Safe Driving Technologies v. Ford Motor Co.: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Safe Driving Technologies, LLC appealed the cancellation of three patents covering safety control systems for in-vehicle apps against Ford Motor Co. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding across all three patents under Rule 36, closing the dispute after 562 days of appellate proceedings.
Three vehicle safety app patents fall at the Federal Circuit
Safe Driving Technologies, LLC filed appeal no. 23-1798 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 26, 2023, challenging a prior determination that its three patents — US9713994, US9047170, and US8301108 — were unpatentable. The patents collectively cover safety control systems for mobile applications operating within vehicles, a technology domain of growing strategic importance as automotive OEMs integrate smartphone connectivity and distraction-reduction features into their platforms. Ford Motor Co. was the appellee defending the unpatentability findings.
The Federal Circuit issued its judgment on November 8, 2024, affirming the lower tribunal’s unpatentability determination under Federal Circuit Rule 36 — a summary affirmance without a written opinion. This procedural form of affirmance signals the appellate panel found the original decision sufficiently correct to require no further elaboration, leaving the cancellation of all three patents intact. Safe Driving Technologies has no further appellate recourse at this court level.
The 562-day duration of the appeal suggests the matter was not treated as a straightforward procedural matter by the parties, with Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP pressing the challenge for Safe Driving Technologies against Brooks Kushman PC for Ford. The Rule 36 affirmance, however, provides no published reasoning, meaning the public record is silent on precisely which patentability arguments were considered and rejected — limiting the precedential value but fully extinguishing Safe Driving Technologies’ IP position in this space.
Filing to Unpatentable in 562 days
562 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: the court found no reversible error
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance means the appellate panel unanimously agreed the decision below was correct and required no written opinion to explain why. It is not a merits victory on new grounds — it is a confirmation that the original unpatentability determination was sound. For patent challengers, a Rule 36 outcome is highly efficient; for patent holders, it forecloses appeal without generating any reasoned refutation of their arguments.
Affirmed without written opinionSafe Driving Technologies loses all three patents permanently
With the Federal Circuit affirming unpatentability across all three patents — US9713994, US9047170, and US8301108 — Safe Driving Technologies has exhausted its appellate options at this level. The patents are cancelled and unenforceable. Any licensing programme built on these assets is effectively terminated. The only theoretical path forward would be a petition to the Supreme Court, which grants certiorari in a very small fraction of patent cases.
All three patents cancelledFord secures a clean, permanent resolution with no written concessions
Ford Motor Co. benefits from an affirmance that carries no new legal obligations, no claim construction rulings, and no published reasoning that could be cited against it in future proceedings. The Rule 36 form is strategically ideal for the appellee: the threat is eliminated without creating precedent that could be weaponised in parallel disputes. Ford’s in-vehicle app safety features are no longer encumbered by these specific patents.
Clean win, no new precedentVehicle safety app IP landscape clarified — but Rule 36 limits precedential reach
The cancellation of three patents in the vehicle safety app control space reduces the IP overhead for automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers developing distraction-reduction or app-management systems. However, because the Federal Circuit issued no written opinion, competitors cannot use this ruling to invalidate related patents or predict how similar claims would be analysed. R&D teams should treat the specific cancelled claims as cleared ground, while remaining alert to continuation or divisional filings in the same family.
Cleared ground, limited precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Safe Driving Technologies, LLC | Company | Vehicle safety app IP licensing entity — holder of US9713994, US9047170, US8301108Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ford Motor Co. | Company | Ford Motor Co. — global automotive OEM defending against vehicle safety app patent claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Lindenbaum | Attorney | Counsel for Safe Driving Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John C. Stellabotte Partner | Attorney | Counsel for Safe Driving Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott H. Kaliko | Attorney | Counsel for Safe Driving Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP | Law Firm | Representing Safe Driving Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher C. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John P. Rondini | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John S. LeRoy | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brooks Kushman PC | Law Firm | Representing Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ — is the Federal Circuit’s most compressed form of appellate disposition. It signals that a panel of three judges unanimously found no reversible error in the underlying unpatentability determination, but chose not to author a written opinion explaining the basis. Under the appellate standard of review, factual findings from the PTAB are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo; the Rule 36 outcome suggests the panel found both standards satisfied without requiring elaboration. The absence of a written opinion benefits Ford procedurally but limits the ruling’s utility as precedent for either party in subsequent disputes.
