Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

I'll research this case thoroughly before providing the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case, its outcome, and related proceedings.

Let me verify the specific docket details, judge, and outcome for this E.D. Tex. case.

Case Overview: Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., No. 2:08-cv-00057 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Parties and the accused technology

Automotive Technologies International, Inc. ("ATI") is a closely held New Jersey company formed in 1998 by engineer David S. Breed, a prolific independent inventor in automotive occupant-safety and crash-sensing technology; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies ATI as an "individual-inventor-started" patent asserter that also asserted acquired patents (Stanford NPE database). ATI is best understood as an operating/R&D company and patent portfolio holder rather than a pure shell — its own materials describe it as developing "smart" airbag and occupant-detection sensors — but by this period its principal revenue strategy was licensing and litigation against the auto industry. General Motors Corp. is the defendant automaker; the accused functionality was supplied to GM by its tier-one supplier Delphi Automotive through Delphi's "Passive Occupant Detection System" ("PODS"), which is why the same technology spawned both this suit and a parallel Delphi declaratory-judgment action in Michigan (Law.com/Am Law Litigation Daily; RPX complaint excerpt). The accused systems are occupant-classification and weight/pressure-sensing modules (e.g., bladder-based seat sensors, seat-track sensors, and the crash/occupant sensors that feed airbag deployment logic); ATI's complaint specifically referenced GM vehicles such as the 2005 Cadillac Escalade as incorporating the accused seat/occupant sensing hardware (RPX complaint excerpt).

The patent the case metadata identifies as at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,850,824, "Method and Apparatus for Controlling a Vehicular Component," issued February 1, 2005 to inventor David S. Breed, filed July 3, 2003, with a claimed priority going back to 1995 (PubChem patent record). In one line: the '824 patent claims a control system/method in which multiple electronic sensors mounted at different vehicle locations feed a processor that diagnoses the state of the vehicle and controls an occupant-restraint system in response — essentially a sensor-fusion "smart restraint" control patent. It belongs to ATI's very large "smart airbag" patent family (patent-family records list hundreds of related members) (PubChem). Note: contemporaneous reporting indicates ATI's February 2008 Texas complaints asserted a larger set of patents (the multi-defendant complaint excerpt references, in addition to the '824, U.S. Patents 6,869,100 ['100], 6,850,824 ['824], 6,833,516 ['516], and 6,863,249/'945 family members), and Law360 reported in April 2009 that ATI "dropped one of its four patent infringement claims" in the GM/Ford case (Law360; RPX). So the '824 was the asserted patent the prompt identifies, but it traveled alongside sibling patents from the same family.

Procedural posture and venue significance

The case was filed February 11, 2008 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is docketed as closed (metadata; ExParte case record). Two caveats I could not fully resolve and will flag rather than paper over: (1) a contemporaneous Am Law/Law.com account describes the February 2008 filing as having been made in "the northern district of Texas," which conflicts with the E.D. Tex. metadata — I treat the metadata as controlling, and the discrepancy may reflect a mis-report or a subsequent transfer; and (2) I was unable to verify from a primary source the specific district judge or the exact termination date/disposition for 2:08-cv-00057, so I do not assert a judge name. Venue mattered enormously here: in 2008 the Marshall Division was the nation's premier plaintiff-side patent venue — a small, fast docket with experienced patent juries and a reputation for plaintiff-favorable outcomes — before the 2017 TC Heartland venue tightening and the Division's later shift. Choosing Marshall maximized settlement leverage against a deep-pocketed automaker. The procedural symmetry is also telling: ATI filed across multiple venues (E.D. Tex. against GM/Ford/Mercedes customers; D. Del. against Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Kia; E.D. Mich. against Delphi and suppliers), and Delphi's counter-declaratory-judgment action in Michigan was consolidated with the Texas customer case, letting the Michigan court (Judge Robert H. Cleland) take the lead on validity (Law.com).

Why the case is notable

This suit is a window into one of the decade's largest automotive patent campaigns. ATI sued essentially the entire industry — DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Nissan, Saab, Toyota, and VW, plus suppliers Bosch, Delphi, Siemens, and TRW (Bloomberg/MLW coverage of the earlier appeal). The campaign's arc is instructive on patent quality: ATI's foundational side-impact sensor patent (the '253 patent) was held invalid for lack of enablement in ATI v. BMW of North America (ATI I), 378 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2005), affirmed, 501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (CourtListener); and Judge Cleland later granted summary judgment invalidating four more ATI patents (the '516, '080, '029, and '945) as anticipated or obvious, which is the disposition reflected in the ATI v. Delphi summary-judgment record (Casemine). Third, the case illustrates the era's NPE/secondary-market pattern: in April 2012 ATI's patents were assigned to American Vehicular Sciences, an Acacia Research subsidiary, which then launched new suits against BMW, Toyota, and Hyundai — converting an operating company's portfolio into a monetization vehicle (RPX Insight, Oct. 16, 2012). Finally, the ATI/Breed patents were subject to extensive PTO reexamination and appeal activity — including the merged inter partes/ex parte reexaminations in Elesys North America v. ATI and several Ex parte Breed/ATI appeals, one of which (Ex parte Breed, Appeal 2012-003990) is cited as the first PTAB decision applying Nautilus v. Biosig (Brian Roffe PTO proceedings list) — showing the validity fight playing out across district courts and the Office in parallel.

Sourcing note: The '824 patent's identity, issue date, inventor, and claim subject matter are well-sourced (PubChem/USPTO). The February 2008 filing date, E.D. Tex./Marshall venue, and closed status come from the case metadata and a docket-aggregator record. I could not independently verify the assigned judge, the precise termination date, or whether the Texas case was formally consolidated into the Michigan Delphi action (the Am Law account says it was, but I did not confirm this from a primary docket source),

I'll research this case across the sources available.

Let me dig into the docket and parallel proceedings.

I'll research the counsel of record for Automotive Technologies International, Inc. (ATI) in this case. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me look for the specific docket and filings for this case.

Let me pull the docket sheet and related litigation documents.

I'll research the docket and counsel for the defendant in this case.