DCT
1:20-cv-01554
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v. Porsche Cars North America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jaguar Land Rover Limited (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Delaware) and Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP
- Case Identification: Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-01554, D. Del., 11/19/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.'s incorporation in Delaware and its business activities within the state, including the sale of the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Porsche Cayenne vehicles, which feature selectable off-road driving modes, infringe a patent related to integrated vehicle control systems for various terrains.
- Technical Context: The technology involves a centralized vehicle control system that allows a driver to select a terrain type (e.g., sand, mud, snow), which then automatically coordinates multiple vehicle subsystems to optimize performance for that specific condition.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776, has previously survived validity challenges. Specifically, it alleges that in separate litigation against Bentley Motors, the patent was found patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It also states that two inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Bentley, which listed Defendant Porsche AG as a real party in interest, were denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patent family as early as September 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-04-18 | Earliest Priority Date for RE46,828 Patent |
| 2004-10-09 | Plaintiff's Terrain Response® technology first introduced |
| 2008-03-25 | Original U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776 issues |
| 2017-09-29 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of patent family |
| 2018-05-08 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,828 issues |
| 2019-08-14 | First IPR petition filed against the ’828 Patent (IPR2019-01502) |
| 2019-08-23 | Second IPR petition filed against the ’828 Patent (IPR2019-01539) |
| 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"
- Issued: May 8, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem arising from the increasing number of independently controllable subsystems in modern vehicles (e.g., transmission, suspension, stability control). As these systems proliferate, it becomes complex and confusing for a driver to manually select the optimal configuration for each subsystem to suit different driving surfaces, which can lead to "less than optimal stability, handling, and safety performance" ('828 Patent, col. 1:55-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides an integrated vehicle control system with a user input, such as a rotary knob, that allows the driver to select a single driving mode corresponding to the current terrain (e.g., "grass/gravel/snow," "sand," "rock crawl") ('828 Patent, Fig. 13). A central vehicle mode controller then automatically and coordinately adjusts the operating parameters of multiple subsystems to a pre-configured state "suitable for a respective driving surface" ('828 Patent, col. 2:6-12). This simplifies the driver's task while optimizing vehicle performance for specific on-road and off-road conditions ('828 Patent, col. 9:44-59).
- Technical Importance: This approach unified the control of disparate vehicle systems, moving away from individual adjustments to a holistic, mode-based system that made advanced off-road capabilities more accessible and effective (Compl. ¶20, ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 21 and 41, among others (Compl. ¶47).
- Independent Claim 21: Its essential elements include:
- 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.
- The system is operable in a plurality of driving modes, each arranged to select subsystem configurations "suitable for a respective driving surface."
- The driving 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 41: Its essential elements are similar to claim 21, but with a different final limitation:
- 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.
- The system is operable in a plurality of driving modes, each arranged to select subsystem configurations "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, 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 complaint reserves the right to assert various dependent claims (Compl. ¶47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Porsche Cayenne vehicles (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products feature a driving mode system, operated via the Porsche Communication Management (PCM) touch screen, that allows the driver to select from several on-road and off-road driving modes (Compl. ¶37, ¶51). The complaint includes an image from the Cayenne Owner's Manual showing the menu for "Off-road Driving Programs," which lists "GRAVEL," "MUD," "SAND," and "ROCKS" as available modes (Compl. p. 16).
