Continental AG, a massive German automotive supplier, has substantial business operations in the US under their US affiliate Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (collectively, “Continental”). In addition to making premium tires for consumers like you and I (the top European marques often shod these skins when new), Continental has massive engineering operations both in the US and abroad relating to all manner of sort of the road/rubber interface. One of their businesses concerns tire pressure monitors.
Tire pressures monitors [Wiki TPMS] were mandated [Wiki TREAD Act] as original equipment on passenger vehicles as of September 1, 2007. Additionally, the alerts they provide can urge people to air up their tires, which can save fuel [video of Obama's controversial campaign pledge to save energy via air pressure]. Big business, as you can imagine. I for one like the devices for their added safety, but somewhat resent the seasonal effect they have on tires in Minnesota (winter is the season of orange lights on my dashboard). Perhaps that’s more a statement about the weather than the technology.
In any case, Continental has sued [PriorSmart] Schrader Electronics, Inc. Continental is asserting three patents: US Patent No. 6,998,973, US Patent No. 7,284,418, and US Patent No. 7,463,952 [USPTO]. A quick check of the USPTO Assignments database shows that the ’973 patent is assigned to Siemens VDO Automotive of France. The ’418 patent was assigned to Motorola first, then to Temic Automotive, then to Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., then to Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. The final patent, the ’952 patent, was assigned Siemens VDO Automotive, then to Continental Automotive Systems of France.
Two thoughts. One, this action shows the entities, Continental and Siemens VDO, party to a somewhat recent (2007) merger [MotorAuthority], acting in concert. Two, I find it strange that the complaint does not name the owner of two of the patents asserted. I suppose that will be addresses as the suit continues.
In any case, this conflict reminds me of the recent suits brought by a non-practicing entity MHL Tek. In their patent-suit pathway, they hit some bumps [Patently-O] related to assignment. Further, a quick reading of justicia.com shows that at least one suit has found the patents asserted in the MHL matters as not infringed [justicia.com]. Time will tell whether Continental will have more success.



