US 10157384

I'll search for this specific patent number and any related CAFC activity.

Let me dig into the litigation/CAFC history and verify the granted claim set.

Let me verify the granted claim set and check for any 2026 CAFC activity.

Search scope and a note on the CAFC 2026 question

I searched for the exact string/patent number 10157384 (US patent number) and for US10157384B2 / application 15/843,750, including Federal Circuit docket sources.

• No 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity for US 10,157,384 was found. The only Federal Circuit appeal I can identify for this patent is Appeal No. 2021-2289, which was decided June 15, 2022 (nonprecedential, per curiam judgment, AFFIRMED). If there is 2026 CAFC docket activity, I did not find it, and I cannot confirm it exists. Treat "no 2026 CAFC activity found" as a negative search result, not a verified absence.
• Two search hits containing the literal string "10157384" are unrelated and are called out here so they are not conflated with the patent: (a) "CO 10157384 A", a Colombian application number appearing in the family of EP2695609B1, and (b) "10157384 MANITOBA LTD.", a Manitoba corporate registration. Neither is U.S. Patent 10,157,384.

Bibliographic summary (from the authoritative patent text)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157384/en

Family note (contemporaneous continuations claiming priority to 15/843,750): US 10,891,623; US 10,885,528; US 11,074,589; US 11,216,819; US 11,386,431; US 11,587,091; US 11,836,734.

Abstract (verbatim, as published)

An automated at-the-pump method manages vehicle fuel purchases at a fuel station. The method includes transmitting driver identification data to a mobile device assigned to a vehicle driver. The driver identification data is electronically verified to confirm that the driver identification data received by the mobile device matches the assigned vehicle driver. Vehicle data is transmitted from a data bus of the vehicle to the mobile device for storage in the memory. The vehicle data and driver identification data are transmitted to a remote terminal. Using the remote terminal, the vehicle data and driver identification data are electronically authenticated. An authorization signal is then transmitted from the remote terminal to an at-the-pump fuel control terminal.

⚠️ Important internal inconsistency to flag: the abstract is directed to the at-the-pump fuel purchasing embodiment, but the specification of the same document has three distinct disclosed subject areas — (1) hours-of-service (HOS)/fuel-tax logging and reporting via an electronic on-board recorder, (2) automated at-the-pump fuel purchase management, and (3) vehicle fault/diagnostic management — and the claims that were actually litigated and challenged in IPR are the on-board HOS/fuel-tax logging claims (see below). I could not retrieve the complete granted claim text within my search budget, so the claim characterization below is drawn from the PTAB and District Court record plus the pre-grant publication, and is flagged accordingly.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

What the record establishes about the granted claim set: IPR2020-00694 challenged claims 1–11 and 14–20 of the '384 patent (18 of the claims), which implies the patent has at least 20 claims, with claims 12–13 not challenged. Claim 1 of the '384 patent was treated in the D. Delaware § 101 ruling as an onboard system claim (i.e., an on-board recorder apparatus, not the at-the-pump fuel-purchase method of the abstract).

Independent claim 1 — onboard electronic system (apparatus). In substance, an in-vehicle logging unit comprising: a memory device for operating data; a power supply; a first interface to a vehicle mileage sensing system (e.g., a magnetic speed sensor/odometer); a second interface to a vehicle data bus (e.g., SAE J1708, J1850, J1939, RS-232, CAN); a receiver linked to a global navigation satellite system (GPS); at least one data portal that uploads data from memory to a receiver external to the vehicle over a wireless telecommunications network and also supports a connection to a receiver external to the vehicle and under control of authorities; a driver interface capturing driver identification information and duty status; a processor cooperating with the memory to process encoded instructions and record/calculate data from the group consisting of operating data, an hours-of-service log, and a fuel tax log; and a display.

Note on wording: the pre-grant publication listing (US 2018/0108013 A1) recites claim 1 as an "onboard electronic system" with a processor "forming a logic component adapted for calculating and electronically logging at least one of … hours of service, fuel tax, and engine hours" and an "onboard signal transmitting device." A very similar apparatus claim (with a processor "recording data selected from a group consisting of operating data, an hours of service log, and a fuel tax log," plus a display) was recited in the D. Delaware opinion as representative for the companion '277 patent. I have not independently verified the precise granted wording of '384 claim 1.

Independent claim 2 — method for logging and reporting driver activity and vehicle operation. Identifying a driver of a vehicle; recording operating data (mileage from the mileage sensing system and/or data bus; engine use, time and date from the data bus; location, time and date from the GNSS) with an electronic device connected to the data bus, the mileage sensing system and the GNSS; recording a driver duty status; creating an hours-of-service log (change in duty status, time and date of change, hours within each duty status, total hours driven today, total hours on duty for seven days, total hours on duty for eight days); and automatically uploading the hours-of-service log to a receiver external to the vehicle using a wireless telecommunications network. (This was the claim text recited in the D. Delaware § 101 record for the closely-related sibling claim set.)

Other independent claims/aspects recited in the specification (the specification states these as separate aspects; whether each is a granted claim I could not fully verify):

• A system claim: on-board recorder + wired data-bus connection + a first server receiving automatic downloads of the HOS log, fuel tax log and compliance signal over the wireless network + a second server that receives the fuel tax log and runs software for filing IFTA fuel tax reports.
• A means-plus-function style "device" claim reciting means for identifying a driver/recording operating data, recording duty status, creating an HOS log, creating a fuel tax log, comparing the HOS log to an applicable requirement, indicating compliance/out-of-compliance to the driver, automatically uploading the logs to an external receiver, and emitting a compliance signal to a receiver under control of authorities.
• A "consisting of"/closed-list method claim recording only mileage, engine use/time/date and GNSS location/time/date.
• Further "means for" aspects covering: multi-driver (team-driving) HOS determination and recording; least-cost upload methods; jurisdiction/border-crossing determination and upload; calculating and wirelessly notifying authorities of non-compliance; transmitting HOS data to law enforcement; trailer tether/untether location identification, recording and upload.

⚠️ Drafting anomaly worth noting: the specification states that "a construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) [or 6th paragraph/pre-AIA] is not intended," even though the document elsewhere uses "means for" language. That is an unusual combination and is a point of potential claim-construction dispute.

Litigation, PTAB and appellate history (verified)

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2020-00694 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/11465-keeptruckin-v-innovative-global-systems-llc-ipr-of-384 ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[6477826](/patent/6477826)/innovative-global-systems-llc-v-motive-technologies-inc/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/21-2289 ; https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210914006059/en/KeepTruckin-Wins-Two-Decisions-at-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board/ ; D. Del. opinion text via https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2019cv00641/68360/30/0.pdf

Practical bottom line: following the July 21, 2021 PTAB Final Written Decision and the June 15, 2022 Federal Circuit affirmance, the asserted claims of the '384 patent stand cancelled as unpatentable, and the patent is listed as Expired – Fee Related with anticipated expiration 2025-08-15.

