DCT

1:16-cv-00284

Siemens Industry Inc v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00284, D. Del., 04/21/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that both defendants are incorporated in the State of Delaware and are therefore deemed to reside in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Positive Train Control (PTC) systems, telemetry systems, and related back-office components infringe seven patents related to train control, wayside device monitoring, end-of-train location, and critical system redundancy.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is Positive Train Control (PTC), a predictive safety technology federally mandated for U.S. railroads to automatically prevent certain types of accidents caused by human error.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of several patents-in-suit or their parent patents dating back to 2006 and 2007 via notices from Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, and to 2014 via direct notice from Plaintiff. Post-filing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have significantly altered the landscape of the asserted claims: claims asserted from U.S. Patent No. 7,092,801 were subsequently cancelled, while claims asserted from U.S. Patent Nos. 6,996,461 and 9,233,698 were challenged and confirmed patentable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,092,801 Priority Date
2002-10-10 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,996,461 & 7,236,860 Priority Date
2003-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,467,032 Priority Date
2006-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,996,461 Issued
2006-07-28 Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly provided notice of the ’461 Patent to Defendant
2006-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,092,801 Issued
2007-03-09 Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly provided notice of patents related to the ’032 and ’850 Patents to Defendant
2007-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,236,860 Issued
2008-10-16 Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) signed, mandating PTC implementation
2008-12-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,850 Priority Date
2008-12-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,467,032 Issued
2010-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,850 Issued
2011-03-01 Alleged first sales of Accused Products
2012-09-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,714,494 Priority Date
2014-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,233,698 Priority Date
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,714,494 Issued
2014-11-20 Plaintiff allegedly provided notice of the ’461 and ’860 Patents to Defendant
2016-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,233,698 Issued
2016-04-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,996,461 - "Method and System for Ensuring that a Train Does Not Pass an Improperly Configured Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the risk of accidents caused by human error in visually verifying the status of trackside devices, such as an improperly set switch or a malfunctioning grade crossing gate, especially when a train is moving too fast to stop in time (ʼ461 Patent, col. 1:20-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computerized onboard system that uses a positioning system (e.g., GPS) and a map database to determine when the train is approaching a "configurable device." The system then wirelessly "interrogates" the device to confirm its status. If the device reports a misconfiguration or fails to respond, the system can automatically stop the train or force the engineer to acknowledge the fault and slow down (ʼ461 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:47-67).
  • Technical Importance: This technology automates safety checks, shifting from reactive human observation to a proactive, automated system that verifies the state of track infrastructure ahead of the train (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 14 (a method claim).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A control unit and a transceiver located on the train.
    • The control unit is configured to perform steps of:
    • transmitting an interrogation message to a configurable device;
    • listening for a response that includes the device's configuration and identifier;
    • allowing the train to continue if a correct configuration is received;
    • stopping the train otherwise; and
    • confirming the received identifier corresponds to the interrogated device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,092,801 - "Train Control System and Method of Controlling a Train or Trains"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior automatic train control systems often rely on inefficient, "worst-case scenario" fixed braking curves, or still depend on an engineer to manually comply with speed restrictions, leaving open the possibility for human error (’801 Patent, col. 3:12-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an onboard control module that wirelessly receives speed restrictions. It uses a positioning system and accounts for dynamic factors like train weight and track grade to calculate necessary stopping distances. If the system determines the train is in danger of violating a restriction, it can automatically apply "braking penalties" to enforce compliance (’801 Patent, col. 4:11-49). The diagram provided in the complaint illustrates the general architecture of such a Positive Train Control system, showing communication between a back office, the locomotive, and wayside signals to manage braking curves (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables dynamic and automated enforcement of train movement authorities, improving safety and efficiency over systems reliant on fixed braking models or manual operator compliance (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 10 (an apparatus claim).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
    • A positioning system, a receiver for wireless speed restrictions, and a brake interface.
    • A processor configured to perform steps of:
    • receiving a speed restriction;
    • determining the train's position;
    • determining when the train is in danger of violating the restriction based "at least in part on a grade of a track" and "at least in part upon a weight of the train"; and
    • controlling the braking system to prevent the violation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,236,860 - "Method and System for Ensuring that a Train Does Not Pass an Improperly Configured Device"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’461 Patent, describes a train control system that uses an onboard database of configurable device locations and identifiers. The system determines the train's proximity to the next device, transmits an interrogation message when it is below a threshold, and evaluates the response to determine if corrective action is needed (Compl. ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15 (Compl. ¶¶60, 63).
  • Accused Features: The I-ETMS System's alleged functionality of communicating with PTC-enabled wayside devices to determine their status and take enforcement actions (Compl. ¶¶61, 64).

