US 8649971

Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,649,971: Navigation Device

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

This report provides a concise summary of United States Patent 8,649,971, including its key bibliographic details and a plain-language overview of its independent claims. Information is based on data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A search of the 2026 dockets for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) did not yield specific results for this patent.

Bibliographic Information

• Title: Navigation device
• Assignee: The current assignee of record is Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC. The original assignee was Mitsubishi Electric Corp.
• Inventor: Hiroshi Machino
• Filing Date: January 14, 2009
• Issue Date: February 11, 2014
• Abstract: The patent describes a navigation device featuring a route searching unit to calculate a route to a destination via set waypoints. A route guidance unit provides directions along this route. An output unit alerts the user when the vehicle has deviated by a predetermined distance from the path to the next waypoint and is traveling on a subsequent part of the route. An input unit then allows the user to command whether or not to still travel to the missed waypoint in response to the alert.

Overview of Independent Claims

This patent contains two independent claims: claim 1 (directed to a device) and claim 19 (directed to a method).

Independent Claim 1: A navigation device that provides options after a missed waypoint.

In simple terms, this claim covers a physical navigation device with several key components. It has a unit for setting waypoints and a destination. A route searching unit then finds a path to the destination through these waypoints. A guidance unit gives turn-by-turn directions. The core of the invention is an output unit that sends a message to the user if the vehicle strays a certain distance from the route to the next waypoint and is already on a part of the route that comes after that waypoint. Finally, an input unit lets the user decide whether to go back to the missed waypoint or skip it.

Independent Claim 19: A method for a navigation apparatus to handle missed waypoints.

This claim mirrors the functionality of the device in claim 1 but is framed as a method or a series of steps. The method involves:

1. Setting waypoints and a destination using the navigation device.
2. Searching for a complete route to the destination via the specified waypoints.
3. Providing route guidance along the calculated path.
4. Displaying a message indicating the vehicle has deviated from the route to the next waypoint by a set distance and is now on a later segment of the overall route.
5. Accepting a command from the user on whether to proceed to the missed waypoint.

Litigation History of U.S. Patent 8,649,971

As of today's date, May 1, 2026, U.S. Patent 8,649,971 is involved in several litigation proceedings. The patent is currently assigned to Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC.

Based on a review of public records, the following legal actions involving this patent have been identified:

District Court Litigation

• Case 1

  • Plaintiff(s): Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC
  • Defendant(s): General Motors Company
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00175
  • Filing Date: April 21, 2023
  • Status: This case appears to be ongoing.

• Case 2

  • Plaintiff(s): Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC
  • Defendant(s): Ford Motor Company
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00176
  • Filing Date: April 21, 2023
  • Status: This case also appears to be ongoing.

• Case 3

  • Plaintiff(s): I am unable to confirm the plaintiff for this specific case number based on the provided information. It is likely Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC, given the pattern of litigation.
  • Defendant(s): I am unable to confirm the defendant for this specific case number based on the provided information.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-05928
  • Filing Date: The filing date is not specified in the provided information, but the case number suggests a 2025 filing.
  • Status: Given the recent case number, this litigation is presumed to be in its early stages.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

In addition to the district court cases, the patent has been challenged at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Proceeding Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR)
• Case Number: IPR2024-00173
• Petitioner: Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Capital America, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc.
• Filing Date: November 17, 2023
• Status: The PTAB has not instituted a trial on the merits. This indicates that the board, after a preliminary review, determined that the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for U.S. Patent 8,649,971, which was denied institution. This gives a defendant facing assertion of this patent a moderate defensive posture, as the patent claims have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB, but the petition itself provides insight into potential invalidity arguments.

IPR2024-00173 — Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Capital America, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc. v. MEL Navip LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-11-17
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The PTAB determined that the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information for the institution decision.
• Petition grounds: I am unable to confirm the specific claims, prior art, or statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) challenged in the petition from the provided information.
• Institution decision: Denied. The institution decision was issued on an unspecified date, with the board concluding that the petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: I am unable to confirm if the institution denial was appealed to the Federal Circuit from the provided information.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that the claims of US 8,649,971 were not formally challenged and upheld or invalidated at the PTAB. However, the petition itself would have presented arguments against the patent's validity, which could be useful for a defendant in district court litigation.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-30, all claims of US 8,649,971 remain untested in AIA trial proceedings, as the single IPR filed was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained by the PTAB.

