DCT

2:24-cv-03128

ArcelorMittal v. VinFast Auto LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-03128, C.D. Cal., 04/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because several U.S.-based Defendant entities maintain a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there, while the foreign-based Defendant entities are not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric vehicles incorporate components made from high-strength, aluminum-coated steel that infringes patents related to the specific multi-layer microstructure of the steel's coating.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized coated steels used in automotive manufacturing, which are critical for producing strong, lightweight, and corrosion-resistant vehicle bodies for both traditional and electric vehicles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter on November 25, 2022, providing notice of the asserted patents and the alleged infringement, a fact central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-05-26 Earliest Priority Date for ’602 and ’227 Patents
2021-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 Issues
2022-05-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227 Issues
2022-08-01 Accused Product (VinFast VF 8) Sales in U.S. Begin (approx.)
2022-11-25 Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendant
2024-04-16 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 - "Coated Steel Strips, Coated Stamped Products and Methods" (issued March 30, 2021)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in the hot-stamping process for automotive parts. Specifically, it notes that when heating pre-coated steel blanks, furnace rollers can become "fouled by metallic deposits" from the coating, decreasing manufacturing productivity. A related problem is ensuring the final, high-strength steel parts have good "weldability," which is essential for vehicle assembly (Compl. ¶3; ’602 Patent, col. 2:5-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a "precoated steel product" with a specific four-layer coating structure that is formed after an interdiffusion reaction between a base steel and an aluminum pre-coating. The specification describes how controlling the initial pre-coating thickness to a narrow range improves resistance to roller fouling (’602 Patent, col. 5:9-13). The resulting four-layer structure—consisting of an interdiffusion layer, an intermediate layer, an intermetallic layer, and a superficial layer—is described as providing particularly good weldability (’602 Patent, col. 6:8-25). The complaint includes Figure 1 from the patent, a micrograph that visually depicts this claimed four-layer structure on the steel substrate (Compl. ¶17; p. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to enable the reliable, high-volume production of automotive components that are simultaneously high-strength, lightweight, corrosion-resistant, and suitable for welding (Compl. ¶4; ’602 Patent, col. 3:17-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Claim 1 of the ’602 Patent requires:
    • A precoated steel product comprising a strip of base steel and a coating.
    • The coating results from interdiffusion between the base steel and an aluminum or aluminum alloy pre-coating.
    • The coating includes four specific layers proceeding outwards from the base steel: (a) an interdiffusion layer, (b) an intermediate layer, (c) an intermetallic layer, and (d) a superficial layer.
    • These layers have specified relationships between their mean iron compositions, including that the third layer's composition is higher than the second's.
    • The total coating has a thickness greater than 30 micrometers.

U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227 - "Coated Steel Strips, Coated Stamped Products and Methods" (issued May 10, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’602 Patent, the ’227 Patent addresses the same technical challenges of producing high-strength, weldable automotive parts via hot-stamping without suffering from manufacturing inefficiencies like furnace roller fouling (’227 Patent, col. 2:1-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’227 Patent claims the final "hot stamped coated steel product" itself, whereas the ’602 Patent claims a "precoated steel product." The solution remains the specific four-layer coating microstructure that provides the desired performance characteristics after the full manufacturing process is complete (’227 Patent, col. 10:55-11:15). The invention explicitly links this structure to a process involving heating and rapid cooling to obtain a predominantly martensitic steel structure (’227 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a final automotive component with desirable properties of high mechanical resistance, corrosion resistance, and good capacity for welding, painting, and gluing, which are critical for structural and safety applications in vehicles (Compl. ¶4; ’227 Patent, col. 3:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Claim 1 of the ’227 Patent requires:
    • A hot stamped coated steel product comprising a strip of base steel and a coating.
    • The coating results from interdiffusion between the base steel and an aluminum or aluminum alloy pre-coating.
    • The coating comprises four distinct layers proceeding outwards: (a) an Interdiffusion layer, (b) an Intermediate layer, (c) an Intermetallic layer, and (d) a Superficial layer.
    • Each of the four layers has a different mean composition from one another.
    • The total coating has a thickness greater than 30 micrometers.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Defendant's automobiles as the "Accused Products," with the VinFast VF 8 all-electric SUV cited as an exemplary product. The complaint notes that further discovery may show that the VF 3, VF 6, VF 7, and VF 9 models also infringe (Compl. ¶¶14, 17, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The infringement allegation is directed at the high-strength, aluminum-coated steel used to manufacture components of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶13). The complaint states that Plaintiff's agent purchased a VinFast VF 8 and tested a part from the vehicle as a basis for its allegations (Compl. ¶22). The VF 8 vehicle has been imported and sold in the United States since at least 2022, and Defendant is alleged to be expanding its U.S. market presence through new dealerships and a planned manufacturing plant in North Carolina (Compl. ¶¶21, 26). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website for ordering a VF 8 vehicle in the U.S. (Compl. ¶23; p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Although the complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the initial pleading, its narrative allegations form the basis for the infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶32, 43). The core of the allegation is that tested components from the VF 8 vehicle are made of a coated steel that possesses the specific four-layer microstructure recited in the asserted claims.

