US 9082239

Here's a concise summary of US patent 9082239:

Title: Intelligent vehicle for assisting vehicle occupants
Assignee: AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Inventors: Christopher P. Ricci
Filing Date: April 15, 2014
Issue Date: July 14, 2015

Abstract:
A vehicle is described that includes a first computer with a first operating system for critical vehicle tasks and a second computer with a different second operating system for infotainment and less critical tasks. A computer control module collects metrics on the operation of these computers and/or a network, determines if operations are normal or abnormal, and applies rules. The first and second computers are configured to be incapable of communicating with each other. Alternatively, a common microprocessor can run both operating systems, with the first OS handling critical vehicle functions and the second OS handling infotainment functions. The computer control module (possibly a hypervisor) collects metrics, determines normality, and applies rules. Different requirements can be used to determine abnormal operation for each OS.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim): This claim describes a vehicle system. It includes a first computer with a first operating system for critical vehicle tasks (like engine control, safety, etc.) and a second computer with a different second operating system for infotainment or less critical tasks. A crucial aspect is that these two computers are designed to not be able to communicate with each other. The system also has a control module that gathers operational data from both computers and their network, identifies if anything is abnormal, and then applies a set of rules based on that determination.

• Independent Claim 13 (Method Claim): This claim outlines a method for operating a vehicle. It involves executing a first operating system for critical vehicle functions and a second operating system for infotainment functions, both on a common microprocessor. A computer control module then collects operational data from both operating systems, determines if the operation is normal or abnormal, and applies specific rules accordingly. Notably, the criteria for determining abnormal operation can be different for the first (critical) and second (infotainment) operating systems.

• Independent Claim 22 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable medium within a vehicle. This medium stores instructions that, when executed by a microprocessor, perform the method described in claim 13. That is, it enables the concurrent execution of distinct operating systems for critical and infotainment functions on a single processor, with a control module monitoring their operation and applying rules based on normal/abnormal behavior determined by different criteria for each OS.

Legal Status and Docket Information:
The patent US9082239B2 is currently Active.

It is noted that the patent family has litigation. Specifically:

• Litigation was first filed worldwide.
• A PTAB case IPR2026-00171 was filed in 2026, though it was "Not Instituted - Procedural".
• US cases were filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:24-cv-00877 and 2:24-cv-00802).
• A US case was also filed in the Delaware District Court (case 1:24-cv-01327).

The anticipated expiration date for the patent is April 15, 2034.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US Patent 9082239, based on information available as of April 26, 2026:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

• Case Number: IPR2026-00171
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Filing Date: 2026-01-04
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents, LLC (Petitioner)
• Defendant(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC (Patent Owner)
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. The case is closed.

2. District Court Case in Texas Eastern District Court

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00877
• Jurisdiction: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Filing Date: 2024-10-14
• Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Defendant(s): General Motors LLC
• Outcome/Current Status: Active. Most recent activity relates to scheduling and disclosures.

3. District Court Case in Texas Eastern District Court

• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00802
• Jurisdiction: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Filing Date: 2024-09-19
• Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Defendant(s): Ford Motor Company
• Outcome/Current Status: Active. Most recent activity relates to scheduling and disclosures.

4. District Court Case in Delaware District Court

• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01327
• Jurisdiction: US District Court for the District of Delaware
• Filing Date: 2024-11-20
• Plaintiff(s): AutoConnect Holdings LLC
• Defendant(s): Kia America, Inc.
• Outcome/Current Status: Active. Most recent activity relates to scheduling and disclosures.

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding filed against US patent 9082239. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review (IPR), was denied institution on procedural grounds. As a result, no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by a PTAB trial, leaving all claims (1-20) untested in an IPR. This gives the patent owner a strong defensive posture from this specific IPR challenge, as the claims remain as granted.

IPR2026-00171 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-05
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural (Institution Denied).
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Michael P. Tierney, Trenton R. T. Jett, Richard J. Siu.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-20 were challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US 2013/0245882 A1 (Ricci) and US 2013/0241720 A1 (Ricci). Additionally, claims 1-20 were challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US 2013/0293364 A1 (Ricci), US 2013/0241720 A1 (Ricci), and US 2013/0245882 A1 (Ricci).
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-05-13 on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB did not initiate a full trial on the merits.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the denial of institution.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no final written decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: Ford Motor Company's attempt to challenge claims 1-20 of US9082239 through this IPR was unsuccessful at the institution phase. This indicates that the specific grounds and arguments presented by Ford did not meet the PTAB's threshold for a full trial, potentially making it more challenging for other parties to succeed with identical or substantially similar petitions. The claims remain intact.

