Michigan Motor Tech LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Michigan Motor Technologies LLC (Michigan)
  • Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03804, N.D. Ill., 11/07/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois, that supports the sale and on-going support of the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain BMW internal combustion and hybrid engines infringe six patents related to various electronic engine control technologies, including valve timing, torque control, fuel pressure regulation, and system diagnostics.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for electronically optimizing the performance, fuel efficiency, and emissions of modern automotive engines through precise, feedback-driven control systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents were assigned to Plaintiff on August 28, 2017. Public records subsequent to the complaint's filing indicate that the specific claims asserted from five of the six patents-in-suit have been disclaimed or canceled. Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 14 of the '540 patent were disclaimed; all claims (1-7) of the '565 patent were disclaimed via IPR and a separate disclaimer; all claims (1-18) of the '574 patent were disclaimed; all claims (1-17) of the '260 patent were disclaimed; and claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-13 of the '482 patent were disclaimed via IPR and a separate disclaimer. These events raise fundamental questions about the ongoing viability of the corresponding infringement counts.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,557,540, "Method of Calculating a Valve Timing Command for an Engine", Issued May 6, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of optimizing an engine's fuel efficiency and power output through variable valve timing. While the concept was known, existing systems had not achieved their theoretical potential (ʼ540 Patent, col. 1:30-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a control unit to calculate a valve timing command by combining two distinct inputs: a "valve feedforward term" and a "valve feedback term." The feedforward term is proactively determined based on driver inputs (e.g., pedal position) and environmental conditions (e.g., ambient temperature), while the feedback term is reactively calculated based on measured engine performance (e.g., engine speed) (ʼ540 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:59-col. 2:2). This dual-input control loop is illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 2.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows the engine controller to make valve timing adjustments that are both predictive, based on commanded performance, and corrective, based on actual operational feedback, enabling more dynamic and precise optimization.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • obtaining an engine performance command;
  • receiving an environmental conditions signal;
  • determining a valve feedforward term based on the command and the signal;
  • receiving an engine performance feedback;
  • calculating a valve feedback term based on the command and the feedback; and
  • calculating a final valve timing command based on both the feedforward and feedback terms.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,581,565, "Engine Torque Controller", Issued June 24, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In direct injection spark ignition (DISI) engines, a persistent, or steady-state, error between the demanded torque and the actual produced torque can degrade fuel economy and catalyst performance by causing non-ideal air/fuel ratios (ʼ565 Patent, col. 1:47-59).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a torque controller that addresses transient torque errors without disrupting the main control loop. It does this by calculating an error signal (the difference between desired and estimated current torque) and passing it through a high-pass filter. This filter isolates short-term fluctuations from long-term errors. A "transient torque controller" then uses this filtered signal to make temporary adjustments to fuel or spark timing, quickly correcting deviations without interfering with the primary steady-state control strategy (ʼ565 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: By using a high-pass filter, the system can rapidly respond to driver-induced torque demands while allowing the main control system to manage steady-state operation, preventing control-loop conflicts and improving stability.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential elements of method claim 7 include:
  • estimating a current torque signal from current spark angle, air/fuel ratio, and estimated air charge signals;
  • comparing the estimated torque with a desired torque to create a difference signal;
  • filtering out low-frequency components from the difference signal; and
  • controlling a fuel adjustment signal and a spark adjustment signal based on the filtered difference signal.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,581,574, "Method of Controlling Fuel Rail Pressure", Issued June 24, 2003

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of maintaining consistent fuel pressure in a fuel rail, which is critical for injector performance but difficult to achieve due to system wear and part tolerances (ʼ574 Patent, col. 1:17-23). The invention describes a control method using both a feedforward controller (which sets a baseline pump speed based on desired pressure and fuel flow) and a feedback controller (which fine-tunes the pump speed based on measured pressure error) to improve pressure stability (ʼ574 Patent, col. 2:13-28).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The engine control systems within the Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,588,260, "Electronic Throttle Disable Control Test System", Issued July 8, 2003

