DCT
1:18-cv-01646
Carrum Tech LLC v. FCA US LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Carrum Technologies, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: FCA US LLC (Delaware / Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Bartlit Beck LLP (Of Counsel)
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01646, D. Del., 10/23/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the District of Delaware based on Defendant FCA US LLC being a Delaware corporation and its routine marketing and sales activities within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems infringe two patents related to using lateral acceleration data to manage vehicle speed and reject non-threatening targets while navigating curves.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns adaptive cruise control technology, a common feature in modern vehicles that automatically adjusts speed to maintain a safe distance from cars ahead, with the patents-in-suit focused on improving system safety and performance in turns.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 is a divisional of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The asserted Claim 1 of the ’475 patent was cancelled (IPR Certificate issued Jul. 20, 2022). For the ’416 patent, the asserted Claim 10 was found patentable (IPR Certificate issued Mar. 7, 2022, corrected Mar. 7, 2023).
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 |
| 2013-01-01 | Approximate Start of Alleged Infringement (Model Year 2013) |
| 2018-10-23 | Complaint Filed |
| 2022-07-20 | IPR Certificate Cancelling Claim 1 of '475 Patent Issued |
| 2023-03-07 | Certificate of Correction Confirming Patentability of Claim 10 of '416 Patent Issued |
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 Mar. 31, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes two primary failures of prior art adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems when a vehicle navigates a turn. First, maintaining a set cruise speed could lead to excessive lateral acceleration, causing passenger discomfort or loss of vehicle control (’475 Patent, col. 2:36-44). Second, sensors could misidentify stationary objects not in the vehicle's actual curved path (e.g., signs, guardrails, or cars in adjacent lanes) as in-path threats, triggering unnecessary and jarring braking events (’475 Patent, col. 2:1-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the ACC system uses data from a lateral acceleration sensor to determine that the vehicle has entered a turn and to assess its position within that turn (’475 Patent, Abstract). Based on this determination, the system can preemptively reduce the vehicle's speed to a safe and comfortable level for the curve's geometry, and can also more accurately project the vehicle's path to avoid braking for "out-of-path" targets (’475 Patent, col. 2:46-51).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to make ACC systems more robust and driver-friendly by improving their performance beyond straight-line driving, thereby increasing their utility and safety in a wider range of common road conditions (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, which has since been cancelled by an IPR Certificate (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of former Claim 1 include:
- A method of controlling a vehicle with an ACC system.
- measuring a lateral acceleration from a lateral acceleration sensor.
- detecting a change in the vehicle's lateral acceleration based on the measurement.
- determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on that detected change.
- if the vehicle is in a turn, reducing its speed according to the determination and the detected change in lateral acceleration.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 - Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection (Issued Apr. 12, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’416 Patent, a divisional of the ’475 patent, addresses the same technical problems of managing speed and avoiding false-positive target identification for ACC systems in curves (’416 Patent, col. 2:4-49).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than a method, this patent claims a system comprising the components to execute the solution. It describes a system architecture that includes an ACC system, a controller, at least one lateral acceleration sensor, and at least one object detection sensor (’416 Patent, col. 4:11-33). The controller integrates inputs from these sensors, using the lateral acceleration data to determine when the vehicle is in a turn and adjust speed, while using control logic to distinguish between true in-path threats and objects that should be ignored for braking purposes (’416 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a concrete system for implementing the curve-handling logic, defining the necessary hardware and their cooperative interaction to solve the problems identified in the prior art (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of Claim 10 include:
- A system with an adaptive cruise control system.
- A controller, in communication with the ACC, capable of determining when the vehicle is in a turn and operative to reduce speed according to the vehicle's position in the turn.
- At least one lateral acceleration sensor in communication with the controller to detect a change in vehicle lateral acceleration.
