Wildcat Licensing Wi LLC v. Lear Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wildcat Licensing WI LLC (Wisconsin)
  • Defendant: Lear Corporation (Delaware) and Lear Automotive Manufacturing, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00845, D. Del., 05/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and have offered to sell and sold infringing products in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ methods and systems for assembling automotive components infringe patents related to error-proofing technology that ensures fasteners are applied with the correct torque and in the correct sequence.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for high-reliability assembly in mass-manufacturing environments, particularly in the automotive industry, to prevent costly and dangerous structural failures caused by operator error.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are narrowing reissues of two original patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,831 and 6,763,573). Claims of the original patents were invalidated in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The complaint states the patent owner subsequently amended the claims in reissue proceedings to distinguish over the prior art from the IPRs, and that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed the reissue patents to issue over that same art. This history suggests the scope of the asserted claims may be interpreted narrowly, constrained by the arguments made during the reissue prosecution to overcome the invalidity findings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-11-19	Priority Date for ’220 and ’232 Patents
2014-01-01	Approx. date of IPR proceedings against original patents (inferred from IPR numbers)
2019-02-05	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. RE47,220
2019-02-12	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. RE47,232
2019-05-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,220 - "Method for Monitoring Proper Fastening of an Article of Assembly at More Than One Location"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In high-volume assembly lines, such as for automotive seats, human operators may incorrectly fasten components by applying the wrong torque, fastening the same screw twice, or fastening screws in the wrong order (Compl. ¶4; ’220 Patent, col. 2:13-35). These systems could be "tricked" intentionally or unintentionally, leading to improperly assembled products that risk structural failure (Compl. ¶4; ’220 Patent, col. 2:26-35).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to "fool-proof" the assembly process. It involves holding an article (e.g., a car seat) in a fixture and using a fastening tool whose position is electronically monitored relative to the article (Compl. ¶5; ’220 Patent, col. 3:11-29). An electronic controller contains pre-programmed data on the correct location, sequence, and torque for each fastener. The system enables the tool only when it is at the correct location for the current step in the sequence and verifies that the correct torque is applied before allowing the operator to proceed (’220 Patent, col. 13:36-14:52). This ensures that each fastening operation is performed correctly and in the proper order.
• Technical Importance: The method provides a reliable way to enforce both sequence and torque requirements in a manual assembly process, reducing the risk of human error in critical manufacturing operations without sacrificing efficiency (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 31 (Compl. ¶31).
• Essential elements of claim 31 include:
  • Providing physically separate components that are structurally designed to require a specific assembly sequence to reduce the risk of structural failure.
  • Holding the components in a predetermined position to form a "single process site."
  • Manually fastening fasteners with a tool.
  • Providing an electronic controller with pre-stored data representing the location and required sequence for at least a first and second fastener.
  • Sensing the position of the fastening tool.
  • Electronically comparing the sensed position to the stored location data and using the stored order data to enable the tool only when it conforms to the predetermined sequence.
  • Verifying that a predetermined torque value is met for the first fastener before allowing the operator to insert the second fastener.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’220 Patent.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,232 - "Assembly System for Monitoring Proper Fastening of an Article of Assembly at More Than One Location"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The problem is identical to that described in the ’220 Patent: preventing operator error in high-volume, multi-fastener assembly operations (Compl. ¶4; ’232 Patent, col. 2:12-36).
• The Patented Solution: The ’232 Patent claims the physical system that performs the error-proofing method. The system comprises a fixture to hold the components, a fastening tool, at least one sensor to track the tool's position, and an electronic controller (’232 Patent, col. 17:1-12). The controller is programmed with a sequence that compares the tool's sensed position to stored data for fastener locations, enabling the tool only when it is in the correct place at the correct time in the sequence and, in certain embodiments, only after verifying correct torque application (’232 Patent, col. 17:44-18:52).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides the physical apparatus for implementing a reliable, automated check on a manual assembly process, ensuring quality control is integrated directly into the manufacturing step itself (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 26 (Compl. ¶59).
• Essential elements of claim 26 include:
  • First and second physically separate components structurally designed to require a specific assembly sequence.
  • A fixture to hold the components.
  • A fastening tool.
  • At least one sensor providing an output indicating when the tool is at the first and second fastening locations.
  • An electronic controller with stored location and order data for the fasteners.
  • A pre-determined sequence program in the controller that monitors the sequence, compares the sensed tool position to stored data, enables the tool based on the correct sequence, and verifies that correct torque is applied at each step before allowing the next step.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’232 Patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "Defendants' Assembly Operations" and "Defendants' Assembly Systems" used to manufacture and assemble automotive components, such as seats (Compl. ¶29, ¶59-60).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants, as major suppliers to automotive companies like Ford Motor Company and FCA US LLC, are required to use "error and/or mistake proofing techniques" in their manufacturing processes (Compl. ¶34, ¶36). A screenshot from Ford's "Customer-Specific Requirements" notes that for critical parts, "the organization shall prevent the shipment of non-conforming product," which is typically accomplished using such error-proofing techniques (Compl. ¶34, p. 10). A similar requirement for "Error Proofing Verification (EPV) audits" is cited for FCA suppliers (Compl. ¶36, p. 11). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Defendants meet these requirements by using assembly systems, including tooling from suppliers like Atlas Copco, that control both fastening torque and sequence (Compl. ¶38, ¶40). The accused functionality involves an operator using a fastening tool on a torque arm, where a control system tracks the tool's position, enables the tool only when it is in the correct location for a given sequence step, and provides visual feedback (e.g., blue for correct position, green for successful fastening, red for out-of-position) to the operator (Compl. ¶49-50, ¶78-79).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE47,220 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
...providing at least first and second physically separate components that, when assembled together, form at least a portion of the article of assembly...	Defendants assemble automotive seats from separate components, such as a seat back and a seat track (Compl. ¶41).	¶41	col. 13:6-9
...wherein the article of assembly is structurally designed so that the first and second fastening locations are positioned...such that a fastener must be inserted in the first fastening location before a fastener is inserted in the second...to reduce the risk of structural failure...	Defendants' components are allegedly structurally designed to require a specific fastening sequence to prevent structural failure (Compl. ¶44).	¶44	col. 13:20-29
...holding the first and second components...in a predetermined position...to form the single process site;	Defendants' assembly operations allegedly hold the components together in a fixture to form a process site (Compl. ¶45).	¶45	col. 13:30-34
...manually fastening fasteners into the first and second fastening locations...using a fastening tool;	An operator for Defendants' assembly operations allegedly uses a fastening tool, such as a torque arm, to manually fasten fasteners (Compl. ¶46).	¶46	col. 13:35-38
...providing an electronic controller having stored in a memory thereof...data representative of the location of the first...location...together with first order data...and...data representative of the location of the second...location...together with second order data...	Defendants allegedly provide an electronic controller where location data and sequence data are stored before the operator begins fastening (Compl. ¶47-48).	¶47-48	col. 13:39-55
...sensing the position of the fastening tool;	Defendants allegedly provide one or more sensors on a reaction arm to sense the position of the fastening tool (Compl. ¶48).	¶48	col. 13:61
...electronically comparing the sensed position...with the data representative of the location...and then using the order data...to ensure the operator's use of the fastening tool conforms to the predetermined sequence...	Defendants' operations allegedly compare the sensed tool position to the stored location data and use the order data to enable the tool only when it conforms to the sequence (Compl. ¶49). Visual feedback on a display allegedly confirms this process (Compl. ¶50, p. 21).	¶49	col. 13:62-14:21
...requiring that the torque applied to the fastener located in the first fastening location equal the first predetermined torque value before the operator is allowed to insert a fastener in the second fastening location...	Defendants' operations allegedly measure the torque at the first location and require it to equal a predetermined value before allowing the operator to proceed to the second location (Compl. ¶52).	¶52	col. 14:38-46

