DCT
1:17-cv-01687
Westinghouse Air Brake Tech Corp v. Siemens Mobility Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec Corporation) (Delaware)
- Defendant: Siemens Industry, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: K&L GATES LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01687, W.D. Pa., 09/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Siemens maintains a regular and established place of business in the district—a manufacturing facility in Munhall, PA—and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Trainguard Positive Train Control (PTC) system infringes three U.S. patents related to locomotive safety, monitoring, and automated control systems.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on Positive Train Control (PTC) technology, a system of advanced, federally-mandated safety measures designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, and other major accidents.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action is a re-filing of counterclaims that Plaintiff Wabtec originally brought against Defendant Siemens in a prior patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Delaware. The Delaware court granted a motion to sever Wabtec's counterclaims, permitting them to be filed as a new, separate lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-05-14 | ’140 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-02-22 | ’764 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-07-08 | ’140 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-09-09 | ’463 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-05-08 | ’764 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-09-01 | Alleged first marketing of Siemens Trainguard PTC |
| 2013-07-02 | ’463 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-04-21 | Siemens files suit against Wabtec in Delaware |
| 2017-02-14 | Wabtec files counterclaims in Delaware action |
| 2017-08-17 | Delaware court severs Wabtec's counterclaims |
| 2017-09-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,398,140 - "Operator warning system and method for improving locomotive operator vigilance," issued July 8, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how the repetitive nature of a locomotive operator's duties, such as sounding the horn at numerous grade crossings, can lead to "decreased vigilance," while existing crew alerter systems do not specifically address this particular task ('140 Patent, col. 1:35-44, 60-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an onboard system that uses a database of grade crossing locations to provide timely audio, visual, or tactile warnings to the operator, reminding them to activate the horn ('140 Patent, Abstract). The system can also monitor the "actuation condition of the horn activation actuator" to determine if the operator has complied and, if not, can provide further warnings or automatically sound the horn ('140 Patent, col. 2:21-30; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve rail safety by creating a specific vigilance-enhancing tool for the critical and federally regulated task of sounding horns at grade crossings, providing a more targeted solution than general-purpose alerters ('140 Patent, col. 2:14-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 23 (Compl. ¶¶88, 91).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An onboard computer system with a database containing "grade crossing data and locomotive data," in communication with the horn system.
- An onboard warning device to provide an indicator to the operator.
- The indicator is based on grade crossing data, locomotive data, and the "actuation condition of the horn activation actuator."
U.S. Patent No. 8,175,764 - "System and method for identifying an upcoming feature in a track network," issued May 8, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Effective train control relies on accurate, current data about track conditions, but failures of wayside equipment (like crossing gates) can create hazards if that information is not communicated effectively to an approaching train ('764 Patent, col. 1:39-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an onboard system with a positioning system (e.g., GPS) and a database containing "track data" and "feature data" (e.g., the status of signals or safety devices) ('764 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect is that the "feature data" in the onboard database is "dynamically updated" as the train travels, allowing the system's computer to identify the real-time condition of an upcoming feature and enable appropriate control actions ('764 Patent, col. 5:16-29).
- Technical Importance: By focusing on the dynamic updating of an onboard database, the invention allows for more resilient safety monitoring that is not solely dependent on a continuous, live link to wayside equipment, thereby improving safety in areas with intermittent communication or rapidly changing conditions ('764 Patent, col. 6:36-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 21 (Compl. ¶¶102, 105).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A positioning system to determine the train's position.
- At least one database with "track data and feature data."
- A computer that obtains the train's position and identifies the condition of an upcoming feature using the data.
- A requirement that the database is located on the train and its feature data is "dynamically updated while the train is traversing the track."
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,478,463 - "Train control method and system," issued July 2, 2013
Technology Synopsis
This patent discloses a train control system that uses an onboard database and positioning system to predictively enforce an upcoming signal, such as by automatically braking the train before it reaches the signal ('463 Patent, Abstract). The system provides operational flexibility by overriding the automatic braking if specific conditions are met, such as if the system receives data indicating it is safe to proceed or if it receives specified authorization data from the operator or a central dispatch system ('463 Patent, col. 10:5-21).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 23 (Compl. ¶¶116, 119).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Siemens Trainguard PTC OBU infringes by including an onboard track database, using GPS for positioning, and being configured to enforce movement authorities, which can be preempted by operator action or data from a back-office server (Compl. ¶117).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Siemens' Trainguard PTC System, which includes components such as the Trainguard PTC Onboard Unit ("OBU"), a Locomotive Messaging Server ("LMS"), a Wheel Speed Sensor, and Dual GPS Receivers (Compl. ¶¶8, 60). The complaint identifies the OBU as the direct counterpart to Wabtec's patented Train Management Computer (TMC) (Compl. ¶61).
