DCT
1:18-cv-01647
Carrum Tech LLC v. Ford Motor Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Carrum Technologies, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Ford Motor Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01647, D. Del., 10/23/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Ford is a corporation incorporated in Delaware and routinely markets and sells the accused products in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems infringe two patents related to methods and systems for improving vehicle control and object detection when navigating a curve.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), specifically adaptive cruise control that can adjust vehicle speed for curves and distinguish between genuine and false obstacles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts claim 1 of the ’475 patent and claim 10 of the ’416 patent. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, both patents were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The IPR for the ’475 patent resulted in the cancellation of asserted claim 1. The IPR for the ’416 patent confirmed the patentability of asserted claim 10. The ’416 patent is a divisional of the application that matured into the ’475 patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-19 | Priority Date for ’475 and ’416 Patents |
| 2009-03-31 | ’475 Patent Issued |
| 2011-04-12 | ’416 Patent Issued |
| c. 2012 | Accused Products (2013 Model Year) First Offered for Sale |
| 2018-10-23 | Complaint Filed |
| 2018-12-31 | IPR Filed Against ’416 Patent |
| 2019-04-20 | IPR Filed Against ’475 Patent |
| 2022-03-07 | IPR Certificate Issued for ’416 Patent |
| 2022-07-20 | IPR Certificate Issued for ’475 Patent |
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 identifies two key deficiencies in prior art adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems when a vehicle enters a turn. First, maintaining a set cruise speed can cause excessive lateral acceleration, leading to passenger discomfort or loss of vehicle control. Second, forward-looking sensors may misidentify stationary objects on the roadside or in adjacent lanes as in-path threats due to the road's curvature, triggering unnecessary and disruptive braking (’475 Patent, col. 1:46-2:32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the ACC system uses sensor data, particularly from a lateral acceleration sensor, to first determine that the vehicle is in a turn. Based on this determination, the system can preemptively reduce the vehicle's speed to a safe and comfortable level. The system also projects the vehicle’s path through the turn to distinguish between objects that are actually in the path and those that are not, thereby avoiding braking for non-threatening targets (’475 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-50; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The described method allows for a more intelligent ACC system that can operate more safely and smoothly in a wider variety of real-world driving conditions, particularly on curved roads, enhancing both safety and driver comfort (’475 Patent, col. 2:46-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Claim 1 of the ’475 Patent requires:
- 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent. It should be noted that claim 1 was canceled in post-filing IPR proceedings.
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: As a divisional of the ’475 patent’s application, this patent addresses the same problems of excessive lateral acceleration and false target identification by ACC systems in turns (’416 Patent, col. 1:50-2:48).
- The Patented Solution: The ’416 patent claims a system that implements the improved ACC functionality. It describes a system comprising an ACC system, a controller, a lateral acceleration sensor, and an object detection sensor. The controller is programmed with logic to use data from these sensors to determine when the vehicle is in a turn, reduce speed according to its position in the turn, and critically, to determine if a detected object is truly in the vehicle's path before applying brakes (’416 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-34).
- Technical Importance: This patent provides a system-level architecture for the method claimed in the parent patent, specifying the combination of components and control logic required to achieve safer and more comfortable vehicle operation in curves (’416 Patent, col. 4:11-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 10 of the ’416 Patent requires:
- an adaptive cruise control system for controlling vehicle speed;
- a controller that can determine when the vehicle is in a turn and is 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 lateral acceleration; and
- at least one object detection sensor, where the controller includes 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "all Ford vehicles (model year 2013-Present) with ACC systems," with the 2018 Ford Edge used as a specific illustrative example (Compl. ¶20, ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Ford's vehicles are equipped with ACC and "ACC with Stop-and-Go" systems that automatically adjust vehicle speed (Compl. ¶¶8, 19). The complaint provides a marketing chart from a Ford brochure listing numerous Ford and Lincoln models from 2018 that offer these features (Compl. ¶19, p. 7). This chart visually demonstrates the widespread availability of the accused technology across Defendant's product lines (Compl. p. 7). The core accused functionality involves using a "lateral accelerometer" to measure forces when cornering and using that input to determine if the vehicle is in a curve (Compl. ¶¶27-28). If the system detects the vehicle "enters a turn too fast," it allegedly responds by "increasing brake pressure" (Compl. ¶29). The system is also alleged to use a radar sensor to detect objects and a controller to determine if an object is "in the same lane" before braking (Compl. ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’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 2018 Ford Edge contains a "lateral accelerometer" that "measures the force created when a vehicle corners that tends to push a vehicle sideways." | ¶27 | col. 8:11-12 |
| detecting a change in a vehicle lateral acceleration based on a change in the measured lateral acceleration; | The system "continuously monitors the vehicle motion" using inputs from the lateral acceleration sensor, which necessarily involves detecting changes in the measured acceleration. | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 8:12-14 |
| determining when the vehicle is in a turn based on the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration; | The vehicle uses information from the "lateral acceleration sensor input" to "determine if the vehicle is in a curve." | ¶28 | 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 and the detected change in the vehicle lateral acceleration. | When the vehicle "enters a turn too fast," it "responds by ... increasing brake pressure," a determination informed by "the lateral acceleration sensor input." | ¶29 | col.8:18-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Claim Validity: A threshold issue is that asserted claim 1 of the ’475 Patent was canceled during an IPR proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed. This development presents a significant, and potentially fatal, challenge to this count of infringement.
