US 6587758

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me get the full independent claim language and check for any litigation.

US 6,587,758 B2 — Analyst Summary

Important caveat up front: My searches of USPTO/PTAB public resources, the Federal Circuit's 2026 oral-argument calendars and opinion feeds, and general web sources did not surface any Federal Circuit 2026 docket (or any 2026 PTAB proceeding) involving US 6,587,758 specifically. I am therefore reporting the absence of a finding rather than a case. Details of any pre-2026 district-court litigation are noted below with an explicit confidence flag.

1. Bibliographic Data (per Google Patents record fetched 2026-09-26)

Continuity chain (stated verbatim in the specification): this application is a continuation of 10/017,776 (now US 6,449,535, filed Oct. 30, 2001) → continuation of 09/717,943 (now US 6,459,961, filed Nov. 21, 2000) → continuation of 09/401,039 (now US 6,175,782, filed Sep. 21, 1999) → division of 08/789,934 (now US 6,009,355, filed Jan. 28, 1997). Hence the 1997 priority date.

Representative CPC classifications: B60K35/00–35/28 (vehicle instruments/input–output), B60R25/20 + B60R25/2081 (anti-theft with personal settings of other vehicle devices), B60H1/00771 (climate control keyed to GPS position), B60G17/015 (electronically regulated suspension).

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"In a multimedia information and control system for use in an automobile, at least one interface is employed which enables a user to access information concerning the automobile and control vehicle functions in an efficient manner. The user may select one of a plurality of displayed options on a screen of such an interface. Through audio, video and/or text media, the user is provided with information concerning the selected option and the vehicle function corresponding thereto. Having been so informed, the user may activate the selected option to control the corresponding vehicle function."

Note that the abstract describes the "AUTO DIRECTOR" system broadly, while this particular patent's claims are narrowly directed to one facet: detecting that a user has changed a vehicle setting away from a stored preference, prompting with an on-screen "save" option, and adopting the change as the new preference.

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

The claim set runs to roughly 39 claims (claims 1, 11, 20 and 30 appear to be the independent claims; the rest are dependents adding "save option," "climate control," "entertainment function," "audio/radio/CD/TV," and "information system" limitations). Verbatim claim text below is drawn from the Justia reproduction of the patent; where my source was truncated I say so.

Claim 1 — Method (detect change → prompt → adopt).
A method in a system for adjusting a vehicle function that normally operates from a preferred setting:

1. detect that the function has been adjusted, by comparing the stored preferred setting against the current setting;
2. in response, present an option (the "SAVE" prompt of FIG. 16);
3. receive a selection of that option;
4. adopt the current setting as the new preferred setting; and
5. operate the function based on the current setting.
   (I have the middle and closing steps verbatim; the exact wording of the opening "detecting…" step is reconstructed from claim 20's parallel system language and the FIG. 16/SAVE description — treat that one clause as paraphrase.)

Claim 11 — Method (data-in → prompt → adopt).
A method in a system having a display element: receive data concerning a setting that affects operation of the vehicle function; provide an option on the display in response to that received data; [receive a selection of the option]; adopt the setting; operate the function based on the setting. This variant keys off received data rather than an internal preference-vs-current comparison.

Claim 20 — System (preference-comparison variant).
A system comprising: a processor for detecting an adjustment by comparing the preferred setting with the current setting; a display element for providing an option in response to that detection; an interface for receiving selection of the option, whereby the current setting is adopted as the new preferred setting; and a mechanism for operating the function based on the current setting.

Claim 30 — System (two-interface variant).
A system comprising: a first interface for receiving data concerning a setting affecting the function; a display element providing an option in response to the received data; a second interface for receiving selection of the option; a processor for adopting the setting in response to the selection; and a mechanism for operating the function based on the setting. Claim 31 adds that the first interface may include (be the same as) the second interface.

The common inventive core: user changes a setting (e.g., climate control, radio, seat/mirror position); the system notices and offers a "save" affordance; only upon user confirmation is the changed setting promoted to the stored preference that governs future operation. This is the FIG. 16 "SAVE screen" / preferences-interface 116 functionality described in the specification.

4. Litigation / CAFC 2026 Status

• The Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" banner linking to the Darts-ip global litigation dataset (family ID 25149157). That banner confirms some litigation exists somewhere in the family; it does not identify a case number, court, or date, and it is not specific to this patent.
• I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming US 6,587,758. The March 2026 CAFC argument calendars, the Federal Circuit Update for March 2026, and a May 2026 nonprecedential opinion (Spero v. Volkswagen, 2025-1028) that I retrieved involve unrelated patents (e.g., U.S. 11,208,029; 10,912,321; 8,958,853; 6,683,858 in the Paltalk/Cisco matter — note this is 6,683,858, a different number). I did not confuse it with the similarly numbered patents that appeared in search results.
• Low-confidence background note (not confirmed by my searches this session): this patent family (American Calcar, Inc., later assigned to Talking Quick Tips, Inc.) is widely reported to have been asserted in district-court litigation in the mid-2000s against automotive OEMs. I do not have an authoritative case citation in hand from this session's searches and therefore will not state one as fact. If you need this verified, the Darts-ip family link on the Google Patents page and PACER/Delaware and Central District of California dockets are the right next steps.

5. Explicit Uncertainty Flags

1. Exact claim 1 preamble wording — reconstructed, not quoted (source truncated).
2. Total claim count (≈39) — inferred from the truncated claim list ending near claim 39; verify against the printed patent.
3. No 2026 CAFC activity — a negative finding based on the sources searched; it is not proof that no such docket exists, though it would be unusual for an expired (2017) patent to be litigated on appeal in 2026 absent a long-pending case.
4. Family litigation — existence confirmed only by the Google Patents banner; case identity unknown to me.