Confidence and uncertainty disclosure

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventor, assignee, application number, filing date, publication date, issue date, priority chain, abstract text, IPR2020-00694 details and outcome, CAFC 21-2289 outcome, and the D. Del. case numbers — all corroborated across the authoritative patent text and multiple secondary sources.
• Lower confidence / flagged: the exact granted wording of '384 claims 1, 2 and the other independent claims. I could not retrieve the full granted claim listing within my search budget. My overview of claim 1 is based on (i) the PTAB's identification of challenged claims 1–11 and 14–20, (ii) the D. Del. characterization of '384 claim 1 as an onboard system claim, and (iii) the pre-grant publication's claim listing, which may differ from the granted claims. Claims 12–13 of the granted patent were never challenged in IPR2020-00694 and I could not determine their subject matter; they may correspond to the at-the-pump embodiment described in the abstract.
• Not verified: any 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity for this patent. Searches surfaced none. I found no 2026 CAFC case captioned to Innovative Global Systems or Motive Technologies involving the '384 patent; the appeal of record terminated in 2022.

I'll research the litigation history for US Patent 10157384. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific case numbers and PTAB proceedings referenced for this patent.

Good progress. Let me verify which patents were asserted in each Delaware case and the outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,157,384 ("the '384 patent")

Patent identification (as literally stated in the record): U.S. Patent No. 10,157,384 B2, "System for logging and reporting driver activity and operation data of a vehicle," inventor Alan C. Lesesky, assignee Innovative Global Systems LLC. Filed December 15, 2017; granted December 18, 2018; earliest priority August 15, 2005 (from US 11/203,280). Google Patents currently lists its legal status as "Expired – Fee Related," with anticipated expiration August 15, 2025 (maintenance-fee lapse).

I found one district-court plaintiff asserting this patent — Innovative Global Systems, LLC ("IGS") — in three Delaware suits, plus one PTAB inter partes review and one Federal Circuit appeal. Details below, with the caveats noted.

1. District Court — D. Delaware

Key points and sources:

• Keep Truckin (1:19-cv-00641-MN). Filed April 8, 2019; Judge Noreika. Keep Truckin moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In its opinion (D.I. 30), the court denied the §101 challenge as to the '384 patent, holding that representative claim 1 "is not directed to the abstract idea of logging and recording data, but rather to a particular onboard system for a vehicle that continuously monitors certain data from the vehicle data bus and generates a log indicating compliance status of a driver." (Justia/CourtListener copies of D.I. 30: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2019cv00641/68360/30/). The case was referred to mediation in February 2020 (Unified Patents litigation portal, case 1:19-cv-00641).

• Samsara (1:19-cv-01708-MN). Filed September 12, 2019; the Rule 73.1/PTO report lists US 8,032,277 B2 and US 10,157,384 B2. Samsara moved to dismiss on December 3, 2019; the court denied the §101 challenge as to the '384 patent in the same opinion as the Keep Truckin motion. The docket shows a Stipulation of Dismissal entered May 7, 2020 (Unified Patents portal, case 1:19-cv-01708: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:19-cv-01708).

• Blue Tree Systems (1:19-cv-00642-MN). Filed April 8, 2019, same day and same court as the Keep Truckin case, and identified on the '384 patent's Google Patents page as a related family case. Caveat: I could not independently confirm from the sources retrieved that the '384 patent (as opposed to only the related '277 patent or other IGS patents) was specifically asserted in the Blue Tree complaint. Treat the '384-specific link to Blue Tree as unverified.

2. PTAB — Inter Partes Review

• Keep Truckin, Inc. v. Innovative Global Systems, LLC, IPR2020-00694 (Patent 10,157,384 B2)
  • Petitioner: Keep Truckin, Inc.; Patent Owner: Innovative Global Systems, LLC
  • Petition filed: March 10, 2020
  • Institution decision: July 23, 2020 (all challenged claims)
  • Claims challenged: 1–11 and 14–20 (grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), primarily Skeen + Warkentin + Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, plus Murphy and Berenz for claims 7 and 9)
  • Oral hearing: April 22, 2021
  • Final Written Decision: July 21, 2021 — all challenged claims (1–11, 14–20) held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §318(a)
  • Panel: APJs Arbes, Horvath, and Laney
  • Sources: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/keep-truckin-inc-v-894575071; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/11465-keeptruckin-v-innovative-global-systems-llc-ipr-of-384
  • Related but separate: IPR2020-00692 challenged U.S. 8,032,277 (the '277 patent), not the '384 patent.

3. Federal Circuit Appeal

• Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Motive Technologies, Inc. (formerly Keep Truckin, Inc.), No. 2021-2289 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Appeal of IPR2020-00694
  • Decided June 15, 2022 — per curiam (Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes, JJ.), nonprecedential; AFFIRMED (the Board's invalidation of the '384 claims was upheld)
  • Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[6477826](/patent/6477826)/innovative-global-systems-llc-v-motive-technologies-inc/

Important scope notes / non-matches

• Do not confuse with other IGS suits on older patents. The same plaintiff (Innovative Global Systems, LLC) has a long history of telematics suits in E.D. Tex. and elsewhere (e.g., v. Turnpike Global Technologies, 6:09-cv-00157; v. Teletrac, 6:10-cv-00040; v. Volvo Construction Equipment, 6:10-cv-00327; v. OnStar, 6:10-cv-00574; v. PeopleNet, 6:11-cv-497; v. RM Acquisition d/b/a Rand McNally, 6:12-cv-00057; v. Zonar Systems, 0:18-cv-03083; v. Nextraq, 1:18-cv-05241). Those cases involved the earlier IGS patents (6,411,203 / 6,608,554 / 6,744,352 / 7,015,800 / 7,449,993), not U.S. 10,157,384. I found no evidence that the '384 patent was asserted in any of them (and the 2018 Zonar/Nextraq suits predate the '384 patent's December 18, 2018 grant).
• No other litigation found. Based on the searches performed (Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX/PTAB, Justia/CourtListener/PACER-derived dockets, Google Patents family-litigation data), the only district-court assertions of U.S. 10,157,384 were the three Delaware actions above, and the only post-grant challenge was IPR2020-00694, affirmed at the Federal Circuit.
• "Outcome" for the district cases: The '384 patent's asserted claims were held unpatentable in IPR, affirmed on appeal, which effectively ended infringement exposure on that patent; the Samsara case was formally dismissed by stipulation (May 7, 2020), and the Keep Truckin case was likewise resolved/closed after the IPR. I could not retrieve a docket entry showing the precise dismissal mechanics for the Keep Truckin case (1:19-cv-00641) from the sources available — flagging that as a gap rather than asserting a specific outcome.

