Defendant

Nissan North America, Inc.

5 cases as defendant.

Cases
5
Active
1
4 closed
Filed
2006–2014
Top venue
E.D. Michigan Southern
1 case

Company profile

I'll verify the company's profile with web searches.

Nissan North America, Inc. (NNA) — marketed as Nissan USA — is the North American regional headquarters and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Yokohama, Japan (Tokyo Stock Exchange: 7201; ADR: NSANY). It is incorporated in California and headquartered at One Nissan Way, Franklin, Tennessee; the predecessor entity, Nissan Motor Corporation, U.S.A., was established in 1960, and the current company dates to 1990 (the Franklin headquarters move came in 2005). NNA does not publish standalone financials; Nissan Motor, which consolidates it, reports roughly 131,000+ employees globally. NNA's own disclosures indicate about 21,000 North American employees, including more than 11,000 at U.S. plants, and Nissan's global site describes the unit as the management headquarters for Nissan Americas.

Products and operations. NNA handles R&D, design, engineering, manufacturing, sales, marketing, distribution, and captive finance for the Nissan and Infiniti brands across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. U.S. assembly takes place at Smyrna, Tennessee (Rogue, Pathfinder, Murano, Infiniti QX60/QX65) and Canton, Mississippi (Altima, Frontier), with powertrain production at Decherd, Tennessee; Mexico operations include Aguascalientes. Finance is provided through Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC, itself a wholly owned NNA subsidiary. This is an operating automaker, not a licensing vehicle.

Patent-litigation posture. Across three tracked cases NNA appears solely as a defendant (0 as plaintiff), consistent with an operating company defending third-party assertions rather than an active two-way litigant or an NPE. All three suits were filed by the same plaintiff, Automotive Technologies International, Inc., and were venued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan before Judge Robert H. Cleland — the plaintiff's home-forum choice for this campaign, not an Eastern District of Texas-style patent venue.

Notable cases and context. The tracked matters are Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Delphi Corporation et al. (2008), Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Siemens VDO Automotive Corp. et al. (2:06-cv-15756, filed 2006-12-27), and an earlier ATI v. Delphi Corp. et al. NNA was named alongside other automakers (Hyundai, Kia) and Tier 1 suppliers (Delphi, Siemens VDO, TRW, Calsonic Kansei, TK Holdings) — standard practice in ATI's portfolio campaign. ATI is a closely held company founded by engineer David S. Breed, holding patents on occupant detection, crash sensors, and airbag deployment; related ATI suits in E.D. Mich. and D. Del. produced 2005 summary judgments of invalidity and a 2007 Federal Circuit affirmance invalidating an ATI side-impact sensor patent.

Filing activity

2006: 1 case1'06'072008: 1 case'08'09'10'11'12'132014: 1 case'14
Cases filed per year naming Nissan North America, Inc. as defendant.

Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Delphi Corporation et al.

judgment
Docket:
2:08-cv-11048
Filed:
2008-03-11
Terminated:
2011-03-09

ATI sued Delphi and multiple automotive OEMs/suppliers in E.D. Mich. asserting the '516 patent along with U.S. Patents 6,484,080, 7,243,945, and 7,407,029. On March 9, 2011, the court granted summary judgment of invalidity on all four patents, including '516 as anticipated by Blackburn '243; the case was consolidated with 2:10-cv-10647 and appealed.

Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Siemens VDO Automotive Corp. et al.

judgment
Docket:
2:06-cv-15756
Filed:
2006-12-27

ATI asserted the '824 patent and related patents against Siemens VDO and other automotive defendants. The court granted summary judgment of invalidity of the '824 patent and denied defendants' later motion for attorney fees.

Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Delphi Corp. et al.

judgment; remanded for settlement
Docket:
2:08-cv-11048; 2:10-cv-10647
Patents:6850824

ATI's consolidated E.D. Mich. actions against Delphi and other automotive defendants were linked to the '824 patent. Judgment was adverse to ATI, and portions of the summary judgment were appealed and ultimately remanded for settlement.