Automotive Technologies International Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.

501 F.3d 1274, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1108 (2007)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Automotive Technologies International Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
501 F.3d 1274, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1108 (2007)

Play video

Facts

Automotive Technologies International, Inc. (ATI) (plaintiff) was the assignee of a patent involving technology for a side-impact crash-sensing device for airbag deployment. The patent indicated that side-impact-sensing technology was a new field; the patent included five figures and a detailed explanation of a mechanical sensor assembly, which was described as the preferred type. The specification stated that electronic sensors could also be used, and a less detailed conceptual figure depicted an electronic sensor assembly. ATI brought an infringement suit against various automotive companies, including Delphi (defendant). Delphi moved for summary judgment, contending that the patent was invalid for lack of enablement because it provided an enabling disclosure only of mechanical side-impact sensors and not electronic sensors. ATI presented expert testimony that a person skilled in the art would know how to use existing electronic front-sensing technology to build an electronic side-impact sensor. The district court granted Delphi’s motion, finding that the patent did not enable the electronic sensor because making and using that type of sensor would require undue experimentation. ATI appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Intellectual Property
Patent

Key Terms