U.S. Patent No. 7,467,032 - "Method and System for Automatically Locating End of Train Devices"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a communications system for locating an End-of-Train (EOT) unit. The EOT unit, equipped with a GPS receiver, is configured to transmit periodic messages with brake pipe pressure to the head-of-train device and to transmit a location message to an off-train monitoring station, which in turn transmits the location to a central station (Compl. ¶71).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' TrainLink ATX and TrainLink II 4G-ATX telemetry systems used in combination with their Asset Management Website (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 7,742,850 - "Method and System for Automatically Locating End of Train Devices"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an EOT unit with a processor, sensors, and a transceiver. The processor is configured to perform two distinct communication tasks: generating and transmitting a first wireless message with location and identifier data to an off-train monitoring station, and generating and transmitting a second wireless message with air pressure data to the head-of-train device (Compl. ¶78).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' TrainLink ATX and TrainLink II 4G-ATX telemetry systems (Compl. ¶81).

U.S. Patent No. 8,714,494 - "Railway Train Critical Systems Having Control System Redundancy and Asymmetric Communications Capability"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a redundant control system for vital railway applications using two controllers with asymmetric capabilities. Both controllers verify input data, but only the second controller can generate an output security code. The first controller receives this code, combines it with its own output data, and transmits the final, secure message. This architecture ensures that a failure in either controller prevents the transmission of a validatable output message (Compl. ¶85).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The Back Office Server (BOS) component of the I-ETMS System (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 9,233,698 - "Railway Safety Critical Systems with Task Redundancy and Asymmetric Communications Capability"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’494 Patent and describes a similar asymmetric redundancy concept implemented via a "first task" and a "second task" executed by at least one controller. The first task can send and receive messages externally, while the second task can only receive messages but is solely responsible for generating the output security code, which it passes to the first task for transmission (Compl. ¶93).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The Back Office Server (BOS) component of the I-ETMS System (Compl. ¶96).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' Positive Train Control products, generally designated "I-ETMS" ("Interoperable Electronic Train Management System"), and their telemetry systems, including the TrainLink ATX and TrainLink II 4G-ATX models (Compl. ¶¶23, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The I-ETMS is a comprehensive PTC system comprising four segments: Office, Wayside, Communications, and Locomotive (Compl. ¶23). A diagram from a Wabtec product catalog illustrates the system architecture, showing communication from office systems to an onboard computer via satellite and radio networks to enforce work zones and speed restrictions (Compl. ¶23). The onboard Train Management Computer (TMC) is described as the "brain" that continuously calculates warning and braking curves using a geographic database, GPS, and information about the train's makeup ("consist") and movement authority (Compl. ¶¶24, 25). The Back Office Server (BOS) acts as a data storehouse for track geometry and signaling data (Compl. ¶26). The TrainLink telemetry systems are comprised of a Head-of-Train (HOT) unit and an End-of-Train (EOT) unit that monitors "last car" conditions like brake pressure and transmits this data to the HOT unit (Compl. ¶29). These telemetry systems also include GPS and cellular modems to enable off-train tracking via an Asset Management Website (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,996,461 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for controlling a train, the system comprising: a control unit; The Train Management Computer (TMC), which contains multiple CPUs. ¶37 col. 2:33-37
a transceiver, the transceiver being located on the train and being in communication with the control unit; The I-ETMS system includes or interfaces with a transceiver, such as the Commlink II, for communicating with wayside devices. ¶37 col. 3:2-4
wherein the control unit is configured to perform the steps of transmitting an interrogation message to a configurable device near the train; The I-ETMS System, under control of the TMC and using the Commlink II, interrogates a wayside device. ¶40 col. 3:1-2
listening for a response from the configurable device, the response including a configuration of the configurable device and an identifier of the device; The I-ETMS System receives a response from the wayside device and takes enforcement actions based on it. ¶40 col. 3:56-61
allowing the train to continue if a response with a correct configuration is received within a period of time; and stopping the train otherwise; The I-ETMS System takes "appropriate enforcement actions depending upon the response received." ¶40 col. 3:61-64
wherein the control unit is further configured to perform the step of confirming that the identifier received in the response corresponds to the device to which the interrogation message was directed. The complaint alleges generally that the I-ETMS system interrogates devices and takes action based on the response. ¶40 col. 3:49-54

