PTAB

PGR2026-00008

Toyota Motor Corp v. Emerging Automotive LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Sharing Electronic Vehicle Keys
  • Brief Description: The ’715 patent discloses methods and systems for a vehicle owner to share electronic keys ("e-keys") with other users via a mobile application and backend servers. The system allows for assigning e-keys with specific usage conditions, such as time or function restrictions, which are managed by a server associated with the vehicle manufacturer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sekiyama, Kleve, Hatton, and Xiao - Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-24 are obvious over Sekiyama, Kleve, Hatton, and Xiao.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sekiyama (Japanese Publication No. 2010-126949), Kleve (Application # 2014/0129053), Hatton (Patent 9,002,536), and Xiao (Patent 8,737,913).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Sekiyama, the primary reference, disclosed a server-mediated system for issuing restricted duplicate e-keys in response to an owner's request. Kleve was argued to add a user-friendly workflow for owners and temporary users to agree on terms (e.g., for a rental) and for the server to then issue a "virtual key." Hatton taught using a manufacturer-provided mobile application to manage secure, encrypted communications between a mobile device and the vehicle's computing system (VCS) for unlocking and starting the vehicle. Finally, Xiao supplied the concept of an account-centric backend server explicitly "associated with an automobile company" and the ability to provide vehicle telemetry, such as battery charge level, to the user's device.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine these interoperable elements to improve the security, manageability, and user experience of Sekiyama’s basic system. A POSITA would have integrated Kleve's term-agreement workflow for rental or car-sharing applications, added Hatton's manufacturer-provided app and encrypted communication to enhance security within the known client-server-VCS architecture, and incorporated Xiao's manufacturer-associated server and telemetry features to centralize account management and provide valuable status updates to users.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because all four references operate in the same technical field and share a common, compatible client-server-VCS architecture using standard communication protocols (e.g., cellular, Bluetooth). Integrating the features was presented as a routine engineering task that would yield the predictable result of a more robust and feature-rich e-key sharing system.

Ground 2: Lack of Written Description and Enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112 - Claims 1-11 and 17-24 lack written description and enablement support.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: N/A
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that certain claim limitations introduce procedural steps and causal relationships that are not described anywhere in the ’715 patent’s specification. For independent claims 1 and 23, the limitation requiring the processing of a share request to be "responsive to a message being sent to the recipient device" allegedly lacks support. The specification was said to only describe an optional, one-way notification to inform a recipient that a key is available, not a causal link where that message triggers the server's processing of the request.
    • Key Aspects: For independent claim 17, Petitioner argued the limitations requiring the system to receive two distinct "confirmations"—one that a sharing request was sent and another from the recipient device—are not disclosed. The specification allegedly depicts a simple one-way information flow from the owner to the server and then to the recipient, without any return acknowledgment path. Because the specification allegedly fails to describe these claimed causal flows and confirmation steps, Petitioner contended a POSITA would not have recognized the inventor as being in possession of this subject matter, rendering the claims invalid under §112.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: Petitioner dedicated significant argument to establishing that the ’715 patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than October 25, 2013. It was argued that the core concept of "electronic keys" constituted new matter first introduced in the ’638 application on that date, and that prior applications in the chain of priority did not provide written description support for the claimed invention. This position is critical to ensuring that references like Kleve, Hatton, and Xiao qualify as prior art.
  • Printed Matter Doctrine: Petitioner argued that the recurring claim phrase "associated with a manufacturer of the vehicle" is nonfunctional descriptive material that should be given no patentable weight under the printed matter doctrine. The argument was that merely identifying who owns or operates the server does not impart any structural or functional difference to the claimed method or system. Alternatively, Petitioner argued that even if the limitation is given weight, it is rendered obvious by the combination of Sekiyama (invented by and assigned to Toyota) and Xiao (which explicitly teaches manufacturer-associated servers).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’715 patent as unpatentable.