DCT

1:20-cv-01553

Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v. Automobili Lamborghini Spa

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01553, D. Del., 11/19/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Lamborghini Urus SUV, which features the "ANIMA" driving mode selector, infringes a patent covering Plaintiff's "Terrain Response" vehicle control technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves integrated vehicle control systems where a driver can select a terrain type, causing multiple subsystems like the engine, suspension, and transmission to automatically configure for optimal performance on that surface.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue patent that has previously survived multiple validity challenges. In prior litigation against Bentley Motors (alleged to be a "sister company" to Defendants), the patent was found not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Additionally, two inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Bentley, listing Defendant Audi AG as a real party in interest, were denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The complaint alleges that Defendants had notice of the patent at least as early as July 2018.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-04-18 ’828 Patent Priority Date
2008-03-25 Original '776 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-01 Lamborghini Urus Launch Date (approx.)
2018-05-08 ’828 Reissue Patent Issue Date
2018-07-24 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Audi AG
2019-08-14 First IPR Petition Filed
2019-08-23 Second IPR Petition Filed
2020-02-20 PTAB declines to institute first IPR
2020-03-10 PTAB declines to institute second IPR
2020-11-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,828 - “Vehicle Control,” issued May 8, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of increasing complexity in vehicle control systems. As vehicles gained more adjustable subsystems (e.g., suspension, traction control, transmission), drivers, particularly inexperienced ones, faced a confusing number of choices for configuring the vehicle for different conditions (’828 Patent, col. 1:36-40). Existing integrated systems were often based on driver preference rather than the actual terrain, resulting in "less than optimal stability, handling, and safety performance" (’828 Patent, col. 1:55-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a unified vehicle control system where the driver uses a single input to select the type of driving surface (e.g., grass, sand, rocks). The system then automatically coordinates a plurality of subsystems, setting each to a pre-determined configuration mode that is optimized for that specific surface (’828 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-10). This simplifies the driver's task while providing improved, tailored performance across a wide range of on-road and off-road conditions (’828 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2). Figure 13 of the patent illustrates a rotary knob for selecting modes like "GRASS/GRAVEL/SNOW," "SAND," and "ROCKS" (’828 Patent, Fig. 13).
  • Technical Importance: This technology integrated numerous, disparate vehicle subsystems under a single, intuitive, terrain-based user interface, representing a significant advancement over both manual, one-by-one subsystem adjustments and simple "sport" or "economy" modes (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 21 and 46, among others (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 63).
  • Independent Claim 21: The core elements are:
    • A vehicle control system with a "driver input device for selecting a driving surface".
    • The system controls a "plurality of vehicle subsystems".
    • The system is operable in a "plurality of driving modes" suitable for a respective surface.
    • The modes include "at least two off-road modes" and an "on-road mode".
    • One of the off-road modes is a "sand mode".
  • Independent Claim 46: The core elements are:
    • A vehicle control system with a "driver input device for selecting a driving surface".
    • The system controls a "plurality of vehicle subsystems".
    • The system is operable in a "plurality of driving modes" suitable for a respective surface.
    • The modes include "at least two off-road modes" and an "on-road mode".
    • One of the subsystems is a "speed control system" for descending a hill.
    • The speed control system is "switched on" in at least one off-road mode and "switched off" in the on-road mode.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert various dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Lamborghini Urus SUV and its integrated “ANIMA” (Adaptive Network Intelligent Management) vehicle dynamics control system (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ANIMA system features a driver-operable lever for selecting from multiple driving modes (Compl. ¶ 52). These include on-road modes (“STRADA,” “SPORT,” “CORSA”) and off-road modes (“NEVE” for slippery surfaces, “TERRA” for general off-road, and “SABBIA” for sand) (Compl. ¶ 38). The complaint alleges that selecting a mode adjusts a plurality of vehicle subsystems—including the engine, transmission, steering, suspension, stabilization, differential, and braking—to optimize performance for the selected condition (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 54). The complaint provides a close-up image of the ANIMA selector lever clearly showing the mode options (Compl. p. 16). The Urus is positioned as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's Range Rover models, which feature the patented Terrain Response® technology (Compl. ¶ 38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • RE46,828 Infringement Allegations (Claim 21)
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface... The ANIMA system includes a switch/lever allowing the driver to select a driving mode, such as NEVE (slippery surfaces), SABBIA (sand), or TERRA (off-road). ¶52 col. 19:21-23
the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems... The ANIMA system is alleged to control subsystems including engine, transmission, steering, suspension, stabilization, differential, and braking. ¶54 col. 19:23-26
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... Each ANIMA mode (e.g., NEVE, TERRA, SABBIA) is alleged to configure various vehicle systems to optimize the vehicle's response for the corresponding surface type. ¶57 col. 19:27-31
further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes...and an on-road mode... The ANIMA system provides three on-road modes (STRADA, SPORT, CORSA) and three off-road modes (NEVE, SABBIA, TERRA). ¶59 col. 19:32-38
still further wherein one of the off-road modes is a sand mode in which the vehicle subsystems are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on sand. The ANIMA system's "SABBIA" mode is intended for sandy surfaces and optimizes subsystems for that condition, for example by raising ride height and activating ESC offroad mode. ¶61 col. 19:39-42
  • RE46,828 Infringement Allegations (Claim 46)
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 46) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...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 Lamborghini Urus is equipped with a hill descent control system that "allows you to drive down steep slopes at a constant speed." ¶74 col. 23:13-16
...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 control system is alleged to be automatically activated in the "TERRA" off-road mode. The complaint is silent on whether it is switched off in on-road modes. ¶76 col. 23:17-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the scope of "driver input device for selecting a driving surface." Defendants may argue that the ANIMA selector, which includes performance-style modes like "SPORT" and "CORSA" alongside terrain modes, is fundamentally a "driving style" selector, not a "driving surface" selector as required by the claims. The complaint's visual evidence shows both types of modes on the same interface (Compl. p. 16).
    • Technical Questions: For Claim 46, the complaint alleges the hill descent control is activated in an off-road mode but does not explicitly allege it is switched off in the on-road modes. This raises the evidentiary question of whether the accused system meets this negative limitation, a point that may require proof through discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "driver input device for selecting a driving surface"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory. The patent's asserted point of novelty is the shift from generic "sport" modes to specific "terrain" modes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused ANIMA system co-mingles terrain-specific modes (SABBIA, TERRA) with performance-style modes (SPORT, CORSA). The definition will determine if a "hybrid" selector falls within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers more broadly to selecting modes for a "respective driving condition" (’828 Patent, col. 2:11-12), which could be argued to encompass a wider variety of selections beyond just the physical surface material.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself, the abstract, and the detailed descriptions repeatedly and consistently use the specific words "surface" and "terrain" (’828 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-2; cl. 21). Defendants may argue this specific language limits the claim to devices whose primary and direct function is selecting a physical terrain, not a driving style.

