On Wednesday night, Motive responded to the allegations in the latest complaint.

“While Samsara pursues a loser’s strategy, focused on litigation rather than innovation, at Motive we remain focused on serving our customers and building exceptional AI technology that makes our roads safer,” said a spokesperson for Reasons for FreightWaves. “Samsara’s latest lawsuit is yet another attempt to distract from the fact that Motive provides customers with superior AI technology and value.”

The two fleet telematics companies have been in a legal battle since January after Samsara filed suit against Motive for alleged patent infringement and false advertising in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

In August, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika granted Motive’s motion to transfer the case from Delaware to the Northern District of California, saying that although Samsara and Motive were incorporated in Delaware, most of the alleged conduct of the Motive management team took place from the Motive offices in San. Francisco, where both companies are based. In her opinion, she wrote that “there are no allegations that any of the conduct at issue occurred in, from, or even near Delaware. Neither party purports to maintain an office or employ persons in Delaware.”

The legal battle continues

In February, Samsara filed a companion complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Motive infringed Samsara’s patents related to vehicle telematics, fleet management and video-based safety systems.

Motive filed suit against Samsara in mid-February, alleging almost mirror claims against Samsara for patent infringement, false advertising, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, defamation and intentional interference with business dealings.

The complaint, filed Feb. 15 in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, alleges that Samsara is using “unethical, improper and illegal tactics” in an attempt to compete with Motive for market share in the fleet telematics industry.

“Samsara engaged in these tactics because it continues to lag behind Motive in terms of its technology,” Motive states in the 87-page complaint, referring to its AI dash cam and fleet management technology.

Motive alleges that over a period of nearly six years, beginning in 2016 and ending in June 2022, “several design engineers and Samsara employees impersonated Motive customers, created accounts on the Motive platform” in an effort to steal the technology,” the suit alleged.

In June, U.S. District Judge James Donato ordered the Plaintiff’s cases stayed “in light of related proceedings in the District of Delaware and with the ITC. In an Oct. 31 hearing, Donato said the case would remain suspended “pending a further order from the Court.” He ordered senior counsel for Motive and Samsara to meet in person in Washington on Nov. 6 “for the purpose of exchanging documents to facilitate settlement.”

On Wednesday, attorneys for Motive and Samsara filed court statements pursuant to the judge’s Oct. 31 order, saying the attorney met Nov. 6 to discuss scheduling a settlement conference with the ITC mediator sometime in January.

In his statement, Motive attorney C. Bryan Wilson, a partner at Williams & Connolly LLP, wrote that despite “the court’s admonitions at the Oct. 31 hearing that the parties should

to try to narrow and resolve their disputes rather than expand them and that it was “ridiculous” to have multiple cases pending between the parties in multiple jurisdictions, on November 12, 2024, Samsara, represented by another law firm , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, filed a new lawsuit against Motive in another new jurisdiction, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, alleging theft of trade secrets.”

In his statement, Wilson said that Motive learned about the lawsuit independently and that Samsara did not inform him or the court of this impending filing at the Oct. 31 hearing or Nov. 6, when lead counsel met in person to discuss a possible settlement agreement.

The plea pulls back before the ITC hearing

Two days before the ITC’s evidentiary hearing, which began Thursday, a preliminary summary of the hearing prepared by Megan H. Wantland, an investigative attorney for the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations, was released to Administrative Law Judge Doris Johnson Hines.

The 212-page brief, which was largely redacted, stated that “The Staff does not expect the evidence to establish infringement of the asserted patents,” which was alleged in Samsara’s complaint.

“As highlighted in the ITC’s preliminary briefing, which concludes that Motive did not infringe Samsara’s patents, it is clear that these baseless claims reflect a losing strategy focused more on litigation than innovation,” Motive said.

In March, the ITC voted conduct an investigation in Samsara’s patent infringement complaint against Motive. According to the ITC filing, once the evidentiary hearing is over, which is similar to a district court trial, Hines is scheduled to issue its initial decision in March 2025 in the patent infringement case.

In a statement, Motive said Samsara’s litigation strategy is not about protecting its intellectual property, but is “an attempt to limit competition and prevent customers from accessing the best technology.”

However, Samsara argued that Hines, who is overseeing the case, did not rule on the merits of Samsara’s patent infringement claims.

“Motive’s misrepresentation of preliminary staff opinions is an attempt to manipulate public perception with inaccuracies and premature conclusions,” Simons said.