- Upon selection of a mode, the system allegedly adjusts multiple vehicle subsystems, including the engine, transmission, Porsche Active Suspension Management (PASM), and Porsche Stability Management (PSM), to "improve performance on different off-road driving surfaces" (Compl. ¶38, ¶54). An image from the vehicle's touch screen display shows the interface for selecting these modes (Compl. p. 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,828 Patent 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 Porsche Cayenne includes a Porsche Traction Management system with an LCD touch screen, allowing the driver to select a driving mode. The complaint provides an image from the owner's manual illustrating the "Selecting driving program" interface. | ¶51; p. 16 | col. 9:59-63 |
| ...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 Cayenne's system allegedly adapts multiple drive and chassis systems, including the engine, transmission, PTM, PASM (suspension), and PSM (stability/braking). These subsystems are operable in different configurations (e.g., PASM has Medium, High, and Terrain height levels). | ¶53-56 | col. 2:4-6 |
| ...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 Cayenne offers four "Off-road Driving Programs" (Gravel, Mud, Sand, Rocks), each described as "Suitable for" a specific type of terrain, which allegedly arranges subsystems accordingly. | ¶57-58 | col. 2:7-12 |
| ...further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes... and an on-road mode... | The Cayenne allegedly includes multiple off-road modes ("SAND," "ROCKS") and standard on-road modes. The complaint includes a screenshot from the owner's manual showing "On-road Driving Programs." | ¶59-61; p. 21 | col. 4:19-22 |
| ...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 Cayenne allegedly includes an off-road program labeled "SAND," which is described in the owner's manual as being suitable "for driving in deep sand." | ¶62-63 | col. 4:30-33 |
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 vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems... operable in a plurality of driving modes... | The allegations for these elements are identical to those for Claim 21, citing the Cayenne's PCM touch screen and its control over subsystems like the engine, transmission, and suspension across various on-road and off-road modes. | ¶67-76 | col. 2:3-12 |
| ...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 Cayenne's Porsche Active Suspension Management (PASM) is identified as the suspension subsystem. The complaint alleges that the "ROCKS" mode (the "second off-road mode") results in a ground clearance increase of 2.2 inches, while the "SAND" mode (the "first off-road mode") results in a clearance increase of 1.0 inch, thus providing a higher ride height in the second mode. | ¶77-78 | col. 4:10-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "suitable for," as used in the claims, requires the accused system to implement the specific operational strategies described in the ’828 Patent's specification (e.g., specific throttle mapping or wheel spin controls for sand), or if simply labeling a mode "Sand" and making general adjustments is sufficient to meet the limitation.
- Technical Questions: For Claim 41, the infringement allegation rests on a specific factual comparison of ride heights between two different off-road modes. While the complaint cites the owner's manual, discovery will likely focus on the actual software implementation and vehicle behavior to confirm that the "ROCKS" mode consistently provides a higher ride height than the "SAND" mode, and how the system defines "first" and "second" off-road modes.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "suitable for a respective driving surface"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it links the driver's selection of a mode to a specific functional outcome for the vehicle's subsystems. The dispute may turn on how "suitable" is defined. Practitioners may focus on this term because its potential ambiguity could be a key non-infringement or invalidity argument for the defendant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract and summary suggest a broad goal of providing "improved control of the vehicle on a broader range of surfaces," which could support an interpretation where any reasonable configuration for a named terrain is "suitable" ('828 Patent, col. 1:62-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides highly specific examples of what makes a configuration "suitable" for a given terrain, such as allowing "only relatively low levels of wheel spin" at low speeds in sand mode ('828 Patent, col. 4:32-38). A party could argue the term should be limited to configurations that achieve these specific, disclosed technical effects.
The Term: "driver input device for selecting a driving surface"
- Context and Importance: This term in the preamble establishes the driver-initiated nature of the claimed invention. Its construction is important to distinguish the claimed system from fully automatic terrain-sensing systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the driving modes can be selected by a "driver input 99 which takes the form of a rotary knob," but also mentions a "touch screen, or a number of push buttons" as alternatives, suggesting the specific form of the input device is not limiting ('828 Patent, col. 9:59-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the core of the invention is a direct, manual selection of a "driving surface" itself, and that a complex menu system that selects "programs" rather than literal "surfaces" falls outside the scope. The patent consistently describes the input as selecting a mode corresponding to a terrain or condition ('828 Patent, Fig. 13).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint contains factual allegations that could support a claim for induced infringement. It repeatedly cites the Porsche Cayenne Owner's Manual, which allegedly instructs drivers on how to use the accused multimode driving system, thereby encouraging the performance of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶51, ¶54, ¶58).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful and deliberate. This is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent family, stemming from communications Plaintiff sent to Defendant on or about September 29, 2017, and Defendant's continued infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶11, ¶81).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "suitable for a respective driving surface" be met by a system that offers a mode with a corresponding name (e.g., "Sand"), or must the system also implement the specific technical adjustments and achieve the functional outcomes detailed in the '828 patent's specification for that surface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the actual operation of the Porsche Cayenne's software and hardware, particularly its suspension height adjustments in different off-road modes, correspond directly to the specific limitations of the asserted claims? The complaint's evidence from user manuals creates a strong inference, but the underlying technical reality will be determinative.
- A significant strategic question will be the impact of prior proceedings: Given that the '828 patent's validity has been tested in prior litigation and unsuccessful IPR petitions involving Defendant as a real party in interest, the scope of available invalidity defenses may be constrained, potentially focusing the case more sharply on the questions of infringement and damages.