DCT
1:18-cv-01645
Carrum Tech LLC v. BMW Of North
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Carrum Technologies, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: BMW of North America, LLC (New Jersey); BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (South Carolina); Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bartlit Beck LLP; Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., 05/05/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' sales of infringing products in Delaware, with BMW AG specifically alleged to have placed products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be sold in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ vehicles equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems infringe two patents related to using lateral acceleration data to improve vehicle control and object detection in curves.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), specifically adaptive cruise control that can automatically adjust vehicle speed not only for traffic but also for road geometry, a key feature for both safety and driver comfort in modern vehicles.
- Key Procedural History: Post-filing, the asserted patents were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Notably, IPR proceedings resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 of the '475 patent, including the sole claim asserted in this complaint. The IPR for the '416 patent confirmed the patentability of the asserted claim 10. This history suggests the infringement allegations for the '475 patent may be moot, while the allegations for the '416 patent remain contested.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-19 | Priority Date for '475 and '416 Patents |
| 2009-03-31 | U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475 Issued |
| 2011-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 Issued |
| 2012 (approx.) | Accused Product Period Begins (Model Year 2013) |
| 2021-05-05 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2022-03-07 | IPR Certificate Issued for '416 Patent |
| 2022-07-20 | IPR Certificate Issued for '475 Patent (cancelling asserted claim 1) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475 - "Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non-Threat Target Rejection," issued March 31, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes two critical failures in prior art adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems when a vehicle enters a curve. First, maintaining a set cruise speed could cause excessive lateral acceleration, leading to passenger discomfort or loss of control ('475 Patent, col. 2:36-44). Second, sensors could misidentify stationary objects (e.g., roadside signs) or vehicles in adjacent lanes as in-path threats due to the road's curvature, causing unnecessary and jarring braking (’475 Patent, col. 2:1-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for an ACC system that uses a lateral acceleration sensor to detect when a vehicle is entering, traversing, and exiting a turn. Based on the "detected change in the vehicle's lateral acceleration," the system determines the vehicle is in a turn and can preemptively reduce speed to a safe and comfortable level ('475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-58). This same data helps project the vehicle's true path, allowing the system to disregard detected objects that are not actual threats.
- Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift toward using vehicle dynamics data (lateral acceleration) rather than just forward-looking sensor data to make ACC systems smarter and safer, particularly in non-straight-line driving scenarios ('475 Patent, col. 1:11-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- Key elements of claim 1 include:
- measuring a lateral acceleration from a lateral acceleration sensor;
- detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral acceleration;
- determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration; and
- if a vehicle is in a turn, reducing the vehicle speed according to the determination that the vehicle is in the turn and the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).
U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 - "Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non-Threat Target Rejection," issued April 12, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the '475 patent, the '416 patent addresses the same problems of managing speed and avoiding false-positive object detection in curves for ACC systems (’416 Patent, col. 2:37-47; col. 2:1-32).
- The Patented Solution: The '416 patent claims a system comprising the components necessary to execute the patented method. This includes a controller, a lateral acceleration sensor, and an object detection sensor. The controller uses input from the lateral acceleration sensor to determine the vehicle is in a turn and adjust speed. Critically, the controller contains "control logic" to determine if a detected object is actually in the vehicle's path and to ignore it "for braking purposes" if it is not (’416 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:13-31).
- Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a more complete, integrated solution for an ACC module that intelligently handles curved roads by combining vehicle dynamics sensing with forward-looking object detection (’416 Patent, col. 4:46-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 10 (Compl. ¶43).
- Key elements of claim 10 include:
- an adaptive cruise control system;
- a controller capable of determining when the vehicle is in a turn and operative to reduce speed based on the vehicle's position in the turn;
- at least one lateral acceleration sensor operative to detect a change in vehicle lateral acceleration; and
- at least one object detection sensor, where the controller includes control logic to determine if an object is in the vehicle path and ignores the object for braking purposes if it is not.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are all BMW vehicles from model year 2013 to the present that are equipped with ACC systems (Compl. ¶28). The complaint uses the 2018 BMW X5 as a specific, illustrative example (Compl. ¶33, ¶43).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused BMW vehicles contain a control module known as "Integrated Chassis Management" (ICM) that receives data from various sensors, including a "lateral acceleration sensor" (Compl. ¶35). This ICM allegedly provides the ACC system with "dynamic handling characteristics of the vehicle," which the ACC system uses to detect that the vehicle is in a curve and adjust speed accordingly (Compl. ¶36). The system is also alleged to use a radar-based object detection sensor that communicates with the ICM, which in turn applies control logic to determine if detected objects are in the same lane or a neighboring lane during a curve (Compl. ¶47).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'475 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| measuring a lateral acceleration from a lateral acceleration sensor; | The BMW X5 has a vehicle control module known as "Integrated Chassis Management" (“ICM”) which includes a "lateral acceleration sensor." | ¶35 | col. 8:11-12 |
| detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral acceleration; | A lateral acceleration sensor capable of measuring lateral acceleration "will also necessarily detect any change in the measured lateral acceleration." | ¶35 | col. 8:12-14 |
| determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration; and | "Based on the lateral acceleration data, the ACC system detects that the vehicle is in a curve." | ¶36 | col. 8:15-17 |
| if a vehicle is in a turn, reducing the vehicle speed according to the determination that the vehicle is in the turn... | In the BMW ACC system, "[d]epending on the lateral acceleration, the set speed is adjusted during cornering. At the end of the bend, the required speed is reset." | ¶38 | col. 8:18-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Legal Question: The primary issue is the legal status of claim 1, which the complaint asserts but which was subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings. This may render the infringement count for the '475 patent moot.
