DCT
2:13-cv-00141
Autoliv ASP Inc v. Hyundai Mobis Co Ltd Mag2
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Autoliv ASP, Inc. (Indiana)
- Defendant: Hyundai MOBIS Co., Ltd. (South Korea) and MOBIS Alabama, L.L.C. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alston & Bird, LLP; Sasser, Sefton, Brown, Tipton & Davis, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:13-cv-00141, M.D. Ala., 03/04/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Alabama because Defendants conduct business in the state and MOBIS Alabama has a regular and established place of business in the district, where it allegedly imports the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Safety Vent airbag" systems infringe two patents related to adaptive airbag venting technology that adjusts deployment force based on an occupant's position.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to automotive safety systems, specifically airbag vents that remain open to produce a softer deployment for an out-of-position occupant but close to provide full restraint for a properly positioned occupant.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of both patents-in-suit via letters on February 1, 2012. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, both patents were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated in 2014. U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 survived its IPR with key asserted claims confirmed as patentable. In contrast, U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 had numerous claims cancelled, including the primary independent claim. This development significantly alters the landscape of the litigation for the ’653 Patent, as the infringement case must now rely on a narrower set of surviving claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 Priority Date |
| 2006-09-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 Priority Date |
| 2008-03-25 | U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 Issue Date |
| 2009-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 Issue Date |
| 2012-02-01 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice of Patents Sent to Defendants |
| 2012 (Model Year) | Accused Product (2012 Hyundai Elantra) Launch |
| 2013-03-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2014-06-24 | IPR Petition Filed against '450 Patent (IPR2014-01005) |
| 2014-06-24 | IPR Petition Filed against '653 Patent (IPR2014-01006) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450: Airbag Cushion with Cinch Tube for Reduced Out-of-Position Effects (Issued Mar. 25, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the danger that occurs when a vehicle occupant is "out-of-position"—too close to an airbag as it deploys. A standard high-force deployment can cause injury in this situation, creating a need for an airbag with a "softer deployment" when an occupant is detected in close proximity (’450 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical, self-regulating vent system. It uses a "cinch tube" (a vent) and a "cinch cord" connecting the tube to an interior surface of the airbag cushion. If an occupant obstructs the airbag's expansion, the cord remains slack and the cinch tube stays open, allowing inflation gas to escape for a softer deployment. If deployment is unobstructed, the cushion expands fully, pulling the cord taut, which constricts and closes the cinch tube to retain gas for full restraint performance (’450 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-21).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a passive method to adapt airbag deployment force based on an occupant's position without requiring complex electronic sensors or controllers. (’450 Patent, col. 2:6-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint generally asserts "the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶13). Independent Claim 1, which survived a subsequent IPR challenge, is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An inflatable airbag cushion defining an interior.
- A "cinch tube" with a base end and a terminal end having an aperture.
- A "cinch cord" coupled to the cinch tube's terminal end and to a surface of the airbag cushion.
- The cord is configured so it "does not fully extend" and the tube "remains open" upon deployment with obstruction.
- The cord is configured so it "extends and at least partially closes the aperture" upon deployment without obstruction.
- The closure of the terminal end occurs "without necessitating closure of the base end of the cinch tube."
- The configuration enables the "terminal end" of the cinch tube to be drawn "at least partially within the interior of the inflatable airbag cushion" when the aperture closes.
- The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653: Pre-folded Airbag Cushion with Optional Venting for Out-of-Position Conditions (Issued Nov. 10, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the '450 Patent, this invention seeks to provide optional venting for out-of-position occupants ('653 Patent, col. 3:1-7). It further addresses the practical challenge of managing the control cord within the airbag assembly to ensure it does not tangle or prematurely activate during packaging, shipping, or initial deployment ('653 Patent, col. 8:7-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a specific pre-folded configuration for the airbag cushion. A "fold" is created in the cushion membrane where the control cord is anchored, and this fold is temporarily held in place by a "releasable temporary holding feature," such as a breakaway tack stitch. This fold maintains slack in the cord. Upon deployment, the stitch breaks, the fold unfolds, and the cord is then free to tension and close the vent only during an unobstructed deployment (’653 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:6-24).
- Technical Importance: The pre-fold provides a reliable mechanical means for managing cord slack, enhancing the robustness and predictability of the adaptive venting system. (’653 Patent, col. 8:7-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint generally asserts "the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶21). However, Independent Claim 1 was cancelled in a subsequent IPR. The analysis therefore focuses on a surviving independent claim.
- Independent Claim 28 (surviving IPR) requires:
- An inflatable airbag cushion with a cushion membrane.
- At least one "closeable vent."
- A "cord" anchored to the cushion membrane and positioned at the vent, which closes the vent upon unobstructed deployment and leaves it open upon obstructed deployment.
- The cord is anchored at a region of the membrane that is "folded to have at least one fold."
- The fold is "held in place by a releasable temporary holding feature."
- The holding feature "prevents closure of the closeable vent during shipping or handling and ensure[s] that the cord remains slack during initial deployment."
