DCT
1:23-cv-00005
Stragent LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stragent, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O & Kelly, O'Rourke
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00005, D. Del., 01/02/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles, which utilize the AUTOSAR software architecture, infringe three patents related to methods for sharing information within a distributed computing framework, such as an in-vehicle network.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns managing data communication across heterogeneous networks (e.g., CAN, FlexRay, LIN) within a vehicle's increasingly complex system of electronic control units (ECUs).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that claims of two related patents in the same family were previously found invalid for obviousness in final inter partes review (IPR) decisions. It also discloses that another related patent was found invalid in an IPR that is currently on appeal. The complaint states that Defendant has filed petitions for Reexamination of the three patents-in-suit and that those proceedings are pending. Plaintiff asserts that the currently asserted claims are materially different from those previously invalidated.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-12-17 | Priority Date for ’790, ’036, and ’765 Patents |
| 2017-07-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,705,765 Issued |
| 2018-06-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036 Issued |
| 2018-07-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790 Issued |
| 2023-01-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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: The patent describes the challenge of managing data in distributed control and monitoring systems, such as those in modern vehicles, where various electronic components need to communicate reliably and efficiently despite using different network protocols and having distinct timing requirements (e.g., hard real-time behavior) (’790 Patent, col. 1:24-31, col. 3:45-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "bulletin board" system—a form of shared database or memory—housed within an electronic control unit (ECU) that functions as a gateway. This bulletin board receives information from one network (e.g., FlexRay), stores it, and then shares it with processes on another, different network (e.g., CAN). This architecture decouples application software from the specific temporal characteristics of the underlying network hardware, allowing for standardized data exchange between heterogeneous systems (’790 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-40; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a standardized middleware layer to manage the growing complexity and diversity of in-vehicle networks, aiming to ensure interoperability between components from different suppliers and across different vehicle platforms (’790 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An automotive electronic control unit (ECU) with a processor and non-transitory memory.
- Identifying information from a message received via a Flexray network protocol.
- Issuing a storage resource request for the ECU's storage resource and determining its availability.
- Determining if a threshold has been reached for the request.
- If the resource is unavailable and the threshold is not met, re-issuing the request; if the threshold is met, sending a notification.
- If the resource is available, storing the information.
- Sharing the stored information using a Controller Area Network (CAN) protocol.
- A specific configuration of the ECU's first (Flexray) and second (CAN) interfaces, detailing how they use network and data link layer header bits.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 6, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶23).
U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036 - "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework" (Issued June 19, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’790 Patent: managing data exchange in complex, distributed electronic systems with varied communication protocols and real-time constraints (’036 Patent, col. 1:24-31).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is the same "bulletin board" architecture described in the ’790 Patent. An ECU acts as a gateway, using a shared storage resource to mediate the flow of information between heterogeneous networks. The claims of the ’036 Patent are directed to both Flexray-to-CAN and CAN-to-Flexray communication, with a specific timing constraint (’036 Patent, Abstract; col.4:50-col.5:2).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’790 Patent, this technology aims to create a more flexible and robust architecture for in-vehicle communication by abstracting application logic from network-specific details (’036 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 102.
- Independent claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of the ’790 Patent, but adds the limitation that the information is shared in "less than one millisecond."
- Independent claim 102 recites a similar process but in the opposite direction: information is received via a CAN protocol and shared via a Flexray protocol, also in "less than one millisecond."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶27).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,705,765
- 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: The ’765 patent, part of the same family, describes a system and method for sharing information in a distributed environment. An automotive ECU receives a message, issues a request for a storage resource, determines the resource's availability, and, if available, uses it to store and then share the information in under one second across a plurality of interfaces (’765 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 12 and 24 (Compl. ¶31).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BMW's use of the AUTOSAR standard in its ECUs to manage communications across CAN, FlexRay, and LIN networks infringes these claims (Compl. ¶¶8-11, 15-20, 31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "BMW Autos" and the electronic control units (ECUs) within them, sold or imported since July 11, 2017 (Compl. ¶4, ¶20). The complaint specifically identifies Digital Motor Electronics ("DME") ECUs and "suspension control ECUs" (Compl. ¶13, ¶18). Representative images of a DME ECU are provided in the complaint (Compl. p. 4, Images). A representative suspension control ECU is also depicted (Compl. p. 8, Image).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that all accused BMW and Mini automobiles incorporate AUTOSAR (AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture) technology, which it describes as a standardized, layered system for sharing information in a vehicle (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). It is alleged that BMW is a "Core Partner" in the AUTOSAR consortium and that AUTOSAR is the "ONE STANDARD" for all ECUs in BMW vehicles (Compl. ¶9). The accused ECUs are alleged to include microcontrollers, memory, and physical wiring for CAN, LIN, and FlexRay networks, giving them the capability to share information between these different network types in accordance with AUTOSAR specifications (Compl. ¶15, ¶19). The complaint notes that BMW delivered approximately 2.5 million vehicles in 2021, underscoring the commercial scale of the accused technology (Compl. ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that infringement is confirmed by claim charts previously served on Defendant, but these charts are not attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶23, ¶27, ¶31). The following analysis synthesizes the narrative allegations from the complaint body.