Regarding estoppel, since institution was denied in IPR2024-00173, the petitioner (Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Capital America, Kia Corporation, and Kia America, Inc.) and their privies are not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in that petition. This is because estoppel typically attaches upon a final written decision. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenging the patent's validity.

The existence of IPR2024-00173 indicates that the patent has attracted attention from operating companies. The petitioner's identity (Hyundai/Kia) suggests a defensive move by automotive manufacturers, likely in response to infringement allegations. The current assignee, Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC, appears to be an entity involved in patent assertion, given the multiple district court cases filed.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it would be beneficial to review the full petition filed in IPR2024-00173. Although institution was denied, the petition likely outlines prior art and arguments against the patent's validity, which could be re-purposed or adapted for use in district court invalidity defenses. The institution decision itself would also provide insight into the PTAB's reasoning for denial, which can help in refining invalidity arguments.
• Monitor the USPTO PTAB E2E system for any new filings or appeals related to US 8,649,971.

Inventors

Hiroshi Machino (Mitsubishi Electric Corp)

Original assignee

The original assignee of record was Mitsubishi Electric Corp. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation is a multinational electronics and electrical equipment manufacturing company, operating in a wide range of businesses including energy and electric systems, industrial automation, information and communication systems, and home appliances. They ship numerous products embodying navigation technologies. Mitsubishi Electric Corp is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-07-28 (executed) / recorded 2010-08-25 — Reel 024887/0599

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Machino, Hiroshi
  • Assignee: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
  • Correspondent: John W. Cole, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. This correspondent appears on other tracked patents.
  • Context: Internal reorg (assignment from inventor to original corporate assignee)

• 2022-02-24 (executed) / recorded 2022-05-19 — Reel 059954/0068

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
  • Assignee: 1205 Investments, LLC, 1310 N. Wishon Avenue, Fresno, CA 93728
  • Correspondent: John M. Neclerio, Neclerio IP Law, LLC, 766 E. Howard Ave., Decatur, GA 30030.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter

• 2022-03-01 (executed) / recorded 2022-05-19 — Reel 059954/0113

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: 1205 Investments, LLC
  • Assignee: MEL Navip LLC, 1310 N. Wishon Ave., Fresno, CA 93728
  • Correspondent: John M. Neclerio, Neclerio IP Law, LLC, 766 E. Howard Ave., Decatur, GA 30030. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Cascading transfer / transfer to asserter

• 2025-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-06-03 — Reel 071298/0975

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MEL Navip LLC
  • Assignee: Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC, 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 7070, Dallas, TX 75201
  • Correspondent: John M. Neclerio, Neclerio IP Law, LLC, 766 E. Howard Ave., Decatur, GA 30030. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Cascading transfer / transfer to asserter

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8649971
    2008 : Filed by Mitsubishi Electric Corp
    2010 : Assigned inventor to Mitsubishi Electric Corp
    2014 : Issued
    2022 : Assigned to 1205 Investments LLC
         : Assigned to MEL Navip LLC
    2023 : First infringement suit filed
    2025 : Assigned to Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent moved from Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, an operating company, to 1205 Investments, LLC (Reel 059954/0068), then to MEL Navip LLC (Reel 059954/0113), and finally to Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC (Reel 071298/0975). These entities, particularly "LLC" suffixes and the shared address (1310 N. Wishon Avenue, Fresno, CA) for the first two LLCs and the Dallas address for Optimum Vector Dynamics, suggest licensing-only entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC is a known plaintiff in patent litigation, as evidenced by the listed district court cases in the provided litigation summary (e.g., 2:23-cv-00175 and 2:23-cv-00176).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. John M. Neclerio of Neclerio IP Law, LLC is listed as the correspondent for the assignments to 1205 Investments, LLC (Reel 059954/0068), MEL Navip LLC (Reel 059954/0113), and Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC (Reel 071298/0975). This recurrence across multiple transfers to shell-like entities is a strong indicator.
4. Cascading transfers — present. There are two consecutive assignments within a short period in 2022: from Mitsubishi Electric Corporation to 1205 Investments, LLC (executed 2022-02-24, recorded 2022-05-19), and immediately from 1205 Investments, LLC to MEL Navip LLC (executed 2022-03-01, recorded 2022-05-19). These occurred within days of each other (execution dates) and were recorded on the same day. Additionally, the transfer to Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC in 2025 continues this pattern.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment to 1205 Investments LLC (executed 2022-02-24, recorded 2022-05-19) and MEL Navip LLC (executed 2022-03-01, recorded 2022-05-19) occurred less than a year before the first infringement suits were filed by Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC on April 21, 2023 (e.g., 2:23-cv-00175 and 2:23-cv-00176). The final assignment to Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC was executed on May 31, 2025.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation remains an operating entity.
7. Privateering — unclear. While the patent was transferred from an operating company to an NPE, there is no explicit evidence from the provided data (e.g., SEC filings or specific reporting) to confirm that Mitsubishi Electric Corporation is sponsoring the assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The presence of multiple strong signals, including transfers from an operating company to shell entities (1205 Investments, MEL Navip, and Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC), the recurrence of the same correspondent attorney (John M. Neclerio) across these transfers, the cascading nature of the transfers, and the pre-litigation timing of these assignments, all point to this patent being asserted by a Non-Practicing Entity. The current assignee, Optimum Vector Dynamics LLC, is also a known asserter.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US8649971

