DCT
1:20-cv-01552
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Audi of America, LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jaguar Land Rover Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Audi of America, LLC (Delaware); Audi AG (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01552, D. Del., 11/19/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant Audi of America, LLC being a Delaware limited liability company and both defendants conducting continuous and systemic business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Audi drive select" system, available in certain SUV and Allroad models, infringes a patent related to vehicle control systems that coordinate multiple subsystems for performance on different driving surfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced vehicle control systems that allow a driver to select a driving mode (e.g., for off-road terrain), which then automatically optimizes various subsystems like suspension, transmission, and traction control.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE46,828, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776. The complaint notes that the patent’s validity has been subject to multiple challenges. It reportedly survived a 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility challenge in separate litigation against Bentley Motors. Additionally, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute two separate inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Bentley Motors (listing Audi AG as a real party in interest) that challenged the patent’s validity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-04-18 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE46,828 |
| 2004-01-01 | JLR's Terrain Response® technology first introduced (approx. date) |
| 2008-03-25 | Original U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776 Issued |
| 2018-05-08 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,828 Issued |
| 2018-07-24 | JLR sends letter to Audi AG alleging infringement |
| 2019-08-14 | First IPR Petition (IPR2019-01502) filed against '828 Patent |
| 2019-08-23 | Second IPR Petition (IPR2019-01539) filed against '828 Patent |
| 2020-02-20 | PTAB denies institution of first IPR |
| 2020-03-10 | PTAB denies institution of second IPR |
| 2020-11-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,828 - “Vehicle Control,” May 8, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As vehicle control systems (e.g., transmission, suspension, steering, braking) became more numerous and individually configurable, drivers—particularly those with less experience—faced increasing complexity and confusion when trying to optimize vehicle performance for different on-road and off-road conditions (’828 Patent, col. 1:36-42; Compl. ¶22). Existing integrated systems allegedly did not provide the driver with the ability to offer "direct input regarding the surface terrain" to select the appropriate subsystem configurations, leading to "less than optimal stability, handling, and safety performance" (’828 Patent, col. 1:51-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a centralized vehicle control system where the driver uses a simple input device, such as a rotary knob, to select a mode corresponding to the current driving surface (e.g., "sand," "rock crawl," "mud") (’828 Patent, col. 9:56-63, Fig. 13). A vehicle mode controller then automatically coordinates and adjusts a plurality of vehicle subsystems to a pre-programmed state that is suitable for that selected surface, simplifying a complex task for the driver (’828 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-10).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to make sophisticated off-road capabilities more accessible and effective for a wider range of drivers by translating a single, intuitive driver input into a complex, coordinated, multi-system vehicle response (Compl. ¶15, 20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 41 and 46, among others (Compl. ¶47, 63). The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶27-29, 42).
- Independent Claim 41:
- A vehicle control system with a driver input device for selecting a driving surface.
- The system is arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems, each operable in multiple configuration modes.
- The system is operable in multiple driving modes, each arranging subsystem configurations in a manner "suitable for a respective driving surface."
- The driving modes include at least two off-road modes and an on-road mode.
- One of the subsystems is a suspension subsystem.
- In a second off-road mode, the suspension system provides a higher ride height than in a first off-road mode.
- Independent Claim 46:
- A vehicle control system with a driver input device for selecting a driving surface.
- The system is arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems, each operable in multiple configuration modes.
- The system is operable in multiple driving modes, each arranging subsystem configurations in a manner "suitable for a respective driving surface."
- The driving modes include at least two off-road modes and an on-road mode.
- One of the subsystems is a speed control system "arranged to control the speed of the vehicle when descending a hill."
