Mobileye, Inc. v. Picitup Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 759

Background

Mobileye sues iOnRoad entities for patent infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement, dilution, misappropriation, deceptive acts, and unjust enrichment.
Judicial posture: summary judgment briefing led to partial grant and partial denial; threshold issues addressed, then merits for three mobileye patents and non-patent claims.
The three asserted Mobileye patents are the '867, '101, and '621; iOnRoad app allegedly performs FCW and LDW functions.
Court concluded iOnRoad’s FCW/LDW calculations largely do not meet the patent claims’ “scaling factor” or “motion” requirements, leading to noninfringement rulings on the '867, '101, and '621 patents.
Struck late Medioni declaration; Markman-type claim construction disputes largely avoided; ruling on summary judgment preserved as to noninfringement and some false advertising issues.
Federal and New York state claims for false advertising, dilution, deceptive acts, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment analyzed with respect to evidence from surveys and market effects; some claims dismissed or limited, others remain disputed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Patent infringement scope on three Mobileye patents	Mobileye contends iOnRoad infringes '867, '101, '621 by FCW/LDW functions.	iOnRoad argues no claimed scaling factor, no motion-based straddling, and no future-prediction steps.	iOnRoad not infringing on all three patents; summary judgment for noninfringement granted.
False advertising: falsity and harm	Mobileye shows literal/implied falsity and consumer confusion; survey evidence supports harm.	iOnRoad argues lack of literal falsity for some claims and insufficient consumer-proof of harm.	Literal falsity and implied falsity analyses split; some claims survive, others dismissed; damages limited, injunctive relief possible for some claims.
Trademark infringement and dilution	MOBILEYE mark and trade image are protected; iOnRoad’s conduct likely causes confusion.	Marks are weakly similar; iOnRoad contends no likelihood of confusion or dilution.	Trademark infringement denied or limited; dilution claims denied for federal; NY dilution requires substantial similarity, not met.
Remaining state-law claims (deceptive acts, misappropriation, unjust enrichment)	iOnRoad’s actions constitute deceptive practices and misappropriation of Mobileye’s goodwill.	Arguments not persuasive; lack of appropriate showing of harm or bad faith.	Deceptive acts dismissed for lack of consumer safety harm; misappropriation found with some bad-faith support; unjust enrichment survives.

Key Cases Cited

Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 2001) (court adopts evidence-focused, favorable view for nonmovant when reviewing summary judgment)
Merck & Co. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (false advertising: explicit vs. implicit falsity; extrinsic evidence required for implied falsity)
Avon Prods., Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 768 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (explicit vs. implicit government-approval claims restraint on implied claims)
Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) (literal falsehood can be a basis for liability without extrinsic evidence)
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (ultimate eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion in trademark analysis)
Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 412 F.3d 373 (2d Cir. 2005) (secondary meaning and strength considerations in mark analysis)
Medici Classics Productions, LLC v. Medici Group, LLC, 683 F. Supp. 2d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (framework for assessing mark strength and secondary meaning)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (consumer perception thresholds in advertising misleading claims)
Miss Universe, L.P., LLLP v. Villegas, 672 F. Supp. 2d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (substantial similarity standard for dilution-like inquiries in NY context)
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (unfair competition and mark similarity considerations)