If you need litigation-grade confirmation, the authoritative sources to pull are PACER dockets for D. Del. 1:19-cv-00641-MN, 1:19-cv-00642-MN, and 1:19-cv-01708-MN, plus the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2020-00694 and the CAFC Rule 36/per curiam judgment in No. 2021-2289.

I'll start by verifying the PTAB proceedings against the structured data and searching for the IPR referenced in the patent's litigation history.

I found the IPR and the CAFC appeal. Let me dig for the FWD details and any other proceedings.

Let me pull the FWD claim-level detail and check for any additional IPRs against the '384 patent.

Proceedings overview

Count: one AIA trial proceeding — IPR2020-00694 — filed by Keep Truckin, Inc. (now Motive Technologies, Inc.) against Innovative Global Systems, LLC, which went to a Final Written Decision that held every challenged claim unpatentable and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Status breakdown: 0 active, 1 claims-invalidated (FWD 2021-07-21; CAFC affirmance 2022-06-15), 0 claims-sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. Bottom line for a defendant: claims 1–11 and 14–20 of the '384 patent were adjudicated unpatentable and ordered canceled — any demand letter premised on those claims is dead on arrival, and the patent's own term appears to have run out on 2025-08-15.

⚠️ Flagged discrepancy with the structured block. The "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and instructs that the default is "no PTAB activity." That default is wrong here. The authoritative full patent text supplied in this prompt itself records "PTAB case IPR2020-00694 filed (Final Written Decision)" with a link to Unified Patents' docket, and public sources corroborate the filing, institution, FWD, and CAFC appeal. The ODP ingest is simply incomplete for this patent — do not treat the "no proceedings" block as controlling. I have not found any second IPR, PGR, or CBM against the '384 patent.

IPR2020-00694 — Keep Truckin, Inc. v. Innovative Global Systems, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311)
• Filed: 2020-03-10 (petition dated 2020-03-09 per the citation in the '091 patent's reference list)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims held unpatentable; affirmed on appeal. (Google Patents legal-status line for the patent reads "Expired – Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2025-08-15 — a separate and independent defensive fact.)
• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, John F. Horvath, and Frederick C. Laney, Administrative Patent Judges. Judge Laney authored the Final Written Decision.
• Petition grounds (challenged claims 1–11 and 14–20):
  • Claims 1–6, 10, 11, 14–20 — § 103(a) over Skeen, Warkentin, and Transportation Regulations
  • Claim 8 — § 103(a) over Skeen, Warkentin, Transportation Regulations, and Murphy
  • Claims 7, 9 — § 103(a) over Skeen, Warkentin, Transportation Regulations, and Berenz
  • All grounds were obviousness-based; no § 102 anticipation or § 112 grounds were the basis of the disposition. Petitioner's expert was Scott Andrews (Ex. 1003; second declaration Ex. 1034).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2020-07-23 (Paper 7) on all challenged claims and all grounds presented, under § 314. The Board did not partially deny. Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 6) failed to knock out any ground.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2021-07-21, captioned "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Verbatim holding: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-11 and 14-20 are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)." All independent claims that were challenged fell; no challenged dependent claim survived; the panel held no challenged claim patentable. The FWD ordered that, pursuant to § 318(b), "upon expiration of the time for appeal of this Decision, or the termination of any such appeal, a certificate shall issue canceling claims" 1–11 and 14–20. Substantive disputes litigated included claim construction of "hours of service log" and "compliance signal," the scope of "commercial motor vehicle," whether Skeen was analogous art, motivation to combine Skeen with Warkentin, and Patent Owner's asserted secondary considerations (which the Board found lacked the required nexus).
• Settlement / termination: None. The case was tried to a Final Written Decision; there was no § 317 settlement. (One procedural oddity worth knowing: Patent Owner's sur-reply was filed late due to a clerical error and was excused over Petitioner's non-opposition — Paper 29, 2021-03-17.)
• Appeal: Yes. CAFC No. 21-2289, Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Motive Technologies, Inc. (caption reflects Keep Truckin's rebrand to Motive). Judgment entered 2022-06-15, nonprecedential, PER CURIAM (Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) — AFFIRMED. Appellant IGS was represented by Christopher S. Edwards and Joseph A. Schouten (Ward and Smith, P.A.); Appellee Motive by David Lindenbaum and Michael J. Zinna (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP). Judgment: CourtListener.
• Defensive value: This is about as good as it gets short of a § 101 kill. Claims 1–11 and 14–20 are canceled, and the affirmance is final — an infringement theory built on any of them is frivolous, and pressing one invites Rule 11 exposure. Add that the patent's own status data shows expiration on 2025-08-15, so even the unchallenged claims are likely unenforceable-by-expiry today.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Of the '384 claims, claims 1–11 and 14–20 are CANCELED (all challenged claims; certificate ordered under § 318(b) after the 2022-06-15 affirmance). Claims 12 and 13 were never challenged and are therefore untested before the PTAB — as is any claim numbered above 20 if the patent contains one (I could not confirm the '384 patent's total claim count from the sources I retrieved; the FWD identifies the challenged set only as "claims 1-11 and 14-20"). As a practical matter the survival of claims 12/13 is cold comfort: they are dependent claims, so they cannot be valid or infringed independently of the canceled claims from which they depend. There is no IPR-narrowing story of "surviving claims" here — this was a wipeout of everything the petitioner put at issue.

Estoppel landscape. Because IPR2020-00694 ran to a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estops Keep Truckin/Motive Technologies and its real parties-in-interest and privies from asserting in district court or the ITC that any claim that obtained an FWD is invalid on any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised (the Skeen/Warkentin/Transportation Regulations/Murphy/Berenz obviousness combinations). That estoppel runs only to that petitioner and its privies — Samsara Networks (sued separately at D. Del. 0:19-cv-01708-MN) and any other defendant is not estopped, and a fresh petitioner could theoretically run a different art combination against claims 12/13. But the estoppel question is largely academic: the asserted independent claims have been canceled, so the invalidity fight over the '384 patent is over. The residual live issue for a defendant is the sibling continuations in the same family — US 10,891,623; 10,885,528; 11,074,589; 11,216,819; 11,386,431; 11,587,091; and 11,836,734 — which share the 2005-08-15 priority date but were not part of this IPR. Verify each sibling's expiration date independently, but if they share the '384's term, they expired on 2025-08-15 as well.