’602 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a coating ... includes, proceeding from the base steel outwards: (a) an interdiffusion layer having a first mean iron composition... The complaint alleges the Accused Products are made with a steel having a four-layer coating that includes an interdiffusion layer as the first layer on top of the base steel. ¶¶17, 32 col. 11:10-14, Fig. 1
(b) an intermediate layer having a second mean iron composition... (c) an intermetallic layer having a third mean iron composition... (d) a superficial layer having a fourth mean iron composition... The complaint alleges the coating on the steel used in the Accused Products contains the specific intermediate, intermetallic, and superficial layers required by the claim. ¶¶17, 32 col. 11:15-26, Fig. 1
the third mean iron composition being higher than the second mean iron composition... The complaint alleges that the layers of the coating have different mean iron compositions consistent with the claim requirements. ¶¶17, 23 col. 15:7-11
wherein the coating has a thickness greater than 30 micrometers. The complaint alleges the accused steel product has a coating with a thickness greater than 30 micrometers. ¶¶17, 32 col. 15:15-17

’227 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hot stamped coated steel product... The complaint alleges the Accused Products are manufactured using a hot stamping process that results in the final infringing component. ¶¶4, 13, 17 col. 1:49-54
said coating comprises, proceeding from the base steel outwards: (a) an Interdiffusion layer, (b) an Intermediate layer, (c) an Intermetallic layer, and (d) a Superficial layer... each have a different mean composition from one another. The complaint alleges the coating on the steel used in the Accused Products contains the specific four-layer structure, with each layer having a different mean composition. ¶¶19, 43 col. 12:21-35, Fig. 1
wherein said coating of the hot stamped coated steel product has a thickness greater than 30 micrometers. The complaint alleges the coating on the final hot stamped product has a thickness greater than 30 micrometers. ¶¶19, 43 col. 15:10-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual/Evidentiary Question: The central dispute will likely be factual, hinging on whether the coating on the accused VinFast components exhibits the precise four-layer microstructure claimed in the patents. This raises the evidentiary question of what Plaintiff's testing will show and whether Defendant's materials differ in composition, layer thickness, or structure.
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise regarding the definitions of the four claimed layers (e.g., "interdiffusion layer," "intermetallic layer"). The analysis may question whether the layers in the accused product meet the specific compositional and structural definitions described in the patent specifications, or if they are structurally or chemically distinct.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "intermetallic layer" (asserted in Claim 1 of both patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term identifies one of the four essential layers of the claimed coating structure. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether a layer in the accused product meets this limitation, as its chemical and physical properties are central to the invention's purported benefits.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally to refer to a layer formed by the alloying of the aluminum pre-coating and the iron substrate. A party might argue it should be construed to cover a range of alloyed compositions that form between the other layers.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications provide a very specific exemplary composition for the "intermetallic layer": "62-67% Fe, 30-34% Al, 2-6% Si" by weight (’602 Patent, col. 11:37-40; ’227 Patent, col. 12:40-42). A party may argue the term should be limited to layers having a composition within or near this disclosed range.

  • The Term: "hot stamped coated steel product" (preamble of Claim 1 of the ’227 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the final product. Its construction is important because it links the claimed product to a specific manufacturing process. An infringement finding requires the accused component to be a product of a "hot stamping" process.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term should cover any coated steel product that is formed into its final shape at an elevated temperature.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "Hot forming followed by rapid cooling of the part in order to obtain predominantly martensitic structures" (’227 Patent, col. 1:49-51). A party may argue that the term is limited to processes that include these specific heating, forming, and rapid cooling steps intended to create a martensitic microstructure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as its allegations focus on Defendant's direct acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused vehicles (Compl. ¶¶31, 42).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least November 25, 2022, the date ArcelorMittal allegedly sent a letter notifying VinFast of the patents and its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶33, 44). The complaint further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "refused to seek a license or seek licensed products for incorporation into its vehicles, and instead continued to use infringing parts" (Compl. ¶¶33, 44).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of metallurgical evidence: does the coating on the accused steel components used in VinFast's vehicles actually possess the precise four-layer microstructure—including the specific layer arrangements, distinct compositions, and overall thickness—as required by the asserted claims? The case will likely depend heavily on competing materials science analyses.
  • A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms describing the distinct coating layers (e.g., "intermetallic layer") be construed broadly based on their general function, or will they be limited to the specific chemical compositions and physical properties detailed in the patent's preferred embodiments?
  • Finally, should infringement be established, a key question for damages will be culpability: did Defendant's conduct after receiving the November 2022 notice letter constitute objective recklessness sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages?