss in view of Hirasago.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Neiss (Application # 2004/0068359), Hirasago (Patent 6,658,344).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targets dependent claim 4, which requires notifying the operator of a "range of said variations in said target speed." Petitioner argued that Neiss’s system calculates optimal speeds within a defined "speed band" (an upper and lower limit), but does not explicitly disclose displaying this band. Hirasago was cited for its teaching of a cruise control system with a speedometer that visually displays a "set-condition speed range."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hirasago's speed range display with Neiss's system to visually communicate the operational "speed band" to the driver. This would provide the driver with useful information about the system's constraints and enable a more informed decision on whether to override the cruise control.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because displaying a speed band is a known technique taught by Hirasago, and its application to display the existing speed band data in Neiss’s system on a conventional speedometer would be straightforward and predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Schramm and Clapper - Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-13, and 15-18 are obvious over Schramm in view of Clapper.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Schramm (Patent 6,005,494), Clapper (Patent 6,161,072).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Schramm teaches a system for determining an "energy-optimum route" by summing energy consumption values for each segment of a route. However, Schramm’s calculation is based on a single, fixed speed for the entire route. Clapper was introduced for its teaching of an automatic cruise control system that uses varying speeds for different locations based on stored data, such as past driver speeds or speed limits. The proposed combination modifies Schramm's algorithm to use the variable, per-segment speeds taught by Clapper, thereby calculating energy values based on a plurality of speed variations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve the accuracy of Schramm's energy optimization. It would have been recognized that assuming a single speed for an entire route is unrealistic. Modifying Schramm to use Clapper's location-specific speed data would allow for a more accurate and useful calculation of the truly energy-optimal route.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves a predictable modification. It uses readily available, per-segment speed data (as taught by Clapper) as an input into Schramm's existing energy consumption table, which already includes data for various speeds, to enhance the system's accuracy.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is not warranted. The petition asserted that the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. The parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage with no trial date set, discovery is stayed, and no invalidity contentions have been served, meaning there is no overlap of issues. Petitioner contended that the merits of the petition are compelling and that the prior art references relied upon were not before the examiner during prosecution, thus satisfying the standards for avoiding discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 8,972,161 as unpatentable.