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 8,649,971

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element and limitation of the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. The following analysis examines the most relevant prior art references cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of patent 8,649,971 and assesses their potential to anticipate the independent claims (1 and 19) of the '971 patent.

Key Prior Art References Cited by the Examiner

The following patents and patent applications were cited by the examiner as relevant to the claimed invention.

1. U.S. Patent 5,926,118 A (Aisin Aw Co., Ltd.)

• Full Citation: US 5,926,118 A, "Vehicular navigation apparatus," Assignee: Aisin Aw Co., Ltd.
• Filing Date: June 28, 1995
• Publication Date: July 20, 1999
• Brief Description: This patent describes a navigation system that can set a "passing point" (waypoint) and a destination. If the vehicle deviates from the recommended route to the passing point, the system can perform a search for an alternate route. The system determines deviation and can automatically re-calculate a route to either guide the vehicle back to the original passing point or find a new route to the destination that bypasses it.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19 (Device and Method): This reference teaches most elements of the claims, including setting waypoints ("passing point") and a destination, searching for a route, providing guidance, and detecting deviation. However, it appears to fall short of anticipating the claims because the re-routing process is largely automatic. The '118 patent does not explicitly disclose outputting a specific message to the user that they are on a route after the waypoint and then waiting for a user command on whether to proceed to that missed waypoint. The decision-making process is system-driven rather than user-prompted in the specific manner claimed by the '971 patent.

2. U.S. Patent 6,018,697 A (Aisin Aw Co., Ltd.)

• Full Citation: US 6,018,697 A, "Navigation system for vehicles," Assignee: Aisin Aw Co., Ltd.
• Filing Date: December 26, 1995
• Publication Date: January 25, 2000
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on a navigation system that provides route guidance and handles route deviation. When the vehicle deviates from the calculated path, the system determines the deviation and can re-calculate a new route from the current position to the destination. It discusses various conditions for triggering a re-route search.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19 (Device and Method): Similar to the '118 patent, this reference discloses the core functions of a navigation system: setting a destination, route calculation, guidance, and handling deviations. The system can automatically re-calculate the route if the driver goes off-course. However, it does not appear to teach the specific inventive step of the '971 patent: detecting that the vehicle has not only deviated from the path to a waypoint but is now on a subsequent leg of the journey, and then explicitly prompting the user for a decision ("whether or not to travel via said first next waypoint"). The automated nature of its re-routing functionality means it likely does not anticipate the user-command element as claimed.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0106469 A1 (Denso Corporation)

• Full Citation: US 2007/0106469 A1, "Navigation system," Assignee: Denso Corporation.
• Filing Date: November 9, 2005
• Publication Date: May 10, 2007
• Brief Description: This application describes a navigation system that sets multiple "pass-by points" (waypoints) and guides a vehicle. If the user deviates and misses a pass-by point, the system can determine whether to guide the user back to the missed point or to the next point on the route. The system can make this decision based on factors like the distance to the missed point versus the next one.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 19 (Device and Method): This reference is highly relevant as it directly addresses the scenario of missing a waypoint. It discloses determining that the vehicle has passed a waypoint and then deciding the next action. However, the decision logic described in the '469 application appears to be based on system-calculated conditions (e.g., comparing distances) rather than a direct command from the user in response to a specific message. The '971 patent claims require an "input unit configured to input a command indicating whether or not to travel via said first next waypoint in response to the message." Because the '469 application leans toward an automated or conditional system decision, it likely does not contain every element of the claims and therefore does not anticipate them.