Pattern signals. The petitioner was a direct competitor (Keep Truckin/Motive), not a defensive aggregator — Unified Patents did not file here; its portal appears on the patent page only as a data source for the docket link, not as petitioner. That's an easy misreading worth avoiding. The patent owner did appeal the loss to the Federal Circuit and lost on a nonprecedential per curiam affirmance, which is the signal of a patent owner willing to spend on appeals but without meritorious appellate issues. The same petitioner filed a concurrent petition, IPR2020-00692, against a related IGS patent — a coordinated multi-front attack that succeeded on the '384 — and IGS was simultaneously asserting the patent family against at least two defendants (Keep Truckin, D. Del. 0:19-cv-00641-MN; Samsara, 0:19-cv-01708-MN), consistent with an assertion campaign rather than a single defensive posture.

Recommended next steps

1. If you have a demand letter or suit citing claims 1–11 or 14–20 of US 10,157,384: stop. Those claims were held unpatentable and ordered canceled. Cite the FWD disposition — "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" (Paper, 2021-07-21) — plus the affirmance in CAFC No. 21-2289 (2022-06-15), and request withdrawal. Locate the PTAB record via PTAB E2E / PTAB Center under IPR2020-00694 and the CAFC judgment at CourtListener. Note that I have not personally retrieved the § 318(b) cancellation certificate; before relying on cancellation in a filing, pull the certificate from Patent Center to confirm it issued and which claims it canceled.
2. Confirm expiration. Google Patents lists the '384 patent as "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2025-08-15. Confirm in Patent Center and check the priority chain (US 11/203,280, filed 2005-08-15) to establish term expiry, and check each sibling continuation individually — they are the real remaining assertion risk.
3. If you are a party in privity with Keep Truckin/Motive, note the § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to claims that went to FWD and constrains your district-court invalidity case on those claims (moot now, but relevant to the sibling patents if you asserted the same art).
4. If a new assertion targets claims 12 or 13 (the only '384 claims not challenged), those claims are dependent on canceled independent claims — argue invalidity as a matter of law (a dependent claim cannot survive its canceled parent) and check for a § 101 defense; the family's subject matter (onboard logging, fuel-tax/HOS reporting, NFC fuel authorization) has fared poorly under Alice elsewhere.
5. Milestones: none pending. There is no active trial with an institution deadline, oral hearing, or § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD date. The proceeding is fully terminated and exhausted through appeal.
6. Data hygiene: disregard the "ODP returns no AIA trial proceedings" assertion in the structured block for this patent. The ODP ingest is demonstrably incomplete here; rely on the patent record and the public docket, and keep this discrepancy flagged in your research memo.

Confidence and sourcing caveat: I derived the FWD's claim-level holding, grounds table, and panel from secondary reproductions of the decision (vLex's full text of the FWD, RPX Insight docket entry, and the Docket Alarm hearing transcript and Paper 29 order), plus the Federal Circuit judgment on CourtListener. I did not open the FWD PDF itself, and I could not confirm the '384 patent's total claim count or the issuance of the § 318(b) cancellation certificate. Verify both against the primary documents before filing.

I'll research the ownership chain, litigation, and PTAB history for this patent.

Let me dig into the litigation and assignment specifics.

Let me look for the assignment chain and the earlier corporate history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,157,384 B2

Scope note (read first): My live queries against assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov did not return the Assignment Center record set in this session — the searches surfaced the Google Patents legal-events mirror and third-party mirrors instead. I am therefore not reporting any reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondent-of-record names. I will not invent them. Everything below is limited to records I could actually observe, and the assignment gap is itself reported as a finding.

Inventors

Named inventor on the '384 patent: Alan C. Lesesky, Charlotte, NC (sole inventor).

Patterns worth flagging:

• Sole inventorship on a 2017 continuation of a 2005 priority family. The front-page data (via Google Patents and Justia) shows (71) Applicant / (73) Assignee: Innovative Global Systems, LLC, Rock Hill, SC with a single inventor. Earlier members of the same "Driver activity and vehicle operation logging and reporting" family are indexed elsewhere with additional co-inventors — Bradley R. Larschan (Germantown, TN), James W. Welch (Germantown, TN), and a J. Bishop (Woodstock, MD). ⚠️ Confidence: low — that co-inventor list comes from a low-reliability people-aggregator, not from a USPTO document I retrieved. If accurate, it is a geographically scattered inventor group that later collapsed to one name on the continuation, which is ordinary continuation practice, not by itself a fire-sale tell.
• No evidence of inventor departure preceding a sale. I found nothing showing Lesesky or any co-inventor leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing. The inventor is aligned with the assignee (he filed as the assignee), which cuts against the classic pre-fire-sale inventor-exodus pattern.

Original assignee

Innovative Global Systems, LLC, Rock Hill, SC.

• Entity type / line of business: IP holding and licensing. KeepTruckin's own public statement describes IGS as "a non-practicing entity (NPE) that was established as a holding company to license intellectual property" (BusinessWire, 2021-09-14). In the Delaware litigation, IGS filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure stating "No Parents or Affiliates Listed" (D.I. 4 in 1:19-cv-00641, 2019-04-08) — consistent with a standalone, single-entity holder rather than a subsidiary of an operating carrier or OEM.
• Product embodying the claims: None found. IGS does not appear on the record as shipping an ELD/HOS product. The entity does hold non-logging assets too — e.g. design patent D604600 "Hardware bolt" (Lesesky, assigned to IGS, Rock Hill, SC) — so the portfolio has a hardware lineage from the VES era, but that is not a product practicing the '384 claims.
• Current status: No bankruptcy, Chapter 7/11, dissolution, or acquisition found. Appears to have operated as an active licensing entity through at least 2022 (it litigated and appealed through June 2022). Note that the '384 patent itself is now marked "Expired – Fee Related" by the USPTO, i.e. maintenance fees were not paid — a strong practical signal that the family was abandoned after the claims were invalidated.

Assignment timeline

Finding: no post-issuance assignment is recorded in the indexed legal-events data for US 10,157,384 B2. The Google Patents legal-events list for this patent contains no "Assignment" events at all — only priority claims, filing, publication, grant, and the expiry entry. The applicant of record from the outset was Innovative Global Systems, LLC ("Application filed by Innovative Global Systems LLC," 2017-12-15), and the same entity is the (73) Assignee on the printed patent. There is no recorded transfer-to-asserter, no chained LLC cascade, and no defensive-aggregator acquisition.