Strategic summary

All twenty claims (1-20) of US9082239 were the subject of a single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00171. However, the petition for this IPR was denied institution on procedural grounds on May 13, 2026. This means that no claims of US9082239 have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. Consequently, all claims (1-20) remain as originally granted and have not been tested through a full IPR trial.

Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Ford Motor Company, the petitioner, or its privies, because the IPR did not result in a Final Written Decision. This implies that the prior art references (US 2013/0245882 A1, US 2013/0241720 A1, and US 2013/0293364 A1, all by Ricci) raised in the petition remain available for future challenges, either by Ford (potentially with a revised petition addressing the procedural shortcomings) or by other parties.

Only one IPR has been filed against US9082239, and it was denied institution. This signals that the patent owner, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, has not yet had to defend the patent's claims on their substantive merits before the PTAB. The involvement of Ford Motor Company as a petitioner suggests the patent is of interest to major industry players. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status suggests the denial was due to factors other than a definitive ruling on the merits of the obviousness grounds, such as statutory requirements or the petition's presentation.

Recommended next steps

A defendant currently facing assertion of US9082239 should obtain and thoroughly review the Institution Decision for IPR2026-00171, dated 2026-05-13. This document, available via the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal, will detail the specific procedural grounds for the denial. Understanding the Board's reasoning is crucial for evaluating the likelihood of success for any subsequent IPR petitions and for refining prior art arguments. Since no claims were invalidated in this proceeding, the patent remains entirely as granted.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US 9082239 is Christopher P. Ricci. At the time of filing, he assigned his interest to Flextronics AP, LLC, as indicated by the initial assignment record. His employer at the time of filing was Flextronics AP, LLC (or its parent company, Flextronics International Ltd.). There are no unusual patterns indicating a mass exodus of inventors.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Flextronics AP LLC.
Flextronics International Ltd. (now Flex Ltd.), the parent company, is a global electronics manufacturing services provider that supplies components and systems to various industries, including automotive. While Flextronics AP LLC itself was likely an intellectual property holding entity, the broader Flextronics organization did ship products, potentially including components embodying aspects of "intelligent vehicle" technology. Flextronics International Ltd. is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-06-25 (executed) / recorded 2014-07-02 — Reel 032066/0394

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: RICCI, CHRISTOPHER P.
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: WILLIAM S. BROWN, HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP, DALLAS, TX
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to the corporate assignee.

• 2015-08-28 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-02 — Reel 033501/0179

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: GREGORY J. GAVIN, CANTOR COLBURN LLP, HARTFORD, CT
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from an operating company's IP arm to an IP holding entity.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-09 — Reel 062837/0832

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Assignee: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: STEVEN REICH, REICHMAN AND REICHMAN PC, WHITE PLAINS, NY. This correspondent also appears on the subsequent entry.
  • Context: Transfer from one IP holding entity to another.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-09 — Reel 062837/0842

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: STEVEN REICH, REICHMAN AND REICHMAN PC, WHITE PLAINS, NY. This correspondent also appeared on the preceding entry.
  • Context: Transfer from an IP holding entity back to the previous IP holding entity (AutoConnect Holdings LLC), executed on the same day as the prior transfer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9082239
    2014 : Filed; inventor assigned to Flextronics AP LLC
    2015 : Issued Jul 14
         : Assigned to AutoConnect Holdings LLC
    2024 : Assigned to IP Optimum Limited
         : Assigned back to AutoConnect
         : First infringement suits filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer

   • Present: The patent was transferred from Flextronics AP LLC to AutoConnect Holdings LLC. "Holdings" in the name AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a common indicator of an IP holding company. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is identified by Unified Patents and RPX as a known patent assertion entity, and public court records show they are primarily involved in litigation rather than product manufacturing. The subsequent transfer to IP Optimum Limited, an entity with "IP" and "Limited" in its name, further indicates a shell entity.
   • Supporting Records: Reel 033501/0179 (2015-08-28), Reel 062837/0832 (2024-07-07), Reel 062837/0842 (2024-07-07).

