DCT

1:22-cv-00293

Stragent LLC v. Volvo Car USA LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00293, D. Del., 03/04/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automobiles containing electronic control units (ECUs) compliant with the AUTOSAR standard infringe four patents related to systems for sharing information across distributed frameworks in vehicles.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for managing data communication between numerous, distinct electronic modules within a modern vehicle that operate on different network protocols.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents were previously asserted against Defendant's parent company in a pending case in the same district. It also discloses that third parties (BMW and Mercedes-Benz) filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against all four patents-in-suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted institution of review for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,248,477, but denied institution for the other three asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-12-17 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2017-07-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,705,765 Issues
2017-07-11 Start of Alleged Infringing Period for Accused Instrumentalities
2018-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036 Issues
2018-06-22 Plaintiff allegedly sends notice letter to Defendant regarding the ’790, ’036, and ’765 Patents
2018-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790 Issues
2019-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,248,477 Issues
2021-01-21 IPR Petitions filed against all four Patents-in-Suit by third parties
2021-07-19 PTAB grants institution of IPR for the ’477 Patent
2021-07-19 PTAB denies/rejects institution of IPRs for the ’790, ’036, and ’765 Patents
2022-03-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,248,477 - System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,248,477, "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework," issued April 2, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of managing data in distributed control and monitoring systems, such as those in modern vehicles, where numerous electronic control units (ECUs) must communicate and share information despite operating on different, heterogeneous networks (e.g., FlexRay, CAN) with distinct protocols and temporal behaviors (’036 Patent, col. 1:22-31, col. 3:37-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "layered system" that uses a central data repository, described as a "bulletin board," to act as an intermediary for information sharing (’036 Patent, col. 1:33-45). Instead of communicating directly, processes on different networks post information to and retrieve information from this shared bulletin board. This architecture decouples the processes from the specific timing and protocol characteristics of the various networks, simplifying data exchange and system management (’036 Patent, col. 2:19-23, col. 5:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a standardized method for managing data flow in increasingly complex automotive systems, where components from different suppliers using different network standards must work together reliably and in real-time.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Claim 23 Elements:
    • A layered system for sharing information in an automobile vehicle.
    • The system includes an automotive electronic control unit (ECU) with memory, a processor, and various software layers (OS, hardware abstraction layer, middleware, memory manager).
    • The system receives information (a packet data unit) from a first physical network (e.g., FlexRay, CAN, LIN).
    • It issues a storage resource request and determines if a resource is available.
    • If available, it stores the information.
    • It shares the stored information with heterogeneous processes, including at least one process associated with a second physical network that uses a different protocol than the first.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 26 and 27 (Compl. ¶16).