  • The Term: "suitable for"

    • Context and Importance: This term, which appears throughout the asserted claims (e.g., "manner suitable for a respective driving surface"), defines the required relationship between the selected mode and the vehicle's configuration. Practitioners may focus on this term as a potential point of attack for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, despite its survival in prior litigation (Compl. ¶ 13).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., Definite): The specification provides detailed examples of what configurations are "suitable for" different surfaces. For instance, it describes specific subsystem settings for driving on a motorway versus a country road, and for off-road conditions like sand or rocks (’828 Patent, Figs. 5-6; col. 10:7-13; col. 12:4-10). Plaintiff will argue this provides an objective standard for a person skilled in the art.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., Indefinite): The term itself is one of degree. Defendants may argue that without explicit numerical parameters in the claims, the boundary of what is "suitable" is subjective and depends on the opinion of a particular engineer, rendering the claim scope insolubly ambiguous.

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 the Lamborghini Urus Owner's Handbook as evidence of how the ANIMA system operates, which could be framed as instructions for users to perform the infringing method of using the system (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 57, 74).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that JLR sent a letter to Defendant Audi AG on July 24, 2018, notifying it of the ’828 patent and its alleged infringement by the Lamborghini Urus (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 79). The continued sale of the Urus after this date is alleged to be willful and deliberate.

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

  1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the phrase "driver input device for selecting a driving surface," which is rooted in the patent's focus on physical terrain, be construed to cover the accused ANIMA selector, which integrates terrain-based modes with performance-style modes? The resolution of this question may determine whether the accused product falls within the scope of the claims at all.
  2. Endurance of Validity: The '828 patent has a strong procedural history, having survived a § 101 challenge and denial of two IPR petitions. A key question is whether Defendants can present new arguments or evidence on validity, particularly regarding indefiniteness of terms like "suitable for", to achieve a different outcome than the one reached in the prior Bentley litigation.
  3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The infringement case for at least one asserted claim (Claim 46) appears to rest on a negative limitation—that a feature is "switched off" in certain modes. A key question will be whether discovery yields sufficient evidence to prove this operational fact, highlighting that the outcome may depend not just on legal interpretation but on the technical minutiae of the accused system's software and operation.