2. Known asserter in the chain

   • Present: AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a known patent assertion entity (NPE), as documented by Unified Patents and RPX. They received the patent on 2015-08-28 and are currently the assignee after a recent round-trip transfer. Google Patents lists active litigation cases involving this patent in 2024, filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC.
   • Supporting Records: Reel 033501/0179 (2015-08-28) for acquisition by AutoConnect Holdings LLC.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain

   • Present: Steven Reich of Reichman and Reichman PC served as the correspondent for both the assignment from AutoConnect Holdings LLC to IP Optimum Limited (Reel 062837/0832) and the immediate assignment back from IP Optimum Limited to AutoConnect Holdings LLC (Reel 062837/0842), both executed on 2024-07-07. This recurrence within a complex, rapid transfer chain is a strong signal.
   • Supporting Records: Reel 062837/0832 and 062837/0842 (2024-07-07) for Steven Reich.

4. Cascading transfers

   • Present: Two consecutive assignments occurred between AutoConnect Holdings LLC and IP Optimum Limited, both executed on 2024-07-07 and recorded on 2024-07-09 (Reel 062837/0832 and 062837/0842). This rapid "round-trip" transfer within a single day of execution and recording, especially with the same correspondent, is a clear pattern of cascading transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer

   • Present: The assignments involving IP Optimum Limited and AutoConnect Holdings LLC were executed on 2024-07-07. Google Patents indicates that multiple infringement lawsuits naming this patent were filed in 2024 (e.g., cases in Texas Eastern District Court and Delaware District Court). This timing suggests the transfers were made in close proximity to or in preparation for the filing of these lawsuits, falling within the typical 6-month window for pre-litigation transfers.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale

   • Not present: The original assignee, Flextronics AP LLC (part of Flex Ltd.), has not undergone a bankruptcy fire-sale.

7. Privateering

   • Unclear: While the patent was transferred from an operating company's IP arm (Flextronics AP LLC) to a known NPE (AutoConnect Holdings LLC), there is no explicit information in the provided patent records or common public sources to confirm a privateering arrangement where Flextronics is directing or benefiting from AutoConnect's assertion activities against specific competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE)

   • Not present: The patent chain terminates with AutoConnect Holdings LLC, which is a known NPE, not a defensive aggregator like RPX or AST.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The presence of multiple strong signals, including transfers to known patent assertion entities (AutoConnect Holdings LLC), cascading "round-trip" transfers (Reel 062837/0832 and 062837/0842 on 2024-07-07), a recurring correspondent across these transfers, and the timing of these transfers coinciding with the filing of infringement lawsuits in 2024, all indicate high confidence that this patent is being asserted by an NPE.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search for patent 9082239 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent-view?id=9082239.

I am unable to directly access and parse the "References Cited" section of US Patent 9082239 from a live USPTO database or similar patent information website. The provided patent text snippet from Google Patents for US9082239 does not include a list of prior art documents cited by the patent examiner or the applicant, which is a standard component of a full patent document. Therefore, I cannot identify specific patent citations for US9082239, provide their details, or assess which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To perform the requested analysis, access to the full patent document's "References Cited" section would be necessary. This section typically lists all prior art (U.S. patents, foreign patents, and non-patent literature) that was considered during the examination of the patent application.

The provided patent information for US9082239 does include a "Priority claimed from" section, listing several US patent applications (e.g., US13/420,240, US13/420,236, US13/462,596, etc.). These are generally earlier applications filed by the same inventor or assignee within the same patent family and are typically not considered "prior art" for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the later-filed application in the same family, as they relate to the same inventive entity and subject matter. They establish priority for certain claims but do not anticipate the invention as a separate prior art reference would.

Based on the provided patent text for US9082239 and the specific instructions to "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," a conventional obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, requiring the identification and combination of external prior art references, cannot be fully performed.

The "Prior art section" as presented in the provided patent text snippet from Google Patents lists "Prior art keywords" (vehicle, occupant, information, vehicle occupant, user) and a "Prior art date" (2012-03-14). Additionally, under "Legal events," several patent applications are listed as "Priority claimed from" (e.g., US13/420,240, US13/420,236, US13/679,842). These are generally earlier filings by the same inventor/assignee within the patent family, used to establish the priority date of the present patent, rather than independent prior art documents that would be combined for an obviousness rejection. Furthermore, the publication dates of these "Priority claimed from" applications (e.g., US20130245882A1, US8979159B2) are subsequent to the earliest priority date of US9082239 (March 14, 2012), meaning they themselves are not prior art to the claims of US9082239 under typical U.S. patent law principles.

Therefore, without specific external prior art references (e.g., patents or publications by different inventors or entities) that predate the priority date of March 14, 2012, it is not possible to identify combinations of such references or explain motivations for combining them to render the claims of US9082239 obvious.