U.S. Patent No. 7,092,801 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus for controlling a train comprising: a positioning system; The I-ETMS System includes an on-board geographic database and a GPS system, incorporated in the Navigation Sensor Module and/or the Commlink II. ¶50 col. 6:39-44
a receiver for recovering a wireless transmission including a speed restriction...; The Commlink II serves as a gateway for PTC communications and includes a receiver for wireless transmissions including speed restrictions. ¶50 col. 9:1-3
a brake interface configured to control a braking system on the train; The TMC enforces speed restrictions by causing the brakes to be applied. ¶50 col. 6:35-38
and a processor...configured to perform the steps of: receiving a speed restriction via the receiver; The TMC uses speed restriction information. ¶50 col. 9:28-30
determining a position of the train using information obtained from the positioning system; The TMC uses location information from the GPS system. ¶50 col. 9:30-32
determining when a train is in danger of violating the speed restriction based at least in part on a grade of a track on which the train is traveling and at least in part upon a weight of the train; and The TMC uses location, speed restriction, track, and "train consist information" to determine if the train is in danger of violating a speed restriction. ¶50 col. 9:32-43
controlling the braking system via the brake interface such that violation of the speed restriction is prevented. If danger exists, the TMC will enforce the speed restriction by causing the brakes to be applied as necessary. ¶50 col. 9:44-47

Identified Points of Contention

  • ’461 Patent: A primary question may be whether the accused system’s communications with wayside devices meet the claim requirements of an "interrogation" that elicits a "response" containing both a "configuration" and an "identifier." The analysis may focus on what specific data the complaint alleges is exchanged and whether the accused TMC performs the specific step of "confirming that the identifier received... corresponds to the device to which the interrogation message was directed," a step not explicitly detailed in the complaint's allegations for this count.
  • ’801 Patent: The central issue for this patent is one of validity. An IPR certificate issued post-filing cancelled the asserted independent claims 1 and 10. This raises the question of whether this entire count is moot. Separately, a technical question is whether the accused system's use of "train consist information" (Compl. ¶50) satisfies the claim limitation requiring a determination based on "a weight of the train."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "configurable device" (from ’461 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the scope of the ’461 and ’860 patents. Its breadth determines the types of railway equipment covered by the claims. The infringement theory depends on this term covering Defendants' "PTC-enabled wayside device" (Compl. ¶61).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the term with inclusive language: "a configurable device such as a switch or grade crossing gate" (’461 Patent, col. 2:52-54). Use of "such as" may suggest the listed items are merely examples, not an exhaustive list.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and detailed description focus heavily on devices with distinct, changeable physical states, like the position of a track switch or a crossing gate being up or down (’461 Patent, col. 1:20-44). This could support an argument that the term is limited to devices with such physically alterable configurations.

The Term: "determining when a train is in danger of violating the speed restriction based at least in part on a grade of a track... and at least in part upon a weight of the train" (from ’801 Patent, claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: This term recites the core logic of the claimed invention. Infringement requires showing that the accused TMC performs a specific predictive calculation using both grade and weight as inputs. The complaint alleges the TMC uses "track and train consist information," raising a question of technical correspondence (Compl. ¶50).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "based at least in part on" does not require grade and weight to be the only, or even primary, factors. Any safety calculation within the accused device that considers these two inputs could be argued to meet the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes calculating a "required stopping distance" (’801 Patent, col. 4:11-13). This context may support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of physics-based predictive braking calculation, rather than a simpler check against a speed limit that is merely adjusted for generic track or train types.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement for the asserted method claims based on Defendants allegedly configuring the I-ETMS System to operate in an infringing manner and encouraging customers' infringing use through marketing literature (Compl. ¶¶42, 55, 66). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the I-ETMS system is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for infringing use, and that Defendants had knowledge based on pre-suit notice (Compl. ¶¶41, 54, 65).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for the ’461 and ’860 patents based on alleged pre-suit notice provided directly by Siemens in November 2014 and by its predecessor-in-interest in July 2006 (Compl. ¶¶31-32, 44, 68).

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

  • A dispositive threshold issue will be one of validity: Can the infringement claims for the ’801 Patent proceed given that the asserted claims were cancelled in a post-grant review? Conversely, to what extent does the survival of asserted claims from the ’461 and ’698 patents in their own IPRs strengthen their presumption of validity against other invalidity challenges?
  • A central question of technical correspondence will be whether the accused I-ETMS system performs the specific functions required by the claims. For the ’461 patent family, does the system’s communication with wayside devices constitute "interrogation" and "response confirmation" as claimed? For the ’801 Patent, does the use of "train consist information" meet the specific requirement of a calculation based on train "weight"?
  • A key architectural question for the ’494 and ’698 patents will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence can be developed to show that the internal software and hardware architecture of Defendants' Back Office Server actually implements the claimed two-controller or two-task asymmetric protocol for generating and transmitting secure messages?