Motive defeats Samsara in IP infringement case.
A message from Motive's Founder & CEO on the Samsara vs Motive lawsuit
By Shoaib Makani, Founder & CEO of Motive
On September 8, 2025, Judge Doris Johnson Hines of the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued her determination in Samsara’s patent infringement case against Motive. The ruling was clear: Motive does not infringe any valid Samsara patent claims, and no violations were found against Motive.
This is a complete victory for Motive, and most importantly, a win for the nearly 100,000 customers and more than 1 million drivers who rely on our technology to improve the safety of our roads.
How we got here
For more than a decade, Motive has been on a mission to make our roads safer. We started in 2013 with electronic logs to prevent fatigue-related accidents. In 2017, we began training AI models to detect unsafe driving behavior. In 2021, we launched the Motive AI Dashcam, a product that has prevented more than 170,000 accidents and saved an estimated 1,500 lives.
It was this life-saving technology and an academic study of its efficacy that prompted Samsara’s legal attack. In 2023, we commissioned a study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute to independently benchmark the performance of leading AI dash cams. The results were clear: Motive's AI Dashcam successfully alerted drivers of unsafe behavior up to 4X more than Samsara.
Knowing they were years behind on the AI front and losing major customers to Motive, Samsara attempted to close the gap by using patent litigation as a marketing tool. But the strategy failed. The Judge’s determination confirms what we have always known — Motive did not copy any of Samsara’s supposed inventions, and Motive’s AI technology is fundamentally better than Samsara’s.
The importance of benchmarking
In nearly every field where AI is applied, from medical diagnostics to software engineering, rigorous benchmarking is the norm. Independent evaluations, transparent metrics, and side-by-side comparisons.
But when it comes to AI-powered driver safety technology, Samsara is fighting to prevent it. Samsara’s Terms of Service prevent customers from performing benchmark tests on their products. In stark contrast, Motive’s Terms of Service do not prevent customers from benchmarking our product. We actually encourage it, because we believe it is in the public interest to do so.
As we have in the past, we again invite Samsara to participate in an independent benchmarking study to compare the performance of our AI dash cams. We hope they will finally take us up on that offer. Until then, we will continue to encourage customers to run their own side-by-side trials and see for themselves which product detects more unsafe behavior and prevents more accidents.
The safer road ahead
With this legal attack in the rearview, Motive remains more focused than ever on our mission to improve the safety of our roads.
Thank you to our customers who have placed their trust in Motive. We are grateful for your partnership, and we are more motivated than ever to build a safer and more productive world with you.
Shoaib Makani
Founder & CEO, Motive
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Samsara file a lawsuit against Motive?
In June 2023, Motive commissioned the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, one of the most respected names in transportation research, to benchmark the performance of AI dash cams. The results found Motive's AI Dashcam successfully alerted drivers of unsafe behavior up to 3 to 4 times more than Samsara.
Samsara did not like the findings or the fact that they were losing major customers to Motive because of the superior accuracy of our AI Dashcam. Knowing they were years behind on the AI front, Samsara attempted to close the gap by pursuing an anti-competitive and unethical legal attack against Motive.
- In January 2024, Samsara filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging patent infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition.
- In February 2024, Samsara requested that the International Trade Commission conduct an investigation into the patent infringement claims.
- On September 8, 2025, the ITC Judge determined that Motive does not infringe any valid claim of Samsara’s asserted patents and that there is no evidence that Motive copied any of Samsara’s supposed inventions.
This underscores a familiar pattern: Competitors resort to litigation when they can’t keep pace in the market.
What were the results of the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study?
In June 2023, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) published the results of a study that measured the performance of on-road driver monitoring systems from three dash cam providers: Lytx, Samsara, and Motive. The results were clear: Motive's AI Dashcam successfully alerted drivers of unsafe behavior up to 4X more than Samsara and Lytx.
What patents did Samsara claim Motive infringed upon?
Samsara alleged that Motive infringed three asserted patents: U.S. Pat. Nos. 11,611,621 (Rolling Stop), 11,127,130 (Machine Vision Web Server), and 11,190,373 (Driver Safety and Fuel Scores).
On September 8, 2025, the ITC Judge determined that Motive does not infringe any valid Samsara patent claims, and no violations were found against Motive.
What is the International Trade Commission?
The U.S. International Trade Commission is an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency that provides analysis of international trade issues to the President and the Congress. The Commission is a highly regarded forum for the adjudication of intellectual property and trade disputes. To learn more about the ITC and its mission, visit its website here.
What was the International Trade Commission's determination?
On September 8, 2025, Judge Doris Johnson Hines of the ITC issued her determination that Motive does not infringe any validSamsara patent claims, and no section 337 violations were found against Motive. Her determination validates what Motive has maintained all along – that Samsara's case lacked merit.. You can read more here and here.
Could the ITC judge’s decision against Samsara still be overturned by the Commission?
While the preliminary ruling is subject to review by the full Commission, the odds of reversal are very low. Samsara lost on multiple grounds for each patent claim — infringement, validity, and domestic industry — which makes it particularly unlikely that the decision will change.
What happens now?
With this legal attack in the rearview, we are doubling down on our mission to improve the safety and productivity of our customers' operations.
What is the status of Samsara’s other active suits against Motive?
Samsara has initiated multiple legal actions against Motive, all of which we view as part of a broader, anti-competitive strategy aimed at undercutting our superior product through litigation. These lawsuits remain active and are being vigorously contested.
- Patent & Arbitration Case: In January 2024, Samsara filed patent and non-patent claims. The ITC Judge found Motive does not infringe any of the valid Samsara patent claims, and the remaining non-patent claims are being resolved through confidential arbitration. The arbitration hearing was held in August 2025.
- Patent Counterclaims: In February 2024, Motive filed its own case against Samsara for patent infringement, and other non-patent claims, including unfair competition. Samsara recently countersued with claims of infringement of three Samsara patents. This case, which now includes three Motive patents, is moving forward with trial tentatively set for August 2027.
- Trade Secrets Claim: In October 2024, Samsara filed a trade secret case in San Francisco Superior Court. This case is currently on hold pending resolution of the arbitration.
Motive has repeatedly demonstrated that Motive did not copy any of Samsara’s supposed inventions (see ITC press release). As we've seen with this ITC ruling, this reflects a defensive, litigation-driven strategy by Samsara.
Why was Motive sued by another competitor?
In October 2023, Omnitracs filed a lawsuit against Motive in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Omnitracs, unable to compete in the market, alleged that Motive products, including the AI Dashcam and Vehicle Gateway, infringed nine patents held by Omnitracs.
On April 24, 2025, Motive emerged victorious. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California delivered a verdict in Motive’s favor. They found Motive does not infringe any of Omnitracs’ patents and four patents held by Omnitracs were invalidated in the process.
This verdict established what our customers already know — Motive’s success comes from the strength of our technology, including industry-leading AI and broad functionality of our platform. Motive innovates by listening to customers, not relying on outdated legacy technology.