Jaguar Land Rover doubles down on its long-standing patent dispute with VW
As recently reported by Car and Driver, Jaguar Land Rover (“JLR”) has filed a series of lawsuits against Volkswagen Group seeking to enjoin its sale of new VW, Audi, and Porsche SUVs in the United States. After years of unsuccessful negotiations, JLR launched four U.S. lawsuits in two states and an unfair trade complaint against the entire VW Group. While the dispute originated over the Bentley Bentayga’s off-road mode, it has since expanded to target all of VW Group's alleged infringements of JLR’s Terrain Response patent.
JLR’s Terrain Response system was introduced on the 2005 LR3 and offered a set of electronic controls and customizations for the vehicle. The five settings “optimized the ABS, throttle and transmission tuning, differential locks and air suspension for a variety of surfaces, indicated by icons on the center console (general, grass/gravel/snow, mud and ruts, sand, and rock crawl).” The Bentayga’s addition of an All-Terrain Specification, which provides four off-road modes, acted as the point of contention, with JLR claiming that the Bentayga driving-mode switch infringed upon JLR’s Terrain Response patent.
JLR sent letters to the manufacturers claiming that the Porsche Cayenne, Lamborghini Urus, Audi Q5, Q7, and e-tron all infringe JLR’s patent. In the most recent lawsuits, JLR is looking to recoup years of back-royalties and damages in addition to halting new VW Group cars from capitalizing on its patented technology.
In a hearing before the patent board, JLR submitted that “People are out in the world right now deciding, am I going to buy a Bentayga or a Range Rover? […] Range Rover is the well-known leader of Terrain Response. It’s brand-defining technology, Your Honor, that Bentley has put in their vehicle.”
Authors: Jaclyn Tilak and Shadi Varkiani
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@gryffyn1
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…