US9713994, US9047170 & US8301108 — Safety control systems for in-vehicle apps
The three patents at issue — US9713994 (App. No. US15/352206), US9047170 (App. No. US13/663085), and US8301108 (App. No. US10/838708) — span a progression of application filings in the vehicle safety software domain. US8301108 carries the earliest application number, suggesting a foundational filing in the family, with the later patents potentially representing continuation or improvement claims. Collectively, they address the technical problem of controlling or restricting mobile app functionality when a device is detected within a moving vehicle — a domain that intersects distracted driving regulation and automotive software integration.
This patent family sits at the intersection of two commercially sensitive areas: automotive OEM software platforms and smartphone OS-level safety restrictions. As Ford, GM, and other OEMs integrate Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and proprietary infotainment systems, patents governing app control behaviour in moving vehicles carry significant licensing and design-around implications. The cancellation of all three patents removes this specific IP block from the landscape, but the underlying technical problem — limiting driver distraction via software — remains the subject of active R&D and patenting by major automotive and tech players.
Should you run an FTO against US9713994, US9047170 & US8301108?
Product teams developing in-vehicle app management systems, distracted driving platforms, or OEM infotainment software should note that these three specific patents have been cancelled and affirmed unpatentable. However, an FTO assessment cannot stop at the cancelled grant numbers. The Safe Driving Technologies filing portfolio may include continuation applications, divisional filings, or related international equivalents that carry overlapping claim scope and remain enforceable. Any team commercialising vehicle safety app control features should conduct a forward citation and family-tree search before concluding freedom to operate.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP counsel to map the complete prosecution history across the US9713994, US9047170, and US8301108 patent families — identifying any surviving continuations, pending applications, or related filings from the same inventive entity. The agent surfaces claim-level overlap with your product features and flags live risk that cancelled parent patents may not eliminate. For automotive software teams operating in the distracted driving or app safety space, this is a high-priority FTO workflow.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9713994 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving vehicle safety and automotive software patents
Browse Federal Circuit appeals with comparable patentability challenges in the vehicle safety app and automotive software domain, including Rule 36 affirmances and PTAB-origin cases.
What this case signals for the automotive software IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability across three vehicle safety app patents carries real commercial weight for automotive IP strategy.
Rule 36 affirmances are clean but precedent-blind — monitor the patent family
The absence of a written Federal Circuit opinion means no claim construction or patentability reasoning enters the public record. OEMs and suppliers cleared of these specific patents should still audit continuation applications and related family members filed by Safe Driving Technologies, as those assets may survive and carry similar claim scope.
Unpatentability at the Federal Circuit level raises the bar for comparable NPE claims
When a non-practising entity’s vehicle safety app patents are cancelled and affirmed on appeal, it signals that this claim space may be vulnerable to § 101 or prior art challenges. Companies facing similar assertions in the in-vehicle app safety domain can cite the cancellation history — even without a written opinion — as part of an IPR or litigation defence narrative.
Safe v Ford — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of all three Safe Driving Technologies patents — US9713994, US9047170, and US8301108 — covering safety control systems for apps in vehicles. The affirmance was issued under Federal Circuit Rule 36, meaning no written opinion was published. The case closed on November 8, 2024, after 562 days of appellate proceedings.
A Rule 36 affirmance confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability determination without issuing a written opinion. It means the appellate panel found no reversible error in the original decision. The patents remain cancelled and unenforceable. Safe Driving Technologies has no further appellate recourse at the Federal Circuit level; the only theoretical option would be a Supreme Court petition.
Three US patents were at issue: US9713994 (Application No. US15/352206), US9047170 (Application No. US13/663085), and US8301108 (Application No. US10/838708). All three relate to safety control systems for mobile applications operating within vehicles, addressing driver distraction via software-level app management.
No. A Rule 36 affirmance carries no precedential value because no written opinion is issued. While the cancellation of these specific patents removes them from the enforceable IP landscape, the ruling cannot be cited as legal authority on patentability standards for comparable claims in future cases. Competitors and counsel should treat this as a fact-specific cancellation rather than a doctrinal development.
The public record for this case covers only the three cancelled patents. The prosecution histories of US9713994, US9047170, and US8301108 may include continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications that were not subject to this cancellation proceeding. Companies operating in the in-vehicle app safety space should conduct a full patent family analysis before relying on this cancellation as comprehensive FTO clearance.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.