- The speed control system is arranged to be switched on in at least one off-road mode and switched off in the on-road mode.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the Audi Q7, Q8, Q5, A6 Allroad, and e-tron vehicle models equipped with the "Audi drive select" system (Compl. ¶6, 37).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Audi drive select" system is alleged to be a vehicle control system that allows the driver to select from a plurality of driving modes, including "Comfort," "Auto," "Dynamic," "Individual," "Offroad," "Allroad," and "Offroad/Lift" (Compl. ¶53, 55). Upon selection, the system adjusts multiple vehicle subsystems, such as the engine, transmission, air suspension, steering, and adaptive cruise control, to alter the vehicle's driving characteristics (Compl. ¶38, 53). The complaint alleges that the "Allroad" and "Offroad/Lift" modes are off-road modes that raise the vehicle's suspension height for increased ground clearance (Compl. ¶58, 60). The complaint further alleges the accused products include a "Hill descent assist" system that activates in an off-road mode to control vehicle speed on a hill (Compl. ¶72, 74). This screenshot from an Audi Q7 brochure illustrates the various modes, including two that raise suspension height for off-road driving (Compl. ¶53).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,828 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 41)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 41) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface... | The "Audi drive select" system allows the driver to select different driving characteristics based on the road encountered. This is allegedly done via controls on the center console or infotainment system. | ¶51 | col. 9:56-63 |
| ...the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes... | The system allegedly controls subsystems including suspension, steering, throttle, and transmission, each of which can be adjusted. This screenshot from an Audi brochure describes how modes affect multiple subsystems (Compl. ¶53). | ¶53 | col. 2:4-7 |
| ...wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface... | The system allegedly provides up to seven selectable modes (e.g., Comfort, Auto, Dynamic, Offroad, Allroad) that create a "tailored drive" for the driver. This screenshot from Audi's website shows the mode selection interface (Compl. ¶55). | ¶55 | col. 2:7-10 |
| ...further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes... and an on-road mode... | The system allegedly includes at least two off-road modes ("allroad" and "offroad/lift") and on-road modes (e.g., "Comfort," "Dynamic"). The off-road modes are described as suitable for "rough terrain" or "difficult stretches of road" (Compl. ¶58). | ¶58 | col. 4:18-22 |
| ...still further wherein one of the subsystems is a suspension subsystem and, in a second off-road mode, the suspension system is arranged to provide a higher ride height than in a first off-road mode. | The accused "Audi adaptive air suspension" is a subsystem. The "offroad/lift" mode allegedly provides a higher ride height (+60 mm) than the "allroad" mode (+25 mm), as shown in this screenshot from an Audi brochure (Compl. ¶60). | ¶60, 61 | col. 4:11-14 |
RE46,828 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 46)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 46) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface... | The "Audi drive select" system provides a driver input to adjust the vehicle's driving characteristics (Compl. ¶66). | ¶66 | col. 9:56-63 |
| ...the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems... wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface... | The system allegedly controls subsystems like suspension, power steering, and adaptive cruise control across various on-road and off-road modes (Compl. ¶68). | ¶68 | col. 2:4-10 |
| ...further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes... and an on-road mode... | The system allegedly includes "allroad" and "offroad/lift" modes for off-road surfaces and other modes for on-road driving (Compl. ¶70). | ¶70 | col. 4:18-22 |
| ...still further wherein one of the subsystems is a speed control system arranged to control the speed of the vehicle when descending a hill... | The Accused Products allegedly include a "hill descent assist system" that "makes it possible to drive down a hill at a constant speed." This screenshot from an owner's manual describes the feature (Compl. ¶72). | ¶72 | col. 3:11-13 |
| ...and wherein the speed control system is arranged to be switched on in at least one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on-road mode. | The "Hill Descent Assist" allegedly switches on automatically when the driver selects the "offroad mode" in the Audi drive select system (Compl. ¶74). | ¶74 | col. 4:46-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "selecting a driving surface." The patent appears to contemplate selection of physical terrain types (e.g., "sand," "mud," "rocks"), whereas the accused "Audi drive select" system includes modes based on driving style (e.g., "Comfort," "Dynamic"). The case may turn on whether a style-based mode like "Comfort" can be considered a selection of a "driving surface" (e.g., a paved road) within the patent's scope.