Defendant

Mazda Motor Corporation

1 case as defendant.

Company profile

Mazda Motor Corporation, commonly known as Mazda, is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Fuchū, Hiroshima, Japan. Founded on January 30, 1920, as Toyo Cork Kogyo Co., Ltd., the company transitioned from cork manufacturing to producing vehicles in 1931. Mazda is a public company, trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TYO: 7261) and as an ADR on the OTCPK (MZDA.Y, MZDAF). As of March 2026, it reported approximately 47,100 employees and a trailing 12-month revenue of $32.6 billion.

Mazda's primary business involves the manufacture and sale of passenger cars, commercial vehicles, engines, and transmissions globally. The company is recognized for its innovative technologies, including the SkyActiv platform and Kodo Design language, and historically, its Wankel rotary engines. Its product lineup includes a range of sedans, hatchbacks, and SUVs such as the Mazda3, Mazda CX-5, and electrified models like the MX-30 EV and various hybrids. Mazda also offers "Connected Services" through its MyMazda app, providing features like remote start, vehicle finder, and vehicle health status.

In terms of patent litigation, Mazda Motor Corporation operates as a defendant, facing patent assertion suits rather than initiating them. The company has been involved in one tracked case as a defendant and zero as a plaintiff. This posture is typical of an operating company that develops and sells products, making it a target for patent assertion entities.

Mazda's sole tracked case, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation, was filed in 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This district is known as a plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation. Innovative Display Technologies LLC has been identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that acquires and enforces patents related to display and data communication technologies, often filing cases in the Eastern District of Texas. This particular case highlights Mazda's defense against assertions related to display technologies, likely concerning features within its vehicles.