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegation for the "detecting a change" element rests on the inference that any sensor that measures a value "necessarily" detects a change in it (Compl. ¶35). A court may question whether this meets the burden of pleading an affirmative claim limitation or if there is a specific function or component in the accused system that performs this step.
- Scope Question: A key dispute may center on the phrase "based on the detected change." The complaint alleges the BMW ACC system uses lateral acceleration data to detect a curve. The question for the court would be whether the accused system's determination is sufficiently "based on" this factor, as required by the claim, or if it is primarily based on other inputs (e.g., steering angle, yaw rate) with lateral acceleration being a secondary or confirmatory input.
'416 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a controller... capable of determining when the vehicle is in a turn, said controller operative to reduce the vehicle speed according to a vehicle position in the turn; | The ICM is the controller, which "is in communication with the ACC system and operates to reduce the vehicle speed according to the vehicle's position within the curve." | ¶45 | col. 8:54-58 |
| at least one lateral acceleration sensor... operative to detect a change in the vehicle lateral acceleration; | The accused vehicles contain lateral acceleration sensors in communication with the ICM that are "inherently operative to detect a change in the vehicle lateral acceleration." | ¶46 | col. 8:59-64 |
| at least one object detection sensor... said controller includes control logic operative to determine whether the object is in the vehicle path during the turn and ignoring the object for braking purposes when the object is not determined to be in the vehicle path. | The BMW X5 has a radar-based object detection sensor. The ICM contains control logic for this purpose, as evidenced by marketing materials stating: “On curves, Active Cruise Control" applies control logic “to determine whether vehicles in the radar’s field are in the same or a neighbouring lane.” | ¶47 | col. 9:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges the lateral acceleration sensor is "inherently operative to detect a change" (Compl. ¶46). As with the '475 patent, this presents an evidentiary question of whether a distinct "detecting a change" operation occurs.
- Scope Question: The functionality of the "control logic" will be a central issue. The complaint cites marketing language about determining if vehicles are in the "same or a neighbouring lane" (Compl. ¶47). A court would need to determine if this function is the same as the claimed function of "determining whether the object is in the vehicle path" and subsequently "ignoring the object for braking purposes."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration" ('475 patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The scope of "based on" is critical. If construed narrowly to mean "based solely or primarily on," it could be difficult to prove infringement if the accused system uses multiple data points like steering angle and yaw rate, with lateral acceleration as just one input. If construed broadly to mean "using as one of several factors," the infringement case may be stronger.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses obtaining lateral acceleration, yaw rate, and vehicle speed data together, suggesting a multi-factor analysis is contemplated by the invention (’475 Patent, col. 6:1-3, Fig. 4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 singles out the "detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration" as the basis for the determination, unlike other claims or specification passages that mention multiple inputs.
The Term: "ignoring the object for braking purposes" ('416 patent, claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term's definition will be pivotal. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning dictates what the accused system must be proven to do. Does "ignoring" mean the system ceases to track or process the object's data once it is classified as a non-threat? Or does it mean the system continues to track the object but simply suppresses a braking command?
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The common meaning of "ignore" might suggest the system completely disregards the object once it is deemed out-of-path.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart in Figure 4 includes a distinct step to "ELIMINATE BRAKING" (step 424) after a target is verified and found to be "out of path." This suggests the object is fully processed and the decision is specifically to not brake, which supports a narrower construction where the object is tracked but braking is inhibited.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by BMW based on the "creation and dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals" that allegedly encourage customers to use the ACC systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶39, ¶49).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the patents acquired no later than the date the complaint was served (Compl. ¶39, ¶49). This is an allegation of post-suit willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Impact of IPR: A threshold question is whether the case can proceed on the '475 patent, given that the only asserted claim (Claim 1) was cancelled in a post-filing IPR proceeding. This likely moots the first count of the complaint.
- Definitional Scope: For the remaining '416 patent, the case may turn on claim construction. A central issue will be whether BMW's multi-factor ACC system, which likely uses steering angle, yaw rate, and map data in addition to lateral acceleration, performs the step of "determining when the vehicle is in a turn" in a way that is "based on" lateral acceleration data as required by the patent.
- Evidentiary Match: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused ICM's "control logic" perform the specific function of "ignoring the object for braking purposes" as claimed? This will require a technical deep-dive into how the BMW system processes and classifies potential threats in curves, and whether that operation matches the patent's description of verifying a target and then "eliminating braking."