https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170170984
If you cut through the lawyer-speak, claim #1 is basically about MITM-ing the vehicle's internal message bus. Hardly novel, even in 2007.
If you cut through the lawyer-speak, claim #1 is basically about MITM-ing the vehicle's internal message bus. Hardly novel, even in 2007.
If patent is invalid the way to prove that is to challenge that in court.
That system, that makes filling patents easy, is a whole reason why patent trolls exists. But it’s not a fault of patent offices, that they’re mandated to work that way.
In this case it was granted with largely similar claims (as US10027505B2). However, claims typically get significantly revised by the time they are granted, and less than half of applications are granted at all.
What I would like to see is a deposition of the patent examiner who approved this ridiculous patent.