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the lack of integrity testing for safety-critical electronic throttle "disable" functions (ʼ260 Patent, col. 1:41-44). It proposes a test method, typically run at vehicle startup, that first confirms the disable function works (by disabling the motor's drive electronics and verifying the throttle does not move when commanded) and then confirms the drive electronics work when enabled (by enabling them and verifying the throttle does move when commanded) (ʼ260 Patent, col. 2:45-59).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The engine control systems within the Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to contain the patented apparatus (Compl. ¶42).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,736,122, "Motor Vehicle Engine Synchronization", Issued May 18, 2004

• Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to verify that a four-stroke engine is injecting fuel on the correct stroke without requiring a costly camshaft position sensor (ʼ122 Patent, col. 1:9-17). The invention achieves this by intentionally oscillating the air/fuel ratio, measuring the time delay ("temporal characteristics") before this change is detected by an exhaust gas sensor, and comparing this delay to stored values. A longer-than-expected delay indicates that fuel was injected on the wrong stroke and pooled in the intake port (ʼ122 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 2 is asserted (Compl. ¶48).
• Accused Features: The engine control systems within the Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to contain the patented apparatus (Compl. ¶48).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,909,482, "Device for Measuring Power Consumption and Performance with Respect to the Environment of a Power-Consuming Unit", Issued December 9, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: This invention describes a device for calculating an "ecological parameter" for a power-consuming unit, such as a vehicle. The device receives data on power consumption (e.g., fuel) and waste production, compares these values to pre-defined reference points, and computes a score indicating the unit's environmental performance ('482 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: The complaint specifically accuses the "HEV Accused Instrumentality" (BMW 2.0L I4 N20 engine), used in hybrid vehicles, of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are the BMW 2.0L I4 N26, BMW B48, and BMW 2.0L I4 N20 internal combustion engines (collectively, "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶¶13, 16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies these as modern, electronically controlled engines. The N26 and B48 are conventional gasoline engines, while the N20 is identified as part of a hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) system (Compl. ¶16). These engines are alleged to be installed in a wide range of vehicles manufactured from 2012 to the present, including numerous BMW Series models, MINI models, the Toyota Supra, and the Morgan Plus Four (Compl. ¶¶14, 15, 17). This suggests the accused engines have a significant commercial footprint in the automotive market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the asserted patents but relies entirely on references to external exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶¶24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54). For example, infringement of the '540 patent is explained "in attached Exhibits 2 and 3" (Compl. ¶24). Because the pleading itself provides no specific mapping of accused product features to claim limitations, a detailed claim-chart analysis or identification of specific technical points of contention is not possible from the provided documents. The general infringement theory is that the electronic control units and associated systems in the accused engines perform the methods or contain the apparatuses described in the patents-in-suit.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms. The infringement allegations are contained within unprovided exhibits, and the complaint body does not articulate any specific disputes over claim scope or meaning that would allow for an objective identification of terms likely to require construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement only for the '482 patent (Compl. ¶¶57, 60). Inducement is alleged based on Defendants "advertising and distributing the HEV Accused Instrumentality and providing instruction materials and services" (Compl. ¶58). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused hybrid engine system is a material component especially made for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶60).
• Willful Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges that Defendants were made aware of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as the date of filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶25, 56). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willfulness only. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which can be a basis for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

The progression of this case will likely depend on the resolution of two fundamental, threshold issues that precede any technical analysis of infringement.

• Claim Viability: A core issue will be one of claim viability: Public records indicate that the specific claims asserted against five of the six patents ('540, '565, '574, '260, and '482) have been canceled or disclaimed through IPR proceedings or statutory disclaimers filed after the complaint. A primary question for the court will be whether any asserted claims remain legally enforceable, potentially rendering most of the lawsuit moot.
• Pleading Sufficiency: A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: The complaint's infringement contentions are made exclusively through reference to external exhibits that were not attached to the pleading. The court may need to determine if this "incorporation by reference" pleading style provides Defendants with fair notice of the infringement claims sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12.