- The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims. It is notable that other surviving claims, such as Claim 33, further require a "diffuser configured to re-direct inflation gas."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Safety Vent airbag" (Compl. ¶13, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused airbags are installed in vehicles including the 2012 Hyundai Elantra (Compl. ¶13, 21). The alleged infringing functionality for the '450 Patent involves "safety vents formed by cinch tubes with apertures controlled by cinch cords" that remain open when the airbag is obstructed but close when unobstructed, causing the terminal ends of the tubes to enter the airbag's interior (Compl. ¶13). For the '653 Patent, the complaint alleges a "safety mechanism involving a cord connected to at least one closeable vent" that is configured to close without obstruction but to "stay at least partially open when the airbag deploys with obstruction" (Compl. ¶21).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'450 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cinch tube having a base end opposite from a terminal end, wherein the terminal end has an aperture | The accused airbags are alleged to have "safety vents formed by cinch tubes with apertures." | ¶13 | col. 2:26-30 |
| a cinch cord coupled to the terminal end of the cinch tube... [and] further coupled to a surface of the airbag cushion | The accused airbags allegedly have apertures "controlled by cinch cords." | ¶13 | col. 2:43-48 |
| upon inflatable airbag deployment with obstruction, the cinch cord does not fully extend and the cinch tube remains open | The complaint alleges that "when airbag is obstructed, the cinch tubes remain open." | ¶13 | col. 2:12-15 |
| upon inflatable airbag deployment without obstruction, the cinch cord extends and at least partially closes the aperture at the terminal end | The complaint alleges that "when the airbag is unobstructed... the apertures close." | ¶13 | col. 2:15-18 |
| such that the terminal end is at least partially within the interior of the inflatable airbag cushion after the aperture becomes at least partially closed | The complaint alleges that when unobstructed, "the terminal ends of the cinch tubes enter the interior of the airbag." | ¶13 | col. 6:40-44 |
'653 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint was filed prior to the IPR that cancelled many claims. The infringement allegations in the complaint (Compl. ¶21) map to the now-cancelled Claim 1. The chart below analyzes surviving Independent Claim 28 against the complaint's allegations to highlight potential gaps.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one closeable vent; and a cord anchored to the cushion membrane | The complaint alleges "a safety mechanism involving a cord connected to at least one closeable vent." | ¶21 | col. 5:10-15 |
| the cord is anchored to the cushion membrane at a region ... which is folded to have at least one fold | The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding a pre-folded region of the airbag membrane. | N/A | col. 10:20-22 |
| wherein the fold is held in place by a releasable temporary holding feature | The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding a releasable feature, such as a tack stitch, holding a fold. | N/A | col. 10:23-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Mismatch ('653 Patent): A primary issue is the apparent mismatch between the specific limitations of the surviving claims of the ’653 Patent (e.g., a "fold" held by a "releasable temporary holding feature") and the more general infringement theory pleaded in the complaint. The case may require discovery to determine if the accused product contains these specific structural elements, which are not mentioned in the complaint's description of the accused product.
- Technical Questions ('450 Patent): For the '450 Patent, the dispute may center on whether the accused product's venting mechanism operates in the precise manner claimed. Questions may arise regarding whether the accused vent is properly characterized as a "cinch tube" and whether its closure mechanism involves the terminal end being drawn into the cushion's interior as required by Claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the '450 Patent: "cinch tube"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural element of the venting means. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '450 Patent may depend on whether the defendant's vent structure falls within the proper construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a patentee-coined term whose scope is defined by the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility in form, stating the "cinch tube 102 may have any suitable shape such as rectangular, triangular, or polygon shapes" (’450 Patent, col. 2:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict a distinct, generally cylindrical fabric structure (e.g., Fig. 2A, 102) that "circumvents an aperture" in the airbag surface (’450 Patent, col. 2:35-36). An argument could be made that the term is limited to such a structure that is separate from but coupled to the main cushion body.
Term from the '653 Patent: "folded to have at least one fold"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is a key distinguishing feature of the invention and is present in the surviving claims. Proving infringement of the '653 Patent will likely require Plaintiff to establish that the accused airbag contains this specific structural feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "fold" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any pleat, tuck, or crease in the airbag membrane that manages cord slack.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures describe a specific arrangement where a region of the membrane is tucked inside the main airbag body (Fig. 9B, element 118) and held by a "tack stitch 180" to ensure the cord remains slack (’653 Patent, col. 8:6-14). This specific embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a deliberate, stitched-in tuck rather than a simple crease from packaging.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶¶14, 22). It does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendants allegedly induced or contributed to infringement by third parties.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendants were put on notice of the patents and their infringing activities via letters sent on February 1, 2012, over a year before the complaint was filed, and continued their activities despite an "objectively high likelihood" of infringement (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 23-24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Impact of Post-Filing IPRs: A threshold issue for the case is how the parties will proceed given the IPR outcomes. For the '653 Patent, can the infringement claim survive the cancellation of its broadest claims, and can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused product meets the specific "fold" and "holding feature" limitations of the surviving claims, which were not alleged in the original complaint?
Structural and Functional Equivalence: For the surviving '450 Patent, the case will likely focus on a core technical and factual question: does the accused "Safety Vent" airbag embody the specific "cinch tube" and "cinch cord" architecture as claimed, or does it achieve a similar adaptive venting result through a mechanism that is structurally and functionally distinct from that disclosed and claimed in the patent?
Definitional Scope: The dispute may turn on claim construction, particularly for the '653 Patent. A central question for the court will be whether the term "fold... held in place by a releasable temporary holding feature" can be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product's design, or if it is limited to the specific stitched-in tuck arrangement shown in the patent's embodiments.