• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
96 results

Lear Corporation v. NHK Spring Company, Limited et al

Docket 2:18-cv-10613, Michigan Eastern District Court (Feb. 21, 2018)
District Judge Laurie J. Michelson, presiding, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
Patent

cite Cite Docket

NHK Seating of America, Inc. v. LEAR CORPORATION

Docket IPR2014-01026, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 23, 2014)

cite Cite Docket

No. 41 OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment

Document Lear Corporation v. NHK Spring Company, Limited et al, 2:18-cv-10613, No. 41 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 26, 2019)
Motion for Summary JudgmentDenied
In part, NHK’s IP Director wrote, “It is true that NHK has developed a new seat active head restraint for Toyota vehicles, however, it is clear that this new mechanism has nothing [to do] with either LEAR patents or technical information.” (Id.) The letter then went on to detail, in NHK’s opinion, some of its innovations over the seesaw headrest.
The letter stated in part, “We recently had the opportunity to review a head restraint system that we understand was provided by NHK for use on a Toyota Highlander vehicle seat.
Thus, combining the Rule 56 standard governing a defendant’s summary judgment motion on an affirmative defense with the division of labor between jury and judge for a claim of equitable estoppel results in four inquiries.
In other words, had Lear sued in say, late 2010, Defendants may well have invoked the company policy only to conclude that Lear’s patents were not infringed or invalid, and thus, their adaptive head restraint product could continue to be sold without modification.
Consistent with earlier discussions about the resolution of their summary-judgment motion, Defendants have one week to inform the Court whether they still oppose consolidating this case with Lear’s suit against NHK Seating of America.
cite Cite Document

No. 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement filed by Lear Corporation against All Defendants with Jury ...

Document Lear Corporation v. NHK Spring Company, Limited et al, 2:18-cv-10613, No. 1 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 21, 2018)
Complaint
Upon information and belief, NHK Seating of America, Inc. (“NHK America”) is a Michigan corporation, having its principal place of business at 2298 West State Road 28, Frankfort, Indiana 46041.
On October 14, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949 (“the ‘949 patent”), for “Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement,” was duly and lawfully issued, naming Mladen Humer, Yan Fan and Magnus Roland as inventors.
On November 25, 2008, U.S. Patent No. 7,455,357 (“the ‘357 patent”), for “Active Head Restraint System For A Vehicle Seat,” was duly and lawfully issued, naming Mladen Humer, Gerald S. Locke and Arjun V. Yetukuri as inventors.
On May 7, 2013, U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818 (“the ‘818 patent”), for “Variable Seat Having Active Head Restraint,” was duly and lawfully issued, naming Mladen Humer, Nagarjun Yetukuri, Gerald Locke and Dale Smallwood as inventors.
The NHK Active Head Restraint Systems are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for any substantial use other than as a material part of a seat assembly.
cite Cite Document

32 Notice: Record of Oral Hearing

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 32 Notice - Record of Oral Hearing (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
It has an impact plate 26 that, when it receives a load from a passenger in a rear- end collision, moves rearward and sort of pivots along that A axis and pushes the headrest, which is marked 22, upwards and forwards.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: I think it is implied, but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding, following this clearly, that actions taken in the '955 file history you believe sort of are appropriate for us to consider as being relevant to claims in all three patents?
So on DX- 29 -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Help me understand how Dr. Viano could use computer software to model movement of a headrest and provide a graph of a trajectory and then essentially say, well, it doesn't really look like that and put some dotted lines on a paper as what it actually means?
MR. HALAN: It has the effect of reducing the forward velocity as any arcuate curve would result -- JUDGE WEATHERLY: Well, I prefer to use the term speed so that we can be clear about the scaler quantity versus a vector.
JUDGE WEATHERLY: So the purveyor of the software that enables the modeling, I guess they should be out of business, or is it because they are patent drawings here that makes them special and unreliable for that purpose, according to the Nystrom case that you are citing?
cite Cite Document

33 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 33 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)
Lear, by altering its selected portions of the Specification, ignores the clearly broader description of first and second manner quoted above as referring to any change in forward velocity or trajectory or both.
We find that the preponderance of the evidence of record developed at trial supports our conclusion that NHK has set forth how the alleged prior art teaches or suggests the uncontested limitations of the reviewed claims.
During such a rear end collision the manoeuvering means 10 is subjected to such a large force backwards relative to the frame 9 by the back of the person that it is moved and, with the help of the link arms 12, guided in such a way that the holders 23
Resp. 10–11 (citing Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that because “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements” the district court erred in determining invalidity based on “models made from [such] drawings.”); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592 (C.C.P.A.
Because of the uncertainties about the internal structure of support 24, Lear argues that Wiklund fails to describe either explicitly or inherently the required two sequential types of contact between the claimed follower and guide member.
cite Cite Document

27 Notice: Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 27 Notice - Order Trial Hearing 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015)

cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Errata

Document IPR2014-01026, No. 10 Notice - Errata (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>