- At least one object detection sensor in communication with the controller, where the controller includes control logic to determine if an object is in the vehicle's path during the turn and to ignore the object for braking purposes if it is not.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are all FCA vehicles from model years 2013 to present that are equipped with ACC systems (Compl. ¶20). The complaint lists numerous models, including the Chrysler 200/300/Pacifica, Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee, Dodge Charger/Durango, and Ram 1500, and uses the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee as a specific illustrative example (Compl. ¶19, ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused ACC systems are alleged to control vehicle speed to maintain a set distance from a preceding vehicle (Compl. ¶26). The complaint alleges these systems obtain vehicle dynamics data, including lateral acceleration measurements, from the anti-lock brake system (ABS) (Compl. ¶27, ¶28). This data is allegedly used by a controller to determine when the vehicle is in a curve and to reduce speed "for stability reasons" (Compl. ¶29). The systems are also alleged to use a radar-based object detection sensor to identify objects in the vehicle's path (Compl. ¶39). The feature is described as an increasingly common and significant technology offered as a standard or optional feature across many of FCA's vehicle lines (Compl. ¶8, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 7,512,475 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 2018 Grand Cherokee allegedly "measur[es] a lateral acceleration from a lateral acceleration sensor" contained within its anti-lock brake system ("ABS"). | ¶27 | col. 8:11-12 |
| detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration... | The complaint alleges that the Grand Cherokee "detect[s] a change in vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral acceleration." | ¶27 | col. 8:13-15 |
| determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change... | The Grand Cherokee allegedly "determin[es] when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration," pointing to the stability control system's functions. | ¶28 | col. 8:16-17 |
| if a vehicle is in a turn, reducing the vehicle speed according to the determination... | When driving on a curve with ACC engaged, the Grand Cherokee’s system allegedly "may decrease the vehicle speed and acceleration for stability reasons." | ¶29 | col. 8:18-19 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,925,416 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a controller... operative to reduce the vehicle speed according to a vehicle position in the turn. | The Grand Cherokee allegedly has a controller that communicates with the ACC system and, when driving on a curve, "may decrease the vehicle speed and acceleration for stability reasons." | ¶37 | col. 9:16-20 |
| at least one lateral acceleration sensor... operative to detect a change in the vehicle lateral acceleration. | The vehicle allegedly "contains a lateral acceleration sensor, which is inherently operative to detect a change in the vehicle lateral acceleration." | ¶38 | col. 9:21-26 |
| at least one object detection sensor... wherein said controller includes control logic operative to determine whether the object is in the vehicle path... and ignoring the object for braking purposes when the object is not... in the vehicle path. | The vehicle allegedly uses a radar-based sensor and a controller that "receives and interprets the returned signals." The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that this control logic operates to determine the object's path and ignore it if it is not a threat. | ¶39 | col. 9:27-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Post-Filing Developments: A threshold issue for the infringement count on the ’475 patent is the legal effect of the post-filing IPR proceeding that resulted in the cancellation of the sole asserted claim, Claim 1.
- Scope Questions: For the ’416 patent, a central question may be the scope of "ignoring the object for braking purposes." The dispute may focus on whether this requires an affirmative software instruction to "ignore" a detected object, versus a system architecture where braking is simply not triggered unless an object meets a specific set of threat criteria.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused system's speed reduction is performed "according to a vehicle position in the turn" as required by Claim 10 of the ’416 patent. The complaint alleges the system reduces speed for "stability reasons" (Compl. ¶37), which raises the question of whether this general stability control performs the specific position-based logic (e.g., entry, mid-turn, exit) described in the patent (’416 Patent, col. 5:41-50) or relies on a different set of inputs and calculations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reducing the vehicle speed according to a vehicle position in the turn" (’416 Patent, Claim 10)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the required link between the system's sensing capability and its control action. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused system’s speed reduction is merely correlated with being in a curve or is specifically governed by a determination of the vehicle's position within that curve (e.g., entry vs. mid-turn).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that after determining the vehicle is turning, the controller "determines the position of vehicle 302 in the turn" (’416 Patent, col. 6:17-19). This may support an interpretation that a general reduction for "stability" upon entering a curve is sufficient.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures describe recognizing distinct patterns in lateral acceleration data corresponding to the "entry of a turn, in the middle of a turn, or exiting a turn" (’416 Patent, col. 6:22-24; Fig. 5). This evidence could support a narrower construction requiring the system to perform this more granular positional analysis and adjust speed accordingly, not just a simple binary "in-turn/not-in-turn" reduction.
The Term: "control logic operative to... ignoring the object for braking purposes" (’416 Patent, Claim 10)
Context and Importance: This term defines the "non-threat rejection" feature. The infringement analysis for this element will likely turn on the precise technical meaning of "ignoring." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations for this element are based on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶39), suggesting it will be a point of factual dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's flowchart includes a step labeled "ELIMINATE BRAKING" when a target is determined to be "OUT OF PATH" (’416 Patent, Fig. 4, step 424). This could support a view that any logic that results in the prevention of braking for a non-threat meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "ignoring the object." This could be construed to require an affirmative logical step where a detected object is flagged or classified as a non-threat to be disregarded, as opposed to a system where an object simply fails to meet the criteria that would trigger a braking command. The summary of the invention states a goal is "eliminating braking for out-of-path targets" (’416 Patent, col. 2:50-51), which may imply a more active process than simply not braking.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement of both patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on FCA encouraging and facilitating infringement by its customers through the dissemination of "instructional materials, product manuals, and/or technical materials" that instruct on the use of the accused ACC systems (Compl. ¶31, ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of willful infringement. The basis for willfulness is alleged knowledge of the patents as of the date the complaint was served, suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness rather than pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶31, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive threshold question is the impact of post-filing proceedings: Given that the sole asserted claim of the '475 patent was cancelled via an IPR after the suit was filed, the primary question for that count is whether it can be maintained.
- For the surviving asserted claim of the '416 patent, a core issue will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused ACC system's general "stability control" perform the specific function of reducing speed "according to a vehicle position in the turn," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the general-purpose safety feature and the granular, position-dependent logic required by the claim?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: What discovery evidence will show that the accused system’s software contains the specific "control logic operative to... ignoring the object" as claimed? The complaint's inferential allegations on this point suggest that proof of the internal workings of the accused controller will be critical to resolving the dispute.