DCT

3:14-cv-02668

West View Research LLC v. Audi AG

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:14-cv-02668, S.D. Cal., 11/10/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of California because Defendants conduct business in the state and have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm to the Plaintiff.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Audi vehicles equipped with MMI (Multi Media Interface) and Connect systems infringe five U.S. patents related to computerized information display and adaptive presentation methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns interactive information systems within a transport apparatus that can provide users with contextual data, such as directions, news, or weather, often retrieved from remote servers via a network connection.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. However, public records included with the patent documents indicate that all five patents-in-suit were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed after the complaint. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of numerous asserted claims, including the sole asserted independent claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,682,673; 8,296,146; and 8,065,156, and an asserted independent claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037. These cancellations significantly narrow the scope of the dispute as originally filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-06-10 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2011-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 Issues
2012-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146 Issues
2013-01-01 Accused "2013 and later" Audi models become available
2014-03-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,682,673 Issues
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037 Issues
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 Issues
2014-11-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,719,038 - "Computerized Information and Display Apparatus," issued May 6, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent specification, shared across the family of patents, describes the problem of time spent waiting for or riding in personnel transport devices, like elevators, as inefficient "dead" time. It notes a need for occupants to access useful information (such as building directories, news, or weather) and for enhanced security features. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 1:49-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computerized information and control system, originally described for an elevator, that provides occupants with interactive access to information. It utilizes input devices (like a microphone for speech recognition or a touch screen), a processor, a display, and a network connection to retrieve and present data from remote sources, thereby making travel time more productive and secure. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 3:20-31; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents an early vision for integrating networked digital information and interactive user interfaces into transport environments, a concept that has become central to modern automotive infotainment systems. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 3:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
  • Claim 1 of the ’038 Patent recites a computerized information apparatus comprising a processor, network interface, display, and speech digitization apparatus, where a computer program is configured to:
    • Obtain a representation of a first speech input from a user.
    • Evaluate the speech input to identify at least one word or phrase.
    • Use the identified word or phrase to identify a "plurality of possible matches".
    • Prompt the user for a "subsequent input" to aid in identifying the best match.
    • Receive data relating to the subsequent user input.
    • Determine the best-correlating match and its associated location.
    • Select and present a visual representation of that location.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18. (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 8,719,037 - "Transport Apparatus with Computerized Information and Display Apparatus," issued May 6, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with its sibling patents, the ’037 Patent addresses the underutilization of time spent in transit and the difficulty occupants face in obtaining timely, relevant information for their destination. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 1:49-61).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims the computerized information system as part of a "transport apparatus." The system uses a wireless interface to access a remote server, retrieve information based on user input (such as speech), and present that information, along with contextually selected content, on a display within the apparatus. (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention formalizes the concept of a networked, intelligent information portal as an integrated component of a transport system itself, rather than as a standalone device. (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146, col. 4:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 22. (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 22 of the ’037 Patent recites a transport apparatus comprising a passenger compartment and a computerized information and display apparatus, which in turn includes a wireless network interface, processor, microphone, and display, where a computer program is configured to:
    • Obtain digitized speech generated based on speech from an occupant.
    • Cause a search of a remote network entity based on the digitized speech to retrieve desired information.
    • Display content on the display device, where the content is received via the network interface and selected based at least in part on the digitized speech.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert a large number of dependent claims. (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 8,682,673 - "Computerized Information and Display Apparatus," issued March 25, 2014 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computerized information apparatus that obtains information for a user via a display. The system receives a speech input, obtains information related to the input from a remote server via a network interface, and includes two components in wireless communication. (U.S. Patent No. 8,682,673, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶29). An IPR proceeding subsequent to the complaint’s filing cancelled this claim.
  • Accused Features: The Audi MMI and Connect systems in specified 2013 and later vehicle models. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146 - "Computerized Information Presentation Apparatus," issued October 23, 2012 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computerized information system configured for use in a transport apparatus. The system is configured to provide a user with requested information, such as directions, with at least a portion of the information obtained via a wireless link with a remote server. (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,146, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶35). An IPR proceeding subsequent to the complaint’s filing cancelled this claim.
  • Accused Features: The Audi MMI and Connect systems in specified 2013 and later vehicle models. (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156 - "Adaptive Information Presentation Apparatus and Methods," issued November 22, 2011 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus and methods for adaptively presenting information. It describes analyzing user input to determine a context and selecting advertising related to that context for presentation to the user, for instance on a touch-screen display. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 is asserted. (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The Audi MMI and Connect systems in specified 2013 and later vehicle models. (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "2013 and later Audi A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q5, Q7 with 'MMI', including but not limited to those with 'Connect'". (Compl. ¶¶18, 24, 30, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the accused MMI or Connect systems. It alleges in a conclusory manner that these systems, by being made, used, or sold, infringe the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶18, 24, 30, 36, 42). The complaint also does not make any specific allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner for each patent, asserting that the accused products infringe the specified claims without providing an element-by-element mapping or a detailed narrative infringement theory. As such, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's allegations.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court may be claim scope. The specifications of the patents-in-suit are written exclusively in the context of elevators and similar building-based personnel transport systems like moving walkways. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 1:39-41). The complaint asserts these patents against automobiles. This raises the question of whether the term "transport apparatus", as used and described in the patents, can be construed broadly enough to read on an automobile, or if its meaning is limited by the specification to the disclosed elevator embodiments.
    • Technical Questions: The asserted claims recite specific, multi-step functionalities. For example, claim 1 of the ’038 Patent requires a system that identifies a "plurality of possible matches" from a speech input and then uses a "subsequent input" to resolve the ambiguity. The complaint provides no factual allegations demonstrating that the accused Audi systems perform this specific disambiguation process. What evidence the complaint provides that the accused products meet these detailed functional limitations will be a central technical question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "transport apparatus" (from claim 22 of the ’037 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the applicability of the patent portfolio to the accused automotive products. The Defendants’ non-infringement position may depend on limiting this term to the embodiments disclosed in the specification.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "transport apparatus" itself is broad and, in a plain and ordinary sense, could encompass a vehicle. Plaintiff may argue that the claims are not limited to the specific embodiments described in the specification.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and exclusively discusses the invention in the context of "elevators and similar personnel transport devices (such as moving walkways or shuttles)". (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 1:39-41). The described problems and solutions all relate to buildings, floors, lobbies, and elevator cars. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, col. 1:32-col. 2:65). Practitioners may focus on this evidence to argue that the patentee defined the invention’s scope to be limited to such building-centric environments.

  • The Term: "a plurality of possible matches" (from claim 1 of the ’038 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of this claim hinges on whether the accused systems perform the specific recited method of voice-command interpretation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a particular technical operation: generating multiple options from a single voice input and then using a second input to select from among them.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for this analysis.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a sequence: first identifying a "plurality of possible matches," then prompting for and receiving a "subsequent input" to determine the best one. This suggests a two-step disambiguation process. A system that instead maps a voice command directly to a single best result without presenting a plurality of choices for resolution may not meet this limitation. The patent's flow chart in Figure 4 depicts a process of generating a "sequence list of matches" and then synthesizing a "next prompt based on matches," which could support a narrower, multi-step interpretation. (U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156, Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’156 Patent. The allegation of knowledge is based on the filing of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶44). Intent is alleged based on Defendants' dissemination of "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, user manuals," which allegedly encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶44; ¶9:12-16).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." However, for each count, it asserts that "the circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the prayer for relief requests attorneys' fees on this basis. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 27, 33, 39, 47; Prayer for Relief ¶D). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents are alleged.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transport apparatus," rooted in a patent specification focused exclusively on elevators and building transit systems, be construed to cover automobiles? The outcome of this question may determine the relevance of much of the patent portfolio to the accused products.
  • A second key question will be one of factual correspondence: does the accused Audi MMI/Connect functionality map to the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims, such as the voice command disambiguation method of generating and resolving a "plurality of possible matches"? The complaint's lack of technical detail leaves this as a central evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff.
  • A threshold procedural question is the viability of the case as filed, given that IPR proceedings subsequent to the complaint have invalidated many of the asserted claims, including the lead independent claims of three of the five patents-in-suit. How the parties and the court address this significant change in the case's posture will be critical.