Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies, Inc.

Samsara Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc. are prominent operating companies in the highly competitive industrial Internet of Things (IoT) and commercial fleet management sectors. Samsara, a publicly traded company (NYSE: IOT) based in San Francisco, provides a "Connected Operations Cloud" platform, IoT devices, sensors, and AI dashcams to enhance safety and efficiency across various physical operations industries, including transportation, construction, and logistics. Motive Technologies, formerly known as KeepTruckin, is also a San Francisco-based technology company specializing in an "Automated Operations Platform" that leverages IoT data and AI-powered applications for GPS tracking, telematics, driver safety, and compliance, primarily serving the trucking and broader physical economy industries. Both companies are key players in developing AI-driven solutions for vehicle safety and operational intelligence.

The IPR proceeding initiated by Samsara targets US Patent 12,136,276, owned by Motive Technologies. This patent, titled "Camera initialization for lane detection and distance estimation using single-view geometry," describes methods and systems for detecting lanes and objects in images captured by a monocular camera. It utilizes a deep learning model to identify a horizon and subsequently determine crucial camera parameters, which are then used for camera initialization. While the specific "accused product" in an IPR is the patent's claims, this IPR is part of a broader, multi-front intellectual property dispute between the two companies. Motive has previously accused Samsara of infringing its AI patents and stealing trade secrets related to its AI Dashcam technology, while Samsara has filed its own patent infringement lawsuits against Motive, targeting products like Motive's Vehicle Gateway and Dash Cam.

This Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00034, is currently in its initial stages before the U.S. Patent and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB serves as a specialized administrative tribunal within the USPTO, offering a focused and often expedited forum to challenge the patentability of claims based on prior art. This venue is critical in the ongoing litigation between Samsara and Motive, as a successful IPR could invalidate Motive's patent, thereby removing a potential basis for infringement allegations against Samsara's competing AI dashcams and fleet management solutions. The case is notable for its direct linkage to parallel district court patent infringement litigation and ITC investigations between these two significant competitors, underscoring the intense battle for market share and technological leadership in the rapidly advancing telematics and AI-powered fleet safety industry.

As of May 15, 2026, specific public details regarding IPR2026-00034 initiated by Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc. for U.S. Patent 12,136,276 are not readily available in the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) public databases or general legal news searches. Given the IPR filing date of October 17, 2025, a decision on institution would typically have been rendered by the PTAB by April 17, 2026. However, no public record of an institution decision, termination, or other significant development for IPR2026-00034 related to U.S. Patent 12,136,276 has been found. Searches for the specific IPR number and patent number on the PTAB Open Data Portal indicate other IPR and PGR proceedings for 2026, but not this particular combination.

Despite the lack of public information for IPR2026-00034, Samsara Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc. are involved in several other significant intellectual property disputes:

Parallel Litigation and Key Developments:

• ITC Investigation (Samsara v. Motive Technologies):

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings (February 2024): Samsara Inc. initiated an investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), designated as 337-TA-1393, asserting patent infringement against Motive Technologies, Inc. The patents involved in this ITC investigation were U.S. Patent Nos. 11,611,621 B2, 11,127,130 B1, and 11,190,373 B1, which cover technologies related to connected fleet management, machine vision, and vehicle gateway devices.
  • Pre-trial Motions/Rulings (September 9, 2025): An ITC judge issued a determination ruling that Motive did not infringe any valid Samsara patent claims.
  • Final Disposition (February 5, 2026): The ITC investigation (337-TA-1393) was terminated after 727 days. The specific basis for the termination was not publicly disclosed, suggesting a confidential resolution between the parties.

• District Court Litigation (Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc.):

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings (January 24, 2024): Samsara Inc. filed a complaint against Motive Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:2024cv00084). Samsara's complaint alleged patent infringement, false advertising under the Lanham Act, fraud, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
  • Motions to Dismiss/Transfer (February - April 2024): Motive filed a motion to dismiss and transfer the case. Samsara subsequently filed an amended complaint on March 20, 2024, adding further claims. Motive again moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, to dismiss the amended complaint.
  • Transfer Order (August 14, 2024): The District of Delaware court granted Motive's motion and transferred the case to the Northern District of California.
  • Parallel Action (Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara Inc.) (February 15, 2024): Motive filed a separate lawsuit against Samsara in the Northern District of California (Case No. 24-902 (JD)) asserting similar claims of patent infringement, false advertising, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation, and intentional interference with business relations. This countersuit was stayed in June 2024 in light of Samsara's affirmative case.
  • Additional Lawsuit (November 2024): Samsara filed another lawsuit alleging theft of confidential trade secrets by Motive's CEO and executives.

In summary, while the specific IPR2026-00034 for U.S. Patent 12,136,276 remains without publicly disclosed developments, the parties, Samsara Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., have been engaged in extensive patent infringement and related intellectual property litigation in both the ITC and federal district courts involving various other patents and claims of unfair competition and trade secret misappropriation.

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this IPR and the broader Samsara–Motive dispute.

Useful leads: an institution date of 2026-03-23 and a possible March 2026 trial outcome. Let me dig into the actual news coverage.

Important thread: a §101 judgment-on-the-pleadings ruling in N.D. Cal. touching the '276 patent, plus a possible institution decision. Let me verify both.

Press coverage of the Samsara–Motive dispute (and what it says about the '276 IPR)

There is essentially no journalism about IPR2026-00034 itself. Searching the case caption, the patent number ("12,136,276"), and the IPR number across legal and trade press turned up no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, or IPWatchdog story on this petition. The only source-specific accounts I could find are patent-data aggregators rather than newsrooms: RPX Empower records the petition as filed 2025-10-17 in Technology Center 2400 with an institution date of 2026-03-23, and a case-summary entry on Arctic Invent characterizes the petition as an obviousness challenge under § 103 combining Choe, Davies, Westmacot, Tal and Kuehnle, aimed at camera-initialization/lane-detection claims and requesting cancellation of all challenged claims. Those are database summaries, not reporting, and I could not independently confirm the 2026-03-23 institution via a PTAB paper, the PTAB Open Data portal, or any outlet. This contradicts the earlier-generated section of this case, which stated that no institution decision could be found as of 2026-05-15 and predicted a decision by 2026-04-17; that section should be updated (or the RPX date treated as provisional). For context on timing, Motive's stay opposition in the parallel N.D. Cal. case (Dkt. 148) stated that of Samsara's three IPR petitions only the '580 petition had been instituted (August 2025), with '276 and '243 institution decisions expected "April or May 2026" — i.e., the parties themselves were not treating the '276 outcome as settled.

The actual press coverage is of the sister proceedings, and it is substantial. FreightWaves reported on 2026-03-16 that Samsara won a $30.3 million arbitration award (JAMS; sealed decision in February 2026, with Samsara's 10-K describing an award rendered 2026-02-03) on false-advertising and platform-access claims tied to the 2023 Virginia Tech Transportation Institute dashcam study, and that Motive simultaneously won the ITC case, Investigation 337-TA-1393. FreightWaves put the ITC outcome in concrete terms: after a March 2025 evidentiary hearing, the ALJ's 2025-09-08 initial determination found no Section 337 violation, eight of nine asserted claims were invalid or non-infringed, Samsara failed the domestic-industry requirement, and the full Commission affirmed and terminated in February 2026 — no import ban ever took effect. The Commission's own Federal Register notice (published 2026-02-10) confirms the no-violation termination and the mixed FID findings on the '621, '130 and '373 patents. Transport Topics followed on 2026-03-19 with the same two outcomes, noting that Motive posted a corrective statement on its website after the arbitrator deemed its "three to four times" superiority claims "literally false." FreightWaves framed the size of the stakes commercially — Samsara at roughly $1.9 billion ARR and Motive, still private and pursuing an IPO, at a $500 million ARR run rate as of late 2025 — and both outlets noted Samsara intends to appeal the ITC loss to the Federal Circuit.

The coverage goes well beyond the record in the parties' own framing, and the two sides' accounts diverge sharply. FreightWaves and Transport Topics both quote Motive CEO Shoaib Makani's internal email casting the ITC result as a decisive win ("nearly 100,000 customers and more than 1 million drivers") and stressing that Motive's own N.D. Cal. suit against Samsara "is advancing in district court and will be heard in a jury trial"; Motive CLO Shu White told FreightWaves that "Samsara falsely accused Motive of patent infringement in the ITC to stifle competition." Samsara's chief legal officer Adam Eltoukhy countered that "Motive committed fraud and made false claims about our product capabilities" and complained that Motive "chose to suppress those facts by moving the fraud and false advertising claims we filed in open federal court to a confidential arbitration," while also telling Transport Topics that the ruling "vindicates our claims and gives us confidence in the remaining cases we filed against Motive for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement." Notably, the parties disagree on the status of the other fronts: FreightWaves (2026-03-16) reported that "the original Delaware federal case and the California trade secrets suit remain stayed pending further developments," while Transport Topics described the San Francisco Superior Court trade-secrets case as active; Samsara's 10-K disclosure, reproduced via EDGAR, adds that Samsara expects to book the $30.3 million gain in Q1 FY2027 and is seeking a further award of fees and costs — a detail no outlet reported.

On the '276 patent specifically, the press is silent even though the docket is not. Samsara moved for judgment on the pleadings in Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00902-JD on 2026-04-13 (Dkt. 197), arguing that the '276 and '580 claims are directed to the abstract idea of "calculating a parameter of a camera (e.g., viewing angle) based on a horizon line" and are § 101 ineligible; Judge Donato took the motion under submission after the 2026-05-21 hearing (Dkt. 228). I found no ruling on that motion and no press coverage of it — a proposed order attached at Dkt. 197-3 recites dismissal with prejudice, but that is Samsara's requested relief, not an order, and should not be reported as an outcome. Likewise, a Samsara complaint against Motive filed in the Western District of Texas in June 2026 (No. 7:26-cv-00225-WDT, per the Bloomberg Law docket) drew no press I could locate. The one item from the supplied news index that is plainly not case coverage is the GlobeNewswire fleet-management market-sizing release; I was unable to verify that it discusses this litigation at all, so it should not be cited as reporting on the case. The 2024-vintage trade items in the index (The Register, Overdrive, MarketScreener) describe only the original January 2024 Delaware complaint and the February 2024 countersuit — useful background, but they predate the '276 IPR by more than 18 months and contain nothing about it.

Sources

• Appendix A
• IPR2026-00034 - Samsara, Inc. v. Motive Technologies Incorporated IPR of US12136276B2 | RPX Empower
• Judgment on the Pleadings – #197 in Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:24-cv-00902) – CourtListener.com - 401 F.3d 1307 (Fed
• Appendix Appendix A – #157, Att. #1 in Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:24-cv-00902) – CourtListener.com - Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc.
• 56. To solve this problem, claim 1 of the '580 Patent describes a system that can receive video (e
• David S
• Amended Complaint – #107 in Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:24-cv-00902) – CourtListener.com - 1 56. To solve this problem, claim 1 of the ’580 Patent describes a system that can receive video
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
• Trucking Archives
• Exhibit C to Second Amended Complaint – #107, Att. #3 in Motive Technologies, Inc. v. Samsara, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 3:24-cv-00902) – CourtListener.com - 🚀 CourtListener is now available in ChatGPT

• Material Considered

  EX1001 - U

• Complaint analysis | 3:24-cv-00902 | Motive Tech Inc v. Samsara Inc | Ex Parte

Based on available information, including related patent litigation and the firms' known expertise in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the following counsel are likely representing Samsara Inc. in IPR2026-00034. While specific counsel of record for this IPR are not yet explicitly detailed in widely public dockets due to its initial stages, Samsara has utilized Kirkland & Ellis LLP for its broader patent disputes with Motive Technologies, Inc., and this firm has a significant PTAB practice. Adam Eltoukhy serves as in-house counsel for Samsara with a strong background in intellectual property.

In-House Counsel:

• Name: Adam Eltoukhy
• Role: Head of Legal Team / In-house Counsel
• Firm: Samsara Inc.
• Office Location: San Francisco, California (Samsara's principal place of business)
• Relevant Experience: Leads Samsara's legal team, previously managed litigation and intellectual property at Palantir Technologies for six years, and was an attorney with Morrison & Foerster and Weil Gotshal. He also clerked on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, providing strong IP and litigation experience.

Outside Counsel (likely based on related litigation and firm expertise):

Given Samsara's engagement of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in related patent infringement actions against Motive Technologies, Inc. (e.g., Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc., 1:2024cv00084 in D. Del. and 4:24-cv-06049 in N.D. Cal.), and Kirkland & Ellis's established PTAB practice, it is highly probable that attorneys from this firm are involved.

• Name: Ellisen S. Turner, P.C.

• Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Office Location: Los Angeles, California (appeared in related Delaware case)

• Relevant Experience: Serves as lead trial counsel on major patent and trade secret matters, and is an IP strategist with a background in computer engineering, computer science, and biomedical engineering. He represents clients in federal courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.

• Name: Ali-Reza Boloori

• Role: Counsel (Partner)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Office Location: Los Angeles, California (appeared in related Delaware case)

• Relevant Experience: Identified as an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis LLP and involved in patent litigation.

• Name: Joseph A. Loy, P.C.

• Role: Counsel (Partner)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Office Location: New York, New York (appeared in related Delaware case)

• Relevant Experience: An intellectual property trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes patent and trade secret disputes before federal trial and appellate courts nationwide, including significant experience before the PTAB, where he was lead counsel in a rare victory upholding patent claims in an IPR.

• Name: Joshua L. Simmons, P.C.

• Role: Counsel (Partner)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Office Location: New York, New York (appeared in related Delaware case)

• Relevant Experience: Focuses on appellate and trial court litigation, intellectual property counseling, and strategic portfolio management, litigating copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret cases, and recognized for his work in technology and IP.

• Name: Jeanne M. Heffernan, P.C.

• Role: Counsel (Partner)

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Office Location: Austin, Texas (appeared in related Delaware case)

• Relevant Experience: An experienced trial lawyer who leads Kirkland's IP litigation practice in Texas, having won numerous patent infringement trials in federal district courts and at the ITC, with victories affirmed at the Federal Circuit. She is recognized for managing complex issues and directing teams in patent matters.

This IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00034, is before the U.S. Patent and Appeal Board, not a district court patent infringement case. Therefore, counsel of record will be identified through PTAB filings rather than district court dockets. As of May 15, 2026, the case is in its initial stages, and specific counsel for Motive Technologies, Inc. may not yet be publicly listed or have officially appeared.

To identify the counsel of record representing Motive Technologies, Inc. (Patent Owner) in IPR2026-00034, further information regarding the case's progression and available PTAB filings would be required. In IPR proceedings, counsel typically file a Power of Attorney or a Notice of Appearance. Given the recent filing date of 2025-10-17, these initial filings may not yet contain detailed information about the full legal team or their specific roles beyond the primary contacts.

As of the current date, I cannot definitively identify specific counsel for Motive Technologies, Inc. with detailed roles, firms, and experience notes without access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2026-00034, which is not available via public web search results for such a recent case. It is possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared or that the information is not yet public.