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendants' assembly of a car seat constitutes a "single process site" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue that different fastening operations on the same seat are distinct processes, not part of a single, integrated one.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on marketing materials from Atlas Copco, a tool supplier, to describe the functionality of Defendants' internal assembly systems (Compl. ¶38-40). A key question for the court will be whether the functionality described in these third-party materials is actually implemented in the specific assembly operations used by Lear. Plaintiff alleges this "on information and belief," and further evidence will be required to substantiate that Lear's systems perform the specific comparison and enabling steps as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "single process site" (asserted in ’220 Claim 31 and ’232 Claim 26)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical and operational scope of the invention. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused assembly operations, which may involve fastening multiple, physically separate areas of a large component like a car seat, fall within the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will determine if the patent covers the entire assembly of an article or is limited to a smaller, localized cluster of fasteners.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in the context of an "assembly station" (e.g., ’220 Patent, col. 4:3-4) and assembling an "article of assembly" like an automotive seat (e.g., ’220 Patent, col. 4:1-2), which could support a construction covering all fastening operations for a given component at that station.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "a single set of discrete portions of the first and second components, when placed together, form a single process site" (’220 Patent, col. 13:10-13). This language, combined with the IPR and reissue history, may support a narrower construction limited to a specific interface or sub-assembly where a group of related fasteners is located, rather than the entire article of assembly.

• The Term: "electronically comparing the sensed position of the fastening tool with the data representative of the location" (’220 Claim 31)

• Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the claimed logic. The dispute will turn on what level of comparison is required. Is a simple check that the tool is within a predefined zone sufficient, or does the claim require a more sophisticated comparison of specific coordinate data? The answer will determine if general "error-proofing" systems read on the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general description of monitoring tool position (e.g., ’220 Patent, col. 6:15-18) could be argued to encompass any electronic check of the tool's location relative to a target zone.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flow chart (e.g., ’220 Patent, Fig. 4) details a specific logical process of determining if the "Tool [is] at a fastening location?" (element 108), which implies a discrete, location-specific check rather than a general proximity alert. The claim's language of comparing "sensed position" with "data representative of the location" may also suggest a more direct data-to-data comparison.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement "by way of instructing suppliers to practice the claimed invention" (Compl. ¶54, ¶83). The basis for this allegation is not further detailed.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents and their infringement "since at least service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶54, ¶83). This establishes a basis for potential post-filing willfulness.

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

• A central evidentiary issue will be one of attribution and practice: Can Plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that Lear's internal, proprietary assembly systems and methods actually perform the specific, multi-step monitoring, comparison, and verification logic recited in the claims, or will its case rely primarily on the functionality of third-party tools (e.g., from Atlas Copco) that Lear may or may not have fully implemented?
• The case will also turn on a question of claim scope shaped by prosecution history: Given that the patents-in-suit are narrowing reissues of patents whose original claims were found invalid in IPRs, a key question is how narrowly the court will construe terms like "single process site." The outcome will likely depend on the arguments the patentee made to the USPTO to distinguish the reissued claims from the prior art that invalidated the originals.
• A key technical question will be one of functional specificity: Does the "error-proofing" allegedly used by Lear perform the specific functions recited in the claims—namely, sequentially enabling the tool based on its position and requiring a specific torque value to be met before allowing the next step—or does it perform a more general function (e.g., checking that all bolts are present and torqued at the end of the process) that falls outside the claim scope?