Summary of Analysis

While the cited prior art references describe sophisticated navigation systems with features for handling route deviations and missed waypoints, none appear to fully anticipate the independent claims of US 8,649,971. The key distinguishing feature of the '971 patent is the combination of:

1. Detecting that the vehicle has deviated from the route to a waypoint and is now traveling on a section of the route after that waypoint.
2. In response to this specific condition, outputting a message to the user.
3. Waiting for and accepting a direct user command on how to proceed regarding the missed waypoint.

The prior art systems tend to handle such deviations automatically based on pre-set conditions or calculations, without the explicit user-in-the-loop decision-making step that is central to the '971 patent's claims.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,649,971 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis examines whether the independent claims of U.S. Patent 8,649,971 (claims 1 and 19) would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention, based on combinations of the prior art references cited during prosecution. The key distinguishing feature of the '971 patent, as identified in the prior art summary, is the combination of:

1. Detecting that the vehicle has deviated from the route to a waypoint and is now traveling on a section of the route after that waypoint.
2. In response to this specific condition, outputting a message to the user.
3. Waiting for and accepting a direct user command on how to proceed regarding the missed waypoint.

The prior art references, individually, describe various aspects of navigation systems, including waypoint handling, route searching, guidance, and automatic re-routing upon deviation.

Obviousness Combination: US 2007/0106469 A1 in view of general knowledge of user interface design in navigation systems

Primary Reference: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0106469 A1 (Denso Corporation)

• Teaching: This reference describes a navigation system that sets "pass-by points" (waypoints) and guides a vehicle. Critically, it addresses the scenario where a user deviates and misses a pass-by point, stating that "the system can determine whether to guide the user back to the missed point or to the next point on the route". The system makes this decision based on factors like the distance to the missed point versus the next one. This explicitly teaches the elements of setting waypoints and a destination, searching for a route, providing guidance, detecting deviation to a predetermined distance or more, and the determination that the vehicle is now traveling along a route after the first next waypoint. It determines this state to then make its automatic decision.

Secondary Teaching/Motivation for Combination: General knowledge of user interface (UI) design in navigation systems, or the implicit teaching of input/output means in other cited navigation patents (e.g., US 5,926,118 A describing a "vehicular navigation apparatus" which inherently includes UI components).

• Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the functionality of US 2007/0106469 A1 with conventional user interaction principles to improve user-friendliness and provide user control. The '971 patent itself identifies a problem with the related art, stating that "because the navigation device automatically re-searches for a route returning to a waypoint which the user has not passed or a route in which the waypoint which the user has not passed is not set as a waypoint against the user's own will... the related art navigation device is inferior in user-friendliness". This problem statement provides a clear and explicit motivation for a POSITA to enable user choice.

• Reasoning for Obviousness:

  • Shared Functionality: US 2007/0106469 A1 already teaches the core logic of detecting deviation from a waypoint and determining that the vehicle is traveling on a route segment after that waypoint, subsequently making a decision (albeit an automatic one) on how to proceed.
  • Adding User Choice: Given the recognized desire for user control in navigation (explicitly stated in the '971 patent's background), a POSITA would find it obvious to modify the automated decision-making process of US 2007/0106469 A1. Instead of the system automatically deciding whether to guide back to a missed waypoint or to the next point, a POSITA would logically implement a user prompt.
  • Standard UI Implementation: Providing an output message (visual on a display, auditory via a speaker) and accepting a user command (via buttons, touchscreen, or voice input) are standard functionalities of any interactive navigation device. The '971 patent's detailed description (FIG. 1) explicitly lists components like a "monitor 2," "audio speaker 4," "remote control 3," and "input unit 17" as standard elements for such interaction. It would be a routine design choice to use these existing input/output means to present the user with the option to "travel via said first next waypoint" or not, once the system determines the deviation condition as taught by US 2007/0106469 A1.
  • Anticipating the Claims: The combination would thus teach a navigation device (claim 1) or method (claim 19) that detects deviation from a first next waypoint, determines it's traveling after that waypoint, outputs a message about this, and inputs a user command in response, thereby covering all elements of the independent claims.

Therefore, the combination of US 2007/0106469 A1 with the common knowledge in the art regarding user interface design and the well-understood desire for user control in navigation systems would render claims 1 and 19 of US 8,649,971 obvious. The motivation is to enhance user-friendliness by allowing users to determine how to handle a missed waypoint according to their own will, a problem explicitly highlighted by the '971 patent itself.