Because I could not pull the Assignment Center reel/frame rows, I am reporting the verified ownership-relevant legal events rather than a fabricated assignment table:

• 2005-08-15 — Priority application filed. The '384 patent claims priority from US 11/203,280 → US 7,117,075 B1 (external-priority event, per Google Patents legal events).
• 2012-02-27 — Intermediate priority claim from US 13/385,624 → US 8,626,377 B2.
• 2017-12-15 — Application 15/843,750 filed; applicant of record Innovative Global Systems, LLC. (Conveyance, if any, from Lesesky to IGS would sit here — not verified, no reel/frame retrieved.)
• 2018-04-19 — Publication of US 2018/0108013 A1.
• 2018-12-18 — US 10,157,384 B2 issued, assignee Innovative Global Systems, LLC.
• 2019-04-08 — First infringement suits filed (see below). No intervening assignment of record.
• 2025-08-15 — Anticipated statutory expiration (20 years from the 2005 priority date). Patent now "Expired – Fee Related."

To verify: USPTO Patent Assignment Search, search by patent number 10157384 and Assignment Center. If those return zero rows, the conclusion is that IGS was assignee by operation of the original filing and never recorded a subsequent transfer — which is itself the significant finding here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10157384
    2005 : Priority application filed
    2012 : Intermediate priority claim filed
    2017 : Application filed by Innovative Global Systems
    2018 : Patent issued to Innovative Global Systems
    2019 : Suits filed against KeepTruckin and Samsara
    2020 : IPR petitions filed by KeepTruckin
    2021 : All challenged claims held unpatentable
    2022 : Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity
    2025 : Statutory expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT (as to this patent). The rubric presupposes a transfer from an operating assignee into a licensing LLC. Here the licensing LLC is the original applicant and assignee of record — "(71) Applicant: Innovative Global Systems, LLC, Rock Hill, SC" and "(73) Assignee: Innovative Global Systems, LLC" on the face of the patent, with "Application filed by Innovative Global Systems LLC" (2017-12-15). No reel/frame evidences a transfer into IGS, because none is needed. The characterization of IGS as a "holding company to license intellectual property" comes from KeepTruckin's press release and the Rule 7.1 "No Parents or Affiliates Listed" filing (2019-04-08), not from a recorded assignment.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PARTIALLY PRESENT / UNCLEAR. IGS does not match any name on the enumerated NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). It does appear as an asserted-against-NPE entry in the RPX PTAB tracker (RPX Insight, IPR2020-00694) and in the Unified Patents litigation portal for the Delaware cases (1:19-cv-01708, 1:19-cv-00642, 1:19-cv-00641). Precision note: the "Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data" line on Google Patents is a data-source attribution (CC-BY licensed PTAB data), not an indication that Unified Patents petitioned. The actual '384 petitioner was Keep Truckin, Inc.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNKNOWN / NOT SUPPORTED. No Assignment Center correspondent-of-record data was retrievable, so I have no basis to call recurrence. Do not conflate litigation counsel with assignment correspondents: IGS's litigation team was Brian E. Farnan / Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Delaware local counsel) and Joseph A. Schouten and Marla S. Bowman (Ward and Smith, P.A., NC); on appeal, Christopher S. Edwards and Joseph A. Schouten (Ward and Smith), with appellee represented by David Lindenbaum and Michael J. Zinna (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP). Schouten's recurrence is litigation recurrence (2019–2022), not recording-attorney recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There are zero recorded post-issuance assignments, therefore no chained LLC sequence and no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The first suits were filed 2019-04-08. No assignment is recorded in the six months before that date (or at all). IGS held the patent continuously from filing (2017-12-15) and issuance (2018-12-18), so the chain was not "arranged" to establish standing or venue — the owner of record simply sued.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, receivership, or §363 sale found for Vehicle Enhancement Systems, Inc. or Innovative Global Systems, LLC.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Privateering requires an operating company transferring to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The record shows no such transfer; if anything this is inventor-controlled assertion (Lesesky ↔ IGS), which is a different posture.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Unified Patents appears only as a data host, and the petition that killed the claims came from a commercial competitor, KeepTruckin.

Additional adjudicated-status facts (not assignment signals, but material to value):

• IPR2020-00694 (Keep Truckin, Inc. v. Innovative Global Systems, LLC), filed 2020-03-10, instituted 2020-07-23, Final Written Decision 2021-07-21 holding claims 1–11 and 14–20 unpatentable.
• IPR2020-00692 on the related US 8,032,277, Final Written Decision 2021-08-16 holding claims 1–13 unpatentable.
• Federal Circuit No. 21-2289 (Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Motive Technologies, Inc., KeepTruckin's successor name) — AFFIRMED, 2022-06-15 (nonprecedential, per curiam).
• District court suits: 1:19-cv-00641 v. Keep Truckin, 1:19-cv-01708 v. Samsara Networks (both D. Del., Judge Noreika); the defendant in 1:19-cv-00642 I could not confirm.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Innovative Global Systems, LLC is the assignee of record from the original filing (2017-12-15) through issuance (2018-12-18) and there is no recorded assignment chain at all — no reel/frame, no shell-transfer event, so I cannot make the high-confidence call that the rubric requires from recorded transfers. What the record does establish is that the sole owner is a non-practicing licensing/holding entity (KeepTruckin's public NPE characterization; IGS's 2019-04-08 Rule 7.1 filing of "No Parents or Affiliates Listed") that asserted the '384 and '277 patents against two industry competitors in April 2019, drew IPR petitions in March 2020, and had all challenged claims invalidated (FWDs 2021-07-21 and 2021-08-16) and that invalidity affirmed (Fed. Cir. 21-2289, 2022-06-15). The patent is now Expired – Fee Related, i.e. abandoned rather than monetized.

Verify the assignment record here: Assignment Center · USPTO Patent Assignment Search — patent 10157384 · Google Patents legal events

I'll research the prior art for US 10,157,384 specifically, starting with the USPTO record and the cited references.

Let me pull the full cited-references list and the IPR ground references.

Now let me get the complete front-page reference list and identify the IPR ground references (Skeen, Warkentin, Murphy, Berenz).

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,157,384 ("the '384 patent")

0. Scope, method, and integrity notes (read first)

Search target confirmed. The record returned is for U.S. Patent No. 10,157,384 B2, application 15/843,750, filed December 15, 2017, granted December 18, 2018, inventor Alan C. Lesesky, assignee Innovative Global Systems LLC, App. Pub. US 2018/0108013 A1 (April 19, 2018), title "System for logging and reporting driver activity and operation data of a vehicle." Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157384/en

Lookalikes I deliberately excluded (the instruction "do not return results for similar numbers" is directly implicated here — several near-miss identifiers surfaced):

• CO 10157384 A — a Colombian application number (dated 2010-12-15 in a DOCDB family listing). Not the U.S. patent.
• U.S. Application No. 10/157,384 — a completely different, unrelated U.S. case that issued as US 7,155,525 B2 ("Transaction management in systems having multiple multi-processor clusters"). One Chinese database aggregated "US10157384" against "US7155525B2"; that is a data artifact, not the '384 patent.
• US 2018/0108013 A1 is the '384 patent's own pre-grant publication (same application), not separate art.