U.S. Patent No. 10,031,790 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an automotive electronic control unit including a non-transitory memory storage... and at least one hardware processor... | The accused instrumentalities are ECUs, such as the DME and suspension control units, which contain microcontrollers and memory (RAM, Flash, EEPROM) (Compl. p. 4, Images). | ¶11, ¶15.b, ¶19 | col. 3:20-25 |
| identify information associated with a message received utilizing a Flexray network protocol... | The accused ECUs are designed to be wired to FlexRay networks and include a FlexRay module with multiple channels for data handling. | ¶15.a, ¶15.b.iv | col. 3:40-44 |
| issue a storage resource request in connection with a storage resource of the automotive electronic control unit and determine whether the storage resource is available... | The complaint alleges the ECUs operate using AUTOSAR, a standardized system for sharing information, which implies a data management and storage function. | ¶8-¶9, ¶15.c | col. 8:30-34 |
| share the information... utilizing a Controller Area Network protocol... | The accused ECUs are designed to be wired to CAN networks, include modules with CAN nodes, and have the capability to share information between the CAN and FlexRay networks. | ¶15.a, ¶15.b.iii, ¶15.c | col. 3:40-44 |
U.S. Patent No. 10,002,036 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an automotive electronic control unit including a non-transitory memory storage... and at least one hardware processor... | The accused DME and suspension control ECUs in BMW vehicles, which include microcontrollers and memory storage (Compl. p. 8, Image). | ¶11, ¶13, ¶18, ¶19 | col. 3:20-25 |
| identify information associated with a message received utilizing a Flexray network protocol... | The ECUs are alleged to connect to FlexRay automotive networks and contain hardware and software to process FlexRay data. | ¶15.a, ¶15.b.iv, ¶19 | col. 3:40-44 |
| issue a storage resource request... determine whether the storage resource is available... determine whether a threshold has been reached... | The complaint alleges the ECUs use the AUTOSAR standard to manage data, which it contends performs the claimed steps of requesting and allocating storage. | ¶8-¶9, ¶16 | col. 8:30-34 |
| share the information in less than one millisecond utilizing a Controller Area Network protocol... | The ECUs are alleged to share information between the FlexRay and CAN networks. The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding the "less than one millisecond" timing. | ¶15.c | col. 12:56-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint states that details of BMW's AUTOSAR implementation are a "trade secret" and "cannot be extracted from the ECUs" (Compl. ¶20). This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will be able to produce to show that the accused ECUs perform the specific, sequential steps of "issu[ing] a storage resource request," "determin[ing] whether the storage resource is available," and "determin[ing] whether a threshold has been reached," as required by the claims.
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the general memory management functions of the AUTOSAR standard and the underlying operating system meet the specific "request," "determine," and "share" limitations of the claims, or if the claims require a more specialized mechanism as detailed in the patent's flowcharts (e.g., ’036 Patent, Fig. 10).
- Technical Questions: For the ’036 Patent, a key question is whether the accused systems actually perform the data sharing in "less than one millisecond." The complaint makes no factual allegation to support this specific timing limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "storage resource"
- Context and Importance: This term is the object of the central "request" and "store" steps of the asserted claims. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether any shared memory location managed by an operating system qualifies, or if it must be a specific, dedicated "bulletin board" structure with the formal request/grant properties outlined in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "bulletin board" generally as a "database" that enables users to "read electronic messages, files, and/or other data" (’036 Patent, col. 5:20-24). This could support an argument that any shared memory structure for inter-process communication meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes detailed flowcharts, such as Figure 10, that depict a formal mechanism with discrete steps like "Request BB Resource" (1001), "BB Resource Available?" (1002), and "Get BB resource" (1003). A party could argue that these embodiments define the required characteristics of a "storage resource" under the claims, implying a more structured and managed entity than just general-purpose RAM.
The Term: "issue a storage resource request"
- Context and Importance: This active step is a predicate for storing the received information. Whether the accused AUTOSAR system "issues a request" will be a key infringement question. The dispute may turn on whether a standard software instruction to write to memory constitutes a "request," or if a more explicit, discrete communication is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define what constitutes a "request." A party could argue it encompasses any action that invokes a memory management function of the underlying real-time operating system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 10 explicitly labels box 1001 as "Request BB Resource," suggesting a distinct, identifiable step in the claimed process (’036 Patent, Fig. 10). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific API call or message dedicated to requesting the resource, as opposed to an implicit request made by a memory-write operation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement by BMW AG (Compl. ¶¶23, 27, 31).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it does request a judgment that this is an "exceptional case" and seeks attorney fees (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C). The complaint alleges that "Infringement is confirmed by the claim charts served by Plaintiff on BMW NA and which have been available to BMW AG," which may be intended to establish a factual basis for knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶27, ¶31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence from discovery to demonstrate that BMW's proprietary AUTOSAR implementation performs the specific, sequential claim steps of issuing a resource request, determining availability, checking a threshold, and storing information, particularly given the complaint’s acknowledgement that this information is a trade secret?
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: Can the claim term "issue a storage resource request," which is described in the specification with a formal flowchart (Fig. 10), be construed broadly enough to read on the general memory management functions of a real-time operating system, as allegedly used in the accused AUTOSAR systems?
- The case faces a significant procedural contingency: What will be the effect of the pending Reexamination proceedings for all three patents-in-suit? The potential for a stay of the district court litigation pending the outcome of the USPTO's review presents a major uncertainty for the case's timeline and ultimate viability.