- Technical Questions: Assuming the claim were valid, a question would be whether the accused system's logic for speed reduction meets the claim limitations. The complaint alleges speed reduction when entering a turn "too fast," which may raise questions as to whether this is performed "according to the determination that the vehicle is in the turn" generally, as the patent teaches.
’416 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an adaptive cruise control system for use in controlling a vehicle at a vehicle speed; | The 2018 Ford Edge has an "adaptive cruise control system" that "controls the vehicle speed." | ¶36 | col. 8:49-51 |
| 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 Edge's controller "continuously monitors the vehicle motion" to determine if it is in a curve and, if it "enters a turn too fast," responds by "increasing brake pressure." | ¶37 | col. 8:52-9:2 |
| at least one lateral acceleration sensor for generating a signal... in electrical communication with said controller and operative to detect a change in the vehicle lateral acceleration; | The Edge contains a "lateral accelerometer" that communicates with the vehicle controller, for instance, to "deactivat[e] speed control when requested." | ¶38 | col. 9:3-9 |
| at least one object detection sensor for detecting an object in a vehicle path... 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 Edge's ACC system uses radar as an object detection sensor; the controller determines if an object is in the vehicle's path, including in a curve, and "brakes only if an object is detected 'in the same lane' as the host vehicle." | ¶39 | col. 9:10-19 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A dispute may arise over whether determining an object is "in the same lane" (Compl. ¶39) is equivalent to the claim requirement of determining if it is "in the vehicle path during the turn," which the patent specification suggests involves a more dynamic projection of the vehicle's curved trajectory (’416 Patent, col. 6:45-56).
- Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the controller reduces speed "according to a vehicle position in the turn"? The complaint alleges speed reduction upon entering a turn too fast, but the claim may require a more nuanced response based on whether the vehicle is at the entry, middle, or exit of the turn, as described in the specification (’416 Patent, col. 6:16-29).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’416 Patent
The Term: "according to a vehicle position in the turn" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to infringement. If it is construed broadly to mean simply "while in a turn," the infringement case may be stronger. If construed narrowly to require specific actions based on distinct phases of the turn, the plaintiff's burden of proof increases significantly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not explicitly break down the "position in the turn" into discrete phases. A party could argue it simply means the controller's speed-reduction operation is active when the vehicle's position is within a turn.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed explanation of how a turn can be understood in phases, stating "Curve 500 may be broken into three (3) sections entry section 502, middle section 504 and exit section 506" (’416 Patent, col. 5:35-37). It further teaches that the controller "determines the position of vehicle 302 in the turn" (col. 6:16-19) and reduces speed accordingly, suggesting the "position" is one of these identified phases.
The Term: "ignoring the object for braking purposes" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the "non-threat rejection" feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the mere absence of braking is sufficient, or if an affirmative logical step to "eliminate braking" is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that if an out-of-path object is detected and the system does not apply the brakes, the object has been functionally "ignored for braking purposes," satisfying the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart, Figure 4, shows a distinct step labeled "ELIMINATE BRAKING" (424) that is executed after determining a target is "out of path" (’416 Patent, Fig. 4). This suggests "ignoring" is an explicit command to cancel or prevent a braking action, not merely the lack of one.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Ford's creation and dissemination of "promotional and marketing materials, instructional materials, product manuals, and/or technical materials to its customers," which allegedly encourage infringing use of the ACC systems (Compl. ¶31, ¶41).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of enhanced damages and attorney's fees, which are remedies associated with findings of willful infringement (Compl. ¶42.D). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be post-suit knowledge, as the complaint alleges Ford gained knowledge of the patents "no later than the date this Complaint was served" (Compl. ¶31, ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Impact of IPR: The primary question governing the ’475 patent is procedural: does the post-filing cancellation of the sole asserted claim (Claim 1) in an IPR proceeding render the first count of infringement entirely moot?
Claim Scope: For the surviving ’416 patent, a central issue will be one of definitional scope. Can the phrase "according to a vehicle position in the turn" be satisfied by a system that reduces speed upon entering a turn, or must the system demonstrably identify and react differently to distinct phases of the turn (e.g., entry, middle, exit) as detailed in the patent’s specification?
Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence. Does Ford’s system, which allegedly brakes for objects "in the same lane," perform the specific function of projecting a curved "vehicle path during the turn" and "ignoring" out-of-path objects as required by claim 10? The case may turn on whether Ford’s lane-based logic is technically and legally equivalent to the patent’s path-projection logic.