U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790 - System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790, "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework," issued July 24, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As described for the ’477 Patent, the invention targets the challenge of real-time data exchange among heterogeneous electronic systems in a vehicle (’036 Patent, col. 1:22-31).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a specific apparatus and method for managing access to the shared data storage ("storage resource"). The invention specifies a sequence of operations: identifying incoming information, issuing a request for a storage resource, determining the resource's availability against a threshold, storing the information if available, and then sharing it on a different network, with the sharing occurring in "less than one millisecond" (’790 Patent, claim 1). This focuses on the speed and managed access control of the information-sharing process.
  • Technical Importance: Claiming a sub-millisecond sharing time and a formal resource request process addresses the critical need for deterministic, high-speed, and non-conflicting data access in safety-critical automotive applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 1 Elements (Apparatus):
    • An automotive ECU with a processor and memory.
    • It identifies information from a message on a Flexray network.
    • It issues a storage resource request and determines availability.
    • It determines if a threshold has been reached for the request.
    • If not available and threshold not reached, it issues another request.
    • If not available and threshold reached, it sends a notification.
    • If available, it stores the information.
    • It shares the information in less than one millisecond using a Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol.
  • Claim 15 Elements (Apparatus):
    • Similar to claim 1, but the inbound network is CAN and the outbound network is Flexray.
  • The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶23).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036 - System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036, "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework," issued June 19, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the same core "bulletin board" information-sharing technology. The asserted claims focus on an apparatus (an ECU) that receives information via a first network protocol (Flexray), stores it, and shares it via a second protocol (CAN), remaining in hardwired communication with both networks and utilizing distinct interface layers for each.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 102 are asserted (Compl. ¶32).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the ECUs in Volvo vehicles that operate according to AUTOSAR 4.x.x standards and are connected to both FlexRay and CAN networks (Compl. ¶10, ¶32).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,705,765 - System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,705,765, "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework," issued July 11, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also covers the core information-sharing technology. Asserted claims describe an apparatus (an ECU) that manages access to a storage resource and shares information between a CAN network and a Flexray network in under one second.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 12 and 24 are asserted (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the ECUs in specified Volvo models that allegedly implement the claimed information sharing functionality between their connected networks in compliance with AUTOSAR standards (Compl. ¶10, ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Volvo automobiles sold or imported into the U.S. since July 11, 2017, including models such as the XC60, XC90, XC40, S90, V60, V90, and S60 (Compl. ¶3, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these vehicles contain electronic control units (ECUs) connected via both Controller Area Network (CAN) and FlexRay networks (Compl. ¶10).
  • The core of the infringement allegation is that the network management in these ECUs "follows standard AUTOSAR 4.x.x., which is incorporated into each of the ECUs" (Compl. ¶10).
  • Plaintiff alleges AUTOSAR is a "layered system for sharing information in an automobile vehicle" that standardizes communication between software components (Compl. ¶8). The complaint asserts that any vehicle with an ECU operating in compliance with AUTOSAR 4.x.x standards "inherently and necessarily infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶32, ¶40).
  • The complaint notes that the Volvo Group is a Partner in the AUTOSAR consortium (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include claim charts as exhibits. It states that infringement is demonstrated by charts previously served on the Defendant's parent company (Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶32, ¶40). The narrative infringement theory is based on the allegation that the AUTOSAR 4.x.x standard, when implemented, practices the claimed inventions. The complaint alleges that all Volvo cars sold in the U.S. since July 11, 2017, include ECUs with AUTOSAR 4.x.x, and that compliance with this standard constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central dispute may be whether mere compliance with the AUTOSAR 4.x.x standard is sufficient to meet every limitation of the asserted claims. The complaint does not detail how specific AUTOSAR functions map to claim elements like "issue a storage resource request" or how it guarantees sharing "in less than one millisecond." The defense may argue that AUTOSAR is a flexible standard and that its specific implementation in Volvo vehicles does not practice the claimed methods.
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the patents' descriptions of a "bulletin board" and "storage resource" can be read to cover the specific memory management and data sharing architectures implemented in AUTOSAR-compliant ECUs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,248,477

  • The Term: "layered system" (from claim 23)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that AUTOSAR is a "layered system" as claimed (Compl. ¶8). The construction of this term will be critical to determining if the fundamental architecture of the accused products falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a generic software architecture with layers for hardware abstraction, device drivers, an operating system, middleware, and applications, suggesting the term could encompass various software structures with distinct functional levels (’036 Patent, col. 4:46-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the related ’036 Patent depicts a specific five-layer architecture. A defendant may argue that "layered system" should be limited to an architecture that includes these specific layers or a similar structure, potentially excluding the AUTOSAR architecture if it differs materially.

For U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790

  • The Term: "issue a storage resource request" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term describes a specific action for managing access to memory. Whether the accused AUTOSAR systems perform an equivalent action will be a key infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies an active, explicit step, which may or may not be present in the accused system's memory management protocol.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes managing access to a "common resource" from an operating system, which could be argued to cover any memory access control mechanism, such as semaphores or implicit resource management, that prevents data corruption (’036 Patent, col. 8:30-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 10 of the related ’036 Patent shows a specific flowchart for a "bulletin board store mechanism" that includes an explicit "Request BB Resource" step (1001), a check for availability (1002), and a wait/timeout loop (1011, 1009). A defendant may argue that the term requires this explicit request-and-wait process, rather than a more general memory access arbitration.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. The basis for willfulness includes alleged pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter Plaintiff sent to Defendant's counsel on June 22, 2018, which allegedly included claim charts for the ’790, ’036, and ’765 patents (Compl. ¶24, ¶33, ¶41). The complaint further argues that in prior litigation involving related patents, Defendant's failure to produce evidence of non-infringement or non-practice of AUTOSAR constitutes an "eloquent admission" of knowing infringement (Compl. ¶25, ¶34, ¶42).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the AUTOSAR 4.x.x standard, as implemented in the accused Volvo ECUs, perform every step of the asserted claims? The case may depend on whether Plaintiff can prove that mere compliance with the standard necessarily results in infringement, or if Defendant can demonstrate that its specific implementation deviates from the claimed methods.
  • A second key issue will be one of validity and procedural posture: how will the parallel PTAB proceedings influence this case? The grant of IPR institution against the ’477 patent suggests a substantial validity challenge, while the denial of institution for the other three patents provides Plaintiff with a procedural advantage that may shape settlement discussions or litigation strategy.
  • A final question will be one of intent: do the allegations of a 2018 notice letter and Defendant’s conduct in prior litigation provide a sufficient basis for a finding of willful infringement? The court will need to assess whether Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge and subsequent conduct rise to the level of egregious behavior required for enhanced damages.