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for Claim 46 will raise the question of whether Audi's "Hill descent assist" functions in the specific manner required by the claim. The claim requires the subsystem to be "arranged to control the speed of the vehicle when descending a hill." The evidence presented in the complaint will need to be compared against the specific operational details taught in the patent specification to determine if there is a technical match.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "driving surface"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of both asserted independent claims and is foundational to the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused system, which includes modes like "Comfort" and "Dynamic" alongside "Offroad" and "Allroad," falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to mean only physical off-road terrain types (e.g., sand, mud), infringement allegations based on Audi's on-road or style-based modes could be weakened.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses on-road modes, such as a "motorway mode" and a "country road mode," which are not physical materials but rather types of driving environments (’828 Patent, col. 4:56-65). This could support an argument that "driving surface" encompasses general driving conditions beyond just off-road terrain.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses specific, physical terrain types as primary examples, such as "grass mode," "sand mode," "boulder or rock crawl mode," and "mud mode" (’828 Patent, col. 10:1-4). The driver input knob depicted in Figure 13 explicitly labels selections like "SAND," "ROCKS," and "MUD/RUTS," which could support a narrower construction limited to selectable physical terrains.
The Term: "suitable for"
Context and Importance: This term of degree appears throughout the claims to link the selected subsystem configurations to the selected driving surface. The complaint notes that the related term "suitable" survived a validity challenge in prior litigation, signaling its potential importance (Compl. ¶12). The definition of "suitable for" is critical because it sets the standard for how well the accused system's pre-set configurations must match the needs of a given driving surface to infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a precise quantitative definition of "suitable," which may suggest it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as being fit or appropriate for a particular purpose. The specification describes a wide range of configuration settings for different modes, implying that "suitable" is a relative term dependent on the overall goal for that mode (e.g., stability on ice vs. traction in mud) (’828 Patent, col. 10-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term is defined by the specific examples in the patent. For instance, a configuration is "suitable for" sand only if it implements the specific combination of throttle response, wheel spin allowance, and braking described for the "sand mode" in the specification (’828 Patent, col. 4:30-42; col. 11:4-10). This would require a more stringent, feature-by-feature match to prove infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges facts that may support a claim for induced infringement. It repeatedly cites Audi's owner's manuals, brochures, and website, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the "drive select" system in a way that infringes the ’828 Patent (Compl. ¶51, 53, 58, 60, 72, 74).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Audi had pre-suit knowledge of the ’828 patent and its alleged infringement at least as early as July 24, 2018, based on a letter JLR sent to Audi AG (Compl. ¶11, 77). The complaint also notes that Audi AG was a real party in interest to the two unsuccessful IPR petitions, further alleging knowledge (Compl. ¶12). This alleged knowledge is the basis for the claim of willful and deliberate infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be whether the claim term "driving surface" can be construed to read on the driving "modes" offered by the accused Audi system. The case may hinge on whether selections like "Comfort" or "Dynamic," which relate to driving style and environment, legally constitute a selection of a "driving surface" as contemplated by a patent that heavily emphasizes physical off-road terrains like sand, mud, and rocks.
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key factual question will be whether the technical operation of Audi's subsystems in each accused mode performs the functions required by the claims. For example, does the ride height differential between Audi's "Allroad" and "Offroad/Lift" modes satisfy the "higher ride height" limitation of Claim 41, and does the "Hill descent assist" meet all functional and operational requirements of the "speed control system" in Claim 46? This will require a detailed, evidence-based comparison of the two systems.
- Impact of Patent Resilience: The patent-in-suit enters this litigation having survived multiple substantive challenges, including a § 101 motion and two PTAB institution decisions where Audi was a real party in interest. A central strategic question is how this history will influence the litigation, potentially limiting the scope of viable invalidity defenses and impacting the parties' risk assessment and settlement calculus.