DCT
8:23-cv-00350
Voxx Intl Corp v. Southwest Dealer Services Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VOXX International Corp. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Southwest Dealer Services, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bunsow De Mory LLP; Allen, Dyer, Doppelt + Gilchrist, P.A.
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00350, C.D. Cal., 05/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California corporation with its headquarters in Irvine, California, and allegedly transacts business involving the accused products within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s KARR brand aftermarket vehicle security systems infringe a patent related to multi-mode, wirelessly selectable security systems.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of aftermarket vehicle security systems, where modularity and post-installation configurability can be significant for managing dealership inventory and customizing sales options for consumers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit based on constructive notice via patent marking and actual notice from Plaintiff’s counsel in May 2022, nearly one year before the complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-03-02 | ’135 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-12-09 | ’135 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-05-XX | Plaintiff alleges actual notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2023-05-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,463,135 - "Selectable Preload Vehicle Security System" (issued Dec. 9, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the economic inefficiency faced by car dealerships that pre-install security systems in vehicles. If a consumer decides not to purchase the system, the dealership must employ a technician to perform a costly removal or disabling of the system, or else absorb the cost of the unused hardware left in the vehicle (’135 Patent, col. 1:21-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular, multi-mode vehicle security system. It consists of a "control module" that can be wirelessly programmed to operate in one of several distinct functional modes, and a separate "function module" that interfaces with the vehicle's devices (’135 Patent, Abstract). This allows a dealer to install a single type of hardware but offer different feature tiers (e.g., a full security system, a keyless entry upgrade, or a shock sensor add-on). If the system is not sold, the more expensive control module can be easily disconnected and reused, leaving the less-costly function module and wiring in place (’135 Patent, col. 4:30-40).
- Technical Importance: This approach was designed to provide inventory and configuration flexibility to car dealerships, reducing overhead costs associated with unsold aftermarket accessories by using a single, reconfigurable hardware platform.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’135 Patent, col. 12:11-28; Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A control module wirelessly selectable to operate in one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode (vehicle security system), a second mode (upgrade to a remote keyless entry system), or a third mode (shock sensor upgrade).
- A function module for receiving a command from the control module and instructing a vehicle device.
- A restriction wherein when the control module operates in one of the selected modes, it is restricted from operating in the other modes.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "KARR security systems, including the BT Series and the High Performance Series 3" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are aftermarket vehicle security systems that Defendant Southwest Dealer Services, Inc. (SWDS) allegedly manufactures and sells, primarily to car dealers for installation (Compl. ¶¶5, 11). The complaint alleges these systems feature a control module that can be wirelessly configured by a dealer using a mobile application, such as the "BT and Fusion Dealer App" (Compl. p. 6). This configuration allegedly places the system into one of several distinct functional modes, marketed as different product tiers: the "Red Series" (full vehicle security system), "Blue Series" (remote keyless entry system), and "Green Series" (shock sensor upgrade) (Compl. pp. 6, 8, 10). A photograph in the complaint displays the components of an accused KARR Security System, including what is alleged to be the control and function modules (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’135 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a control module wirelessly selectable to operate in one of a plurality of modes, wherein said plurality of modes include a first mode in which the control module functions as a vehicle security system, a second mode...as an upgrade to a remote keyless entry (RKE) system, or a third mode...as a shock sensor upgrade... | The accused KARR Security Systems are alleged to include a control module that is wirelessly selectable via a Bluetooth-enabled mobile dealer app to operate in one of three modes: "Red Series" (security system), "Blue Series" (RKE), or "Green Series" (shock sensor upgrade). | ¶12 (pp. 5-11) | col. 12:12-20 |
| a function module for receiving a command from the control module and instructing a vehicle device to perform a function associated with the command, | The KARR systems are alleged to include a "function module" that receives commands from the control module and interfaces with the vehicle to perform functions like locking doors or triggering an alarm. | ¶12 (p. 12) | col. 12:21-24 |
| wherein when the control module operates in one of the first, second or third modes, the control module is restricted from operating in the other mode or modes. | The complaint alleges that once a dealer programs a KARR system into a specific mode during a "process sale" operation, the control module is restricted from operating in the other modes. The complaint provides a screenshot from the "BT and Fusion Dealer App" allegedly showing the dealer's options to configure the system for a sale (Compl. p. 6). | ¶12 (p. 12) | col. 12:25-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the patent's description of a "remote programmer" or "installation remote" (’135 Patent, col. 5:12, col. 6:50) can be construed to read on the accused system's use of a general-purpose smartphone running a specialized application for wireless selection.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the factual question of what "restricted from operating in the other mode or modes" means in practice. The court will need to consider evidence on whether the accused KARR system becomes irreversibly locked into a single mode after the "process sale" operation, or if it can be reconfigured by a dealer or user, which could suggest it is not "restricted" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "wirelessly selectable"
- Context and Importance: The mechanism for choosing the operational mode is a central element of the claim. The dispute may focus on whether selection via a modern smartphone app falls within the scope of a term conceived when dedicated hardware remotes were more common. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the accused product's use of a smartphone app meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses general language, stating "the remote programmer 140 may be used to wirelessly program the control module 110" without limiting the specific form of the programmer (’135 Patent, col. 5:15-17).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s exemplary embodiments consistently depict a dedicated hardware device with physical buttons, referred to as the "installation remote 410" or "remote programmer 140" (’135 Patent, Fig. 4, col. 6:50-62). A party could argue that this context limits the term to a dedicated remote control device.
The Term: "restricted from operating in the other mode or modes"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical to infringement. The case hinges on whether the accused system, once configured, is truly "locked" in its selected mode.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's purpose is to finalize a consumer's purchase choice. One might argue that "restricted" means locked from the perspective of a normal user or in the course of normal operation, even if a technician could potentially override it. The specification refers to a "lock-in" of the module's personality after selection (’135 Patent, col. 8:51-52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using "jumper" plugs to finalize the configuration, which suggests a physical or hardware-based restriction (’135 Patent, col. 8:46-54). A party could argue that if the mode can be changed purely through software without a physical change, the module is not "restricted" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that SWDS induces infringement by providing its customers, such as car dealers and installers, with instructional videos and user guides that encourage and instruct on the use of the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on allegations of both constructive notice through patent marking and actual, pre-suit notice provided by Plaintiff’s counsel in May 2022. The complaint alleges that SWDS continued its infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation of a system being "wirelessly selectable," which the patent illustrates with a dedicated remote control, be construed to cover mode selection performed via a modern Bluetooth-enabled smartphone application as allegedly used by the accused product?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused KARR system, after being configured in a "process sale," become "restricted from operating in the other mode or modes" as required by Claim 1? The outcome may depend on factual evidence demonstrating whether the system's operational mode is functionally "locked-in" or can be readily reconfigured.