Two contradictions/inconsistencies flagged as required:

1. Date conflict. This task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the session's operating rules give today's date as 2026-09-30. I have used neither to alter any date literally recited in a document; all dates below are as they appear in the record.
2. Priority-date conflict (substantive and important). The USPTO/Google record lists a prior-art/priority date of 2005-08-15 (via US 11/203,280), and the previously generated litigation section correctly states the earliest priority date as August 15, 2005. However, the IPR that invalidated the claims relied on Warkentin, which the record dates to February 27, 2014 — after the asserted 2005 priority date. That combination is only legally coherent if the challenged claims were not entitled to the 2005 (or 2012) priority date. I could not retrieve the Board's priority determination to confirm this. This is a gap, and it is the single most consequential open question in the whole §102 analysis (see Part C).

Method note. I retrieved (a) the Google Patents/USPTO bibliographic record, (b) the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2020-00694, (c) the Board's oral hearing transcript, and (d) a partial capture of the "References Cited" list from the patent's Justia page. The Justia capture was truncated mid-list (at 6,254,201) and returned number / issue date / inventor only — no titles. I have not fabricated titles or descriptions for those entries; where I cannot characterize a reference, I say so.

Part A — The prior art that actually defeated the '384 patent

All of the determinative prior art in this patent's history comes from one proceeding:

Keep Truckin, Inc. v. Innovative Global Systems, LLC, IPR2020-00694 (Patent 10,157,384 B2). Petition filed March 10, 2020; instituted July 23, 2020 on all challenged claims; oral hearing April 22, 2021; Final Written Decision July 21, 2021 holding claims 1–11 and 14–20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); panel APJs Arbes, Horvath, Laney (Laney writing). Affirmed: Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Motive Technologies, Inc., No. 2021-2289 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2022) (per curiam).
Sources: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/keep-truckin-inc-v-894575071 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/11465-keeptruckin-v-innovative-global-systems-llc-ipr-of-384 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2020-00694

Critical framing for the §102 request: the Board invalidated these claims on §103(a) obviousness grounds, not §102 anticipation. The grounds table (as retrieved — the row parsing in the source is partly garbled, so the dependent-claim mapping below carries a caveat):

A.1 — Skeen (primary reference)

A.2 — Warkentin

A.3 — "Transportation Regulations" (non-patent literature)

A.4 — Murphy

A.5 — Berenz

Part B — §102 anticipation analysis

B.1 The threshold legal issue: which §102 applies, and as of when

The '384 patent sits on a priority chain from August 15, 2005 (US 11/203,280 → US 7,117,075 B1) through February 27, 2012 (US 13/385,624 → US 8,626,377 B2) to the December 15, 2017 filing of 15/843,750. Because the application was filed after March 16, 2013 but claims pre-AIA priority, which §102 governs turns entirely on whether each claim is entitled to the earlier date:

• If the claims get the 2005 (or 2012) date → pre-AIA §102: a reference must be §102(a) (before the applicant's invention), §102(b) (more than one year before the U.S. filing date — i.e., before ~August 15, 2004 for the 2005 chain), or §102(e) (U.S. patent/publication with an earlier effective filing date). A February 2014 publication such as Warkentin would be categorically unavailable.
• If the claims get only the December 15, 2017 date → AIA §102: everything published, patented, or publicly used before December 15, 2017 becomes available under §102(a)(1), subject to the §102(b)(1) grace period and the §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception.

The IPR's use of Warkentin strongly implies the Board was operating on the later effective date (or that PO failed to carry its burden to prove entitlement to the earlier one). Consequence for this task: the answer to "what anticipates?" is date-dependent, and the honest answer is that the entire anticipation exposure expands dramatically if the 2005 priority date does not hold.

B.2 Reference-by-reference §102 posture

B.3 Bottom line on §102

1. No reference in the retrieved record was held to anticipate any claim of the '384 patent. The claims fell on §103(a) obviousness, in three combinations, all anchored on Skeen + Warkentin + the HOS regulations.
2. The only reference with a clean single-reference §102(b) posture on the 2005 chain is Murphy (US 6,087,965), and only against the driver-identification-related dependent claims.
3. Skeen is the closest §102 candidate against claim 1, but on the record it is missing at least the compliance-status/HOS-log elements that Warkentin and the regulations supplied. I cannot state that Skeen anticipates claim 1, and I have not seen any party assert it.
4. Claims 12 and 13 were not challenged in IPR2020-00694 (challenged set was 1–11 and 14–20) and therefore were not invalidated there. I could not retrieve their text, so I cannot say whether any of the above art reads on them directly — the fuel-purchase/"at-the-pump" subject matter recited in the '384 abstract (and covered by the sibling patents US 10,891,623, US 10,885,528, US 11,074,589, US 11,216,819, US 11,386,431, US 11,587,091, US 11,836,734) is not addressed by the Skeen/Warkentin/Murphy art. That is a real and possibly significant gap: the fuel-authorization claims may have had no §102 exposure in this record.

Part C — References cited on the face of the '384 patent (partial capture)

The following is a partial capture of the "U.S. Patent Documents" section of the patent's front page / Justia record. The list was truncated in retrieval at 6,254,201, and titles were not returned. I flag entries I am confident about and explicitly decline to characterize the rest rather than guess. Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/10157384

Observations on this list: (i) it is dominated by 1990s vehicle-electronics, tractor-trailer data-bus, and fleet-communications art, and by the inventor's own Lesesky patents; (ii) it contains no reference published later than mid-2001 in the captured portion, which is consistent with these references being carried forward from the 2005 parent's front page rather than being new citations made during the 2017 '384 prosecution; (iii) the single most litigated reference from this list is Murphy (6,087,965).

Part D — Same-family references: closest in substance, but not §102 art if priority holds

These are the most relevant "prior art" in a substantive sense, and the most dangerous if the priority chain is broken:

Also noted on the record but not previously mentioned: the "NMEA Reference Manual, SiRF Technology, Inc." appears as cited non-patent literature on the Google Patents page for US 11,587,091 B1, a sibling in this family. I did not confirm it is cited on the '384 patent itself — treat as a candidate NPL item only (low confidence for '384).

