Perrone Robotics v. Nissan Motor: Five-Patent AV Suit Transferred in 6 Days
Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC brought a five-patent infringement action against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. in the Virginia Eastern District Court, targeting Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist system with claims spanning a general-purpose robotics OS and autonomous vehicle extensions. The case resolved procedurally in just six days — transferred intradistrict to the Richmond Division before substantive litigation could begin.
Five AV Patents, One ProPILOT Target, Six Days Before Transfer
On 25 November 2025, Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC filed suit against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. in the Virginia Eastern District Court, asserting five US patents: US11314251B2, US9833901B2, US9195233B2, US12181877B2, and US11782442B2. The asserted technology covers a general-purpose robotics operating system with unmanned and autonomous vehicle extensions, and the accused product is Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist driver-assistance system. Perrone was represented by Bunsow DeMory LLP.
Within six days of filing, on 1 December 2025, the court ordered an intradistrict transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, where the case continues under docket number 3:25cv982. A transfer rather than dismissal means the litigation survives fully intact — all claims, parties, and patents carry over to Richmond. No substantive rulings, claim construction orders, or cost decisions were issued in the originating docket.
The six-day turnaround is consistent with a routine divisional assignment or a judge-initiated venue correction within the same district, rather than a contested transfer motion. The public record does not reveal whether either party moved for transfer or whether it was sua sponte. For Perrone and Nissan alike, the substantive fight over ProPILOT Assist and the five robotics-OS patents now begins in earnest before the Richmond Division.
Filing to Case Transferred in 6 days
6 days — resolved by intradistrict transfer before any merits ruling
Intradistrict transfer: what moving to Richmond Division means
Intradistrict transfer keeps the case fully alive
An intradistrict transfer reassigns a case between divisions of the same federal district court — here from the general Eastern District of Virginia docket to the Richmond Division (3:25cv982). Unlike a dismissal, the transfer preserves every claim, patent, and party. No merits ruling was issued; the substantive infringement dispute over ProPILOT Assist and the five robotics-OS patents begins fresh before a Richmond judge.
No dismissal — litigation continuesPerrone’s claims survive — venue shift is procedural, not adverse
For Perrone Robotics, the intradistrict transfer is a neutral procedural step. All five patent assertions against Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist system remain intact. The Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia is a well-established patent litigation venue, and Perrone retains full standing to pursue infringement claims, damages, and injunctive relief on the same factual record.
All five patents still assertedNissan faces the same five-patent exposure in Richmond
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. has not obtained any substantive relief. The transfer does not limit, narrow, or resolve any of Perrone’s infringement allegations concerning ProPILOT Assist. Nissan must now engage on the merits in Richmond — including any invalidity defences, claim construction arguments, and non-infringement positions — across five asserted patents spanning autonomous vehicle and robotics operating system technology.
Merits defence begins in RichmondProPILOT Assist at risk pending full Richmond adjudication
Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist is a commercially deployed ADAS feature across multiple vehicle lines. With five patents now active in Richmond, the case presents meaningful exposure for Nissan if any claims survive invalidity challenge. Suppliers and OEMs deploying similar robotics-OS-based autonomous vehicle extensions should monitor Richmond docket 3:25cv982 closely — the outcome could set licence or design-around precedent for the sector.
Monitor Richmond docket 3:25cv982Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC | Company | Autonomous vehicle and robotics OS IP licensor — holder of US11314251B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. | Company | Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. — global automotive OEM, maker of ProPILOT Assist ADAS systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tara Lynn Renee Zurawski. | Attorney | Counsel for Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bunsow DeMory LLP | Law Firm | Representing Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order — ‘Intradistrict Transfer to Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (3:25cv982)’ — is a purely procedural disposition. It carries no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope across any of the five asserted patents. The Richmond docket inherits the case in full, and the substantive record is a blank slate. Practitioners should note that no claim construction, 12(b)(6) ruling, or scheduling order was entered before transfer, preserving maximum strategic flexibility for both Perrone and Nissan.