Functionality and Market Context
The Trainguard PTC OBU is alleged to "dynamically calculate[] the precise braking distance to the next signal or speed restriction" using data from a speed sensor and GPS to prevent accidents (Compl. ¶65). It allegedly performs "vital location determination" using "sensor fusion algorithms" and "diverse GPS signal sources" (Compl. ¶66). The complaint contains a system architecture diagram for Plaintiff's I-ETMS product, which it alleges is the industry standard and with which the accused product competes (Compl. p. 9). This diagram illustrates the flow of data between office systems, wayside devices, and the locomotive to control braking curves and monitor restrictions (Compl. p. 9). The complaint alleges Siemens has sold the accused system to at least CSX, a major railroad and Wabtec customer (Compl. ¶77).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’140 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an onboard computer system including a database including grade crossing data and locomotive data, the onboard computer system in communication with the horn system; and | The Trainguard PTC OBU includes a track database that contains all features of the expected route, including the location of grade crossings. | ¶89 | col. 3:46-51 |
| an onboard warning device configured to provide at least one of an audio, visual and tactile indicator to an operator of the locomotive based upon at least one of grade crossing data, locomotive data and actuation condition of the horn activation actuator. | The Trainguard PTC OBU is capable of providing an audio, visual, or tactile indicator to the operator, and a display unit notifies the crew about conditions. The OBU monitors the horn to determine if it has been activated. | ¶89 | col. 3:51-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: Claim 1 requires the system's warning to be based on the "actuation condition of the horn activation actuator." The complaint alleges the accused OBU "monitors the horn to determine whether it has been activated" (Compl. ¶89). A central question will be one of technical evidence: does the Siemens system monitor the physical actuator itself (e.g., the operator's button), or does it monitor a downstream signal or sound, and would the latter meet the claim limitation?
- Scope Question: Does the accused system's alleged monitoring of whether the horn "has been activated" satisfy the specific claim requirement of monitoring the "actuation condition," which may imply more than a simple binary (on/off) check?
’764 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a positioning system configured to determine an estimated train position on a track within a track network; | The system uses "Dual GPS Receivers, which are capable of locating the train wherever in the world it is." | ¶103 | col. 5:48-51 |
| at least one database comprising track data and feature data... | The Trainguard PTC OBU contains a "Track Database" with "railroad specific track layout information, such as grade and curvature of the track and locations of grade crossings, hazard detectors, switches, and signals." | ¶103 | col. 5:8-15 |
| a computer configured to... identify at least one condition for at least one upcoming feature based at least in part upon the track data and the feature data... | The "Trainguard PTC OBU itself... receives status information from WIUs to determine the state (i.e., condition) of elements along the track..." | ¶103 | col. 6:39-44 |
| wherein the... feature data in the at least one database located in the train is dynamically updated while the train is traversing the track in the track network. | The database is updated as the locomotive receives "status information from WIUs, or by downloading new database files from the back office server." | ¶103 | col. 5:16-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Question: The core of the invention resides in the "dynamically updated" limitation. The complaint alleges updates occur via communication with Wayside Interface Units (WIUs) or by "downloading new database files" (Compl. ¶103). This raises the question of whether a periodic bulk download of a file from a server meets the claim's requirement for a "dynamic" update, which may be construed to imply a more continuous, real-time process.
- Technical Question: What is the frequency and mechanism of the alleged updates from WIUs and back-office servers in the accused system? The factual evidence on how, and how often, the "feature data" is actually updated will be critical to determining infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from ’140 Patent: "actuation condition of the horn activation actuator"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement turns on precisely what the accused system monitors. If it monitors a downstream effect (like the horn's sound) rather than the input device itself, it may fall outside the claim's scope. The complaint's allegation that the system "monitors the horn" (Compl. ¶89) leaves this question open.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be read functionally, covering any method that reliably determines whether the operator has intentionally used the actuator, regardless of the precise sensing point.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly and specifically refers to the "horn activation actuator 104" as a distinct component in both the text and figures ('140 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:29-31). This could support a narrower construction requiring the system to monitor the state of that specific input device.
Term from ’764 Patent: "dynamically updated"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the '764 patent. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused system's alleged update methods—receiving data from wayside units or downloading files from a server—satisfy this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the update happens "while the train is traversing the track" ('764 Patent, col. 5:18-20), without specifying a minimum frequency. This could support an interpretation where any update during a trip, including a periodic file download, qualifies as "dynamic."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's objective is to provide "the most current and accurate information" to enhance safety ('764 Patent, col. 5:25-29). This purpose suggests that "dynamically" implies a process that is responsive to real-time changes, potentially distinguishing it from less frequent, pre-scheduled bulk data transfers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. It claims Siemens induces infringement by configuring its Trainguard PTC system to operate in an infringing manner and by encouraging its customers to use it as such (Compl. ¶¶94, 108, 122). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused product is a material part of the invention, is especially adapted for infringing use, and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶93, 107, 121).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Siemens had pre-suit knowledge of all three patents-in-suit before Wabtec filed its original counterclaims in the Delaware action (Compl. ¶¶81-83). The basis for this allegation is Wabtec's "marking of these patents on the I-ETMS computer display welcome screen," a product with which Siemens' system allegedly competes (Compl. ¶84).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "dynamically updated" in the ’764 patent be construed to cover a system that allegedly updates its onboard database by receiving status messages from wayside units or by downloading new files from a back-office server? The court's definition of this term will be fundamental to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will concern technical operation: What does the Siemens Trainguard PTC system actually monitor to determine horn use? Discovery will be needed to establish whether it senses the "actuation condition of the horn activation actuator" itself, as required by the ’140 patent, or employs a different method that may create a non-infringement defense.
- A third significant question relates to willfulness: Wabtec alleges Siemens had pre-suit notice of the asserted patents through patent markings on a direct competitor's product interface. The case will test whether this form of notice is sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, which could expose Siemens to the risk of enhanced damages if found liable.