Part E — Gaps and what must be verified before relying on this

1. The FWD's own footnotes 2–6 (i.e., the authoritative identifications of "Skeen," "Warkentin," "Transportation Regulations," "Murphy," and "Berenz"). The FWD is at https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/keep-truckin-inc-v-894575071 and mirrored on the PTAB docket at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00694/. My Skeen/Warkentin/Murphy identifications are inferences from secondary sources and are marked accordingly above.
2. The Board's effective-filing-date / priority determination. Without it, no §102 answer is determinate. If Warkentin (2014) was properly applied, the claims effectively date from 2017, which opens the entire 2005–2017 field to §102 — a materially larger exposure than anything in the table above.
3. The full and un-truncated front-page references-cited list, with titles, plus any foreign patent documents and other publications sections (not captured).
4. The text of claims 12 and 13 (not challenged in the IPR). If they are directed to the at-the-pump fuel authorization subject matter, the art in this record does not touch them, and the §102 candidates would come instead from the fuel-dispenser/telematics art (e.g., US 6,185,501 and the Zonar fuel-authorization family, US 2014/0191842 A1, noted in a sibling's art list).
5. Prosecution history of 15/843,750 (USPTO PatentCenter) — to determine which of the ~36+ captured references were actually examiner-cited vs. applicant-cited (IDS), and whether any §102 rejection was ever made on the merits. This also bears on the priority-chain question.

Overall assessment: For U.S. 10,157,384, the operative prior art is the IPR2020-00694 quartet — Skeen (US 2005/0096809 A1), Warkentin, the FMCSA HOS regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 395), and Murphy (US 6,087,965), together with Berenz for certain dependents. They killed claims 1–11 and 14–20 as obvious, not as anticipated; the Federal Circuit affirmed. Nothing in the retrieved record establishes §102 anticipation of any claim, and the closest §102 candidate — Murphy — reaches only the driver-identification dependent claims.

I'll research the specific prior art references and grounds from the IPR that addressed this patent's claims.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,157,384 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope of this section. This analysis builds on the litigation section above (which already established the procedural history) and uses the prior-art grounds actually adjudicated for this patent in IPR2020-00694 as the anchor. I do not re-derive the case history. Where I rely on the patent's own specification, I cite the authoritative full text supplied for US 10,157,384 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157384/en).

1. The claims to be assessed

The challenged claims were 1–11 and 14–20. Independent claims are 1 and 14; the Board expressly found that "Independent claim 14 is identical to claim 1, except the preamble of claim 14 recites 'incorporating' the onboard electronic system into 'a commercial motor vehicle.'" (IPR2020-00694 FWD, July 21, 2021, https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/keep-truckin-inc-v-894575071). Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1; claims 15–20 depend from claim 14. Claims 12 and 13 were not challenged — an important asymmetry, since an unchallenged dependent claim survives an IPR even when its parent is cancelled.

Claim 1 (quoted verbatim in the D. Del. § 101 opinion at D.I. 30 for the companion '277 patent, and treated as materially identical to '384 claim 1) recites an onboard electronic system comprising:

Source for the claim text and the § 101 ruling: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2019cv00641/68360/30/0.pdf

Note on the disclosure/claim mismatch. The '384 abstract and the at-the-pump / NFC / fuel-control-terminal embodiments in the specification are not what claims 1 and 14 are directed to. Claim 1 is a system claim to an onboard recorder. Any obviousness analysis must therefore be run against the AOBRD/telematics art, not the fuel-purchase art — a point worth flagging because the patent's most distinctive disclosure (NFC "bump transfer" of vehicle data to a smartphone, verification key, remote-terminal authentication and authorizing the pump) is unclaimed.

2. The grounds as instituted and decided

The Board instituted on all grounds presented, and found all challenged claims unpatentable under § 103(a):

Sources: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/keep-truckin-inc-v-894575071; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/[ptab](/ptab)/11465-keeptruckin-v-innovative-global-systems-llc-ipr-of-384; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00694/Keep_Truckin_Inc._v._Innovative_Global_Systems_LLC/docs/07-06-2021-Board/Hearing_Transcript-32-Hearing_Transcript.pdf

Reference identities I can ground:

• Skeen — U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0096809 A1 (Skeen et al.). Independently corroborated by the Shirole file-history record, which describes Skeen as an electronic onboard recorder that automatically detects and adapts to the vehicle's communication protocol (SAE J1850 for GM/Ford, ISO/ISO 9141 for Chrysler and most foreign cars, KWP 2000 for 2001+ foreign cars) and records acceleration/deceleration/braking events and accident logs (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-00325/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._10255575/docs/12-15-2020-Petitioner/Exhibit-1002-2-US_10255575_File_History_14071382_Part1.pdf). Note: the same file history shows a patent owner successfully arguing that Skeen is silent on driver "hours of service" — Skeen is a vehicle*-data recorder, not an HOS logger. That is precisely why the Board needed Warkentin and the FMCSRs.*
• Warkentin — the XRS Corporation "Fleet vehicle management systems and methods" family to Colin D. Warkentin et al., including US 2013/0006715 A1 and continuations (see the family listing at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11367033](/patent/11367033)). Warkentin supplies the fleet-management/HOS/GPS/wireless-upload teachings.
• Transportation Regulations — the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, chiefly 49 CFR Part 395 (Ex. 1008 in the IPR); specifically the AOBRD provisions of former § 395.15 (automatic recording of duty status; display of total hours driving today, total hours on duty today, total miles today, total hours on duty for 7 and for 8 days, sequential duty-status changes; visual/audible warning as the driver approaches the HOS limit).
• Berenz — U.S. Patent No. 6,810,135 B1, "Optimized human presence detection through elimination of background interference" (IR frame-differencing occupant/driver detection) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d6/4d/29/d1dc176f46809c/[US6810135](/patent/US6810135).pdf.
• Murphy — I could not confirm the identity or document number of the "Murphy" reference (Exhibit cited only for claim 8). I will not guess. Flagged as a gap below.

3. Ground 1 — the core combination

3.1 Element-by-element mapping

3.2 Motivation to combine (KSR / MPEP 2143 rationales)

The record supports several independent, articulated reasons, any one of which suffices:

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem. Both Skeen and Warkentin concern onboard recorders that acquire data from a vehicle data bus and transfer it off-vehicle. Warkentin is a fleet-management system; the '384 patent is a fleet-compliance system. Combining a vehicle-data recorder with a fleet-management/HOS platform is the combination of two references from the same technical field directed at the same problem.

2. Regulatory mandate as a market force (MPEP 2143(F)–(G)). The FMCSA authorized Automatic On-Board Recording Devices (AOBRDs) in 1987 and defined their required capabilities in 49 CFR 395.15. The patent's own background concedes the scale of the burden — "approximately $2,000.00 per driver and $2,000.00 per commercial motor vehicle … a paper log compliance cost of $31 billion dollars per year" (US 10,157,384, Background; identical text appears in US 7,117,075 at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f0/0d/83/4aad2fe474fa5b/US7117075.pdf). A known regulatory specification (automatic duty-status recording + the six mandated display fields + the out-of-compliance warning) is itself a design incentive to build the claimed recorder. This is a classic "market forces / regulatory requirement" motivation.

3. Combining known elements with predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). Each element — data bus interface, speed sensor interface, GPS receiver, cellular/pager upload, driver keypad, display — was individually known in onboard recording and fleet telematics. The combination produces nothing more than the expected aggregation of each element's known function.

4. Skeen's adaptive-protocol teaching makes the combination more attractive, not less. Skeen's automatic detection of SAE J1850 / ISO 9141 / KWP 2000 gives a skilled artisan a reason to select Skeen as the recorder front-end for a fleet platform that must work across mixed vehicle makes — the express purpose of an aftermarket AOBRD.

5. Design incentive to consolidate. A POSITA would recognize that merging the recorder and the wireless fleet-reporting function reduces hardware duplication and manual data transcription — the very cost problem the FMCSRs and IFTA reporting created.

3.3 The patent owner's rebuttals and why they failed

• "Skeen is non-analogous art." Rejected. Skeen is (i) in the same field of endeavor (onboard vehicle data recording from a data bus) and (ii) reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved. The oral hearing transcript shows this was a principal dispute ("why Skeen is analogous art, the motivation of a person of skill in the art would have had to combine Skeen and Warkentin").
• "Mr. Andrews is not qualified as an expert." Rejected/waived; the Board credited his testimony (and in the companion IPR2020-00692 the Board noted PO never moved to exclude, thereby waiving a Rule 702 objection).
• "Evidentiary gaps in elements [1c]/[1d]." Rejected; the Board found the combination taught those elements. (For the '384 patent, elements [1c] and [1d] correspond to the compliance-signal and authority-connection limitations, which the Transportation Regulations supply.)
• "The claims are limited to the trucking industry." Rejected. The Board noted the claim preamble specifies no vehicle type, and that the cited regulations cover a broader set of vehicles.
• Secondary considerations without nexus. The Board was not persuaded; the proffered evidence lacked the required nexus to the claimed subject matter.

4. Grounds 2 and 3 — dependent claims

• Claims 7 and 9 (Berenz). Berenz's IR/visual occupant-detection teaching maps naturally onto the '384 specification's own driver-identification disclosure — "optional biometric reading device(s) … for example, a fingerprint recognition reader 242 and a camera 249," with "Facial recognition, retinal or IRIS mapping" (US 10,157,384). Inference with medium confidence: claims 7/9 add a biometric or camera/visual driver-identification limitation, and Berenz supplies that teaching. Caveat: I could not retrieve the verbatim text of claims 7 and 9 in this session; the mapping is inferred from the ground structure and the specification.
• Claim 8 (Murphy). The ground exists (Skeen + Warkentin + Transportation Regulations + Murphy), but I do not know the identity of the Murphy reference and will not fabricate one. Functionally, it supplies whatever additional limitation claim 8 recites beyond claim 1.

Because all of these are dependent claims, once claim 1 was held obvious the dependent claims rose or fell with the additional teachings of their secondary references.

5. Appellate confirmation and the § 101 / § 103 split

• The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board in Innovative Global Systems, LLC v. Motive Technologies, Inc., No. 2021-2289 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2022) (per curiam, Lourie, Bryson & Hughes, JJ.; nonprecedential) — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[6477826](/patent/6477826)/innovative-global-systems-llc-v-motive-technologies-inc/. So the § 103 holding is judicially confirmed, not merely an unreviewed agency determination.
• Note the analytically interesting split: the D. Del. court held claim 1 not abstract for § 101 purposes ("a particular onboard system for a vehicle that continuously monitors certain data from the vehicle data bus and generates a log indicating compliance status of a driver") — yet the PTAB held the same claim obvious. A claim can survive Alice step one and still fail § 103; a "particular" combination of known elements is still obvious if the prior art supplies each element and a reason to combine.

6. Explicit caveats, contradictions, and gaps

1. Effective filing date vs. the Warkentin art — the single most important open question. Google Patents gives this patent an earliest priority of August 15, 2005 (from US 11/203,280 → US 7,117,075) and an anticipated expiration of August 15, 2025. If claim 1 is entitled to that 2005 date, a 2011–2013 Warkentin publication would not be prior art. The Board nonetheless relied on Warkentin, which implies one of: (a) the challenged claims were denied the 2005 priority benefit (e.g., lack of written-description support in the 2005 disclosure), (b) the Warkentin exhibit has an earlier effective date than I could verify, or (c) a different Warkentin document was used. I could not resolve this from the materials retrieved, and it materially affects the ground. No such priority determination appears in the excerpted FWD text I retrieved.
2. AIA vs. pre-AIA regime. The '384 was filed December 15, 2017 but claims 2005 priority; which § 102/§ 103 framework applies depends on the same priority question as (1). The retrieved FWD text does not state the applicable regime.
3. "Murphy" is unidentified (see § 4). Do not treat any specific document number as established.
4. Claims 7 and 9 text verified only by inference, not by retrieved claim language.
5. Claims 12 and 13 were never challenged and were not cancelled by the FWD. Any statement that "all claims" of the '384 were invalidated would be inaccurate as to claims 12–13, though the patent's current status is Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2025-08-15 per Google Patents), which moots most enforcement questions.
6. The litigation section above flagged the Blue Tree Systems action (1:19-cv-00642-MN) as unverified for '384-specific assertion; nothing in this analysis changes that. Consistent with the earlier section, the Board's FWD identifies only Keep Truckin (1:19-cv-00641-MN) and Samsara (1:19-cv-01708-MN) as the § 103-relevant co-pending actions.

Bottom line. Under the Board's construction, claims 1–11 and 14–20 of US 10,157,384 are obvious under § 103(a) over Skeen + Warkentin + the FMCSRs (with Murphy and Berenz for claims 8, and 7/9 respectively), motivated by the shared field of onboard vehicle data recording, Skeen's adaptive-protocol teaching, and the FMCSA/IFTA regulatory framework that the patent's own background characterizes as a multi-billion-dollar compliance burden. That determination was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The residual uncertainty is legal rather than technical: whether the Warkentin reference was properly reachable as prior art depends on the priority-date question in § 6(1), which I could not confirm.