US11314251B2 and four further patents — autonomous vehicle robotics OS
The five asserted patents — US11314251B2, US9833901B2, US9195233B2, US12181877B2, and US11782442B2 — collectively cover a general-purpose robotics operating system with specific extensions for unmanned and autonomous vehicle applications. Application dates span from as early as US11/361974 (2006-era) through US18/236626 (filed 2023), indicating a portfolio architected to protect both foundational methods and more recent autonomous-vehicle-specific implementations across multiple patent generations.
This multi-generational portfolio structure presents significant competitive risk for automotive OEMs and Tier-1 ADAS suppliers. Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist — a commercially deployed Level 2 autonomy feature — is the named accused product, but the breadth of the Perrone claims suggests applicability to any system running autonomous vehicle logic on a generalised robotics OS framework. Companies developing or licensing similar architectures should assess whether their implementations fall within the literal or equivalents scope of any of the five patents now pending in Richmond.
Should you run an FTO against the Perrone Robotics AV patent portfolio?
Any OEM, Tier-1 supplier, or AV software vendor deploying a robotics operating system with autonomous or unmanned vehicle functionality should treat this five-patent assertion against ProPILOT Assist as a direct signal. The Perrone portfolio spans nearly two decades of application priority, meaning products built on both legacy and current AV software stacks may carry exposure. An FTO analysis scoped to US11314251B2, US9833901B2, US9195233B2, US12181877B2, and US11782442B2 is advisable before any new product launch or licensing negotiation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your autonomous vehicle software architecture against the full claim scope of all five Perrone patents simultaneously, flagging overlapping independent and dependent claims, identifying relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surfacing design-around options before Richmond reaches claim construction. With Markman proceedings still ahead, there is a narrow window to position strategically — either through prior art submission, IPR petitioning, or design modification.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11314251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar autonomous vehicle and robotics OS patent cases in E.D. Virginia
Explore comparable multi-patent infringement actions targeting ADAS and autonomous vehicle software systems filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.
What this transfer signals for the autonomous vehicle IP landscape
A six-day intradistrict transfer is rarely the story — the five-patent robotics-OS assertion against a major OEM is.
Broad robotics-OS patent portfolios are becoming OEM litigation tools
Perrone’s five-patent stack spans application dates from 2006 (US9195233B2 via app US11/361974) to 2023 (US12181877B2 via app US18/236626), suggesting a deliberately layered portfolio built to cover multiple generations of autonomous vehicle software architecture. OEMs fielding ADAS products should audit exposure across the full claim landscape, not just the most recent filings.
ProPILOT Assist is now a named accused product — design-around risk is live
With ProPILOT Assist explicitly named across five patents, Nissan’s engineering and legal teams face concurrent invalidity and design-around analyses. Other OEMs offering comparable Level 2 autonomy features on similar software architectures should treat this filing as a signal to review their own freedom-to-operate positions against the Perrone portfolio before the Richmond case produces claim constructions.
Perrone v Nissan — key questions answered
Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC asserted five patents: US11314251B2, US9833901B2, US9195233B2, US12181877B2, and US11782442B2. All five cover aspects of a general-purpose robotics operating system with autonomous and unmanned vehicle extensions. The accused product is Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist driver-assistance system.
The case was transferred intradistrict to the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (3:25cv982) just six days after filing on 25 November 2025. The public record does not specify whether the transfer was sua sponte or party-initiated. Such rapid intradistrict transfers are typically administrative divisional reassignments rather than substantive venue disputes, and no merits rulings were issued before transfer.
No. An intradistrict transfer is a purely procedural mechanism. All five patent assertions survive intact and carry over to the Richmond Division docket (3:25cv982). No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or substantive order was entered in the originating case. The merits of Perrone’s infringement claims and any invalidity defences Nissan may raise will be adjudicated in Richmond.
ProPILOT Assist is Nissan’s commercially deployed Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system, enabling features such as lane-centring and adaptive cruise control. Perrone Robotics has named it as the accused product across all five asserted patents, which cover robotics operating system architectures with autonomous vehicle extensions. If Perrone’s claims survive invalidity challenge in Richmond, Nissan could face injunctive relief or significant royalty exposure across multiple vehicle lines.
Following the 1 December 2025 intradistrict transfer, the case is now pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, under docket number 3:25cv982. The Richmond Division is known for efficient patent case management. No scheduling order, claim construction dates, or trial date have been publicly entered as of the transfer.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.