DCT

2:13-cv-12937

Lear Corp v. NHK Seating Of America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lear Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: NHK Seating of America, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Brooks Kushman P.C.
Case Identification: 2:13-cv-12937, E.D. Mich., 07/05/2013
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells the accused products throughout the United States, including within the Eastern District of Michigan.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Active Head Restraint Systems, supplied to Toyota for use in various vehicle models, infringe seven patents related to active headrest safety technology.
Technical Context: The technology concerns active head restraints in automotive seats, which are mechanical systems designed to move a headrest forward and upward during a rear-impact collision to reduce the risk of whiplash injury.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of six of the seven patents-in-suit, with notice of four patents dating back to August 2007 and two others to September 2009. Post-grant proceedings, though not mentioned in the complaint, are highly relevant; inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims across all asserted patents, including the original primary independent claims of several lead patents, which may significantly narrow the scope of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1993-06-01	’043 Patent Priority Date
1995-01-03	’043 Patent Issue Date
2001-06-29	’949, ’955, and ’733 Patents Priority Date
2003-10-14	’949 and ’955 Patents Issue Date
2003-12-02	’733 Patent Issue Date
2004-09-27	’397 and ’818 Patents Priority Date
2005-10-18	’397 Patent Issue Date
2006-01-01	Accused Product manufacturing allegedly began "since at least 2006"
2006-10-04	’357 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-08	Defendant allegedly made aware of ’043, ’949, ’955, and ’733 patents
2008-11-25	’357 Patent Issue Date
2009-09-30	Defendant allegedly made aware of ’397 and ’357 patents
2013-05-07	’818 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043 - "Vehicle Pivotal Headrest"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043, "Vehicle Pivotal Headrest," issued January 3, 1995.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of the gap that typically exists between an occupant's head and a vehicle headrest during normal driving. In a rear-impact crash, this gap allows for dangerous "whiplash" motion as the occupant's head snaps backward after their torso is pushed forward by the seatback ('043 Patent, col. 2:48-62).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical system where the headrest is pivotally attached to the seatback frame. An "impact target" or plate is positioned in the seatback and is mechanically linked to the headrest. During a rear impact, the force of the occupant's torso pressing into the seatback pushes the impact target, which in turn causes the headrest to pivot forward and upward, closing the gap to better support the head ('043 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:53-68; Fig. 3).
Technical Importance: The invention provides an automatic, purely mechanical system that reacts to crash forces to proactively position the headrest to mitigate whiplash injuries, an improvement over static headrests common at the time.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts unspecified claims of the ’043 Patent (Compl. ¶29). Original claim 1 was cancelled during reexamination. Amended claim 2 is the broadest surviving independent claim from the original patent family.

Independent Claim 2 (as amended during reexamination):
- A vehicle seat and headrest arrangement comprising a seat bun frame, a seatback frame, and a headrest pivotally attached to the seatback frame.
- The headrest is movable in a forward direction toward an occupant's head upon a rear impact.
- An "impact target" is operatively and pivotally associated with the seatback frame.
- A force upon the impact target causes the headrest to rotate forwardly.
- A spring biases the headrest against this pivotal movement.

U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949 - "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949, "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement," issued October 14, 2003.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior art active headrests by controlling the velocity of the headrest's movement. It notes the desirability of having the headrest move forward quickly to close the gap to the occupant's head, but then slow down to avoid a harsh impact with the head ('949 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a headrest mechanism that moves in two distinct phases. It uses a "guide member" (such as a bushing with a cam configuration) and a "follower" (such as a cam on the headrest post). Upon impact, the follower travels along a "guideway" in the guide member. The shape of this guideway is engineered to first move the headrest along a trajectory at a high velocity (the "first manner") and then transition to a different trajectory at a lower velocity (the "second manner") for supportive contact ('949 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-13).
Technical Importance: This technology introduces the concept of a multi-stage, variable-velocity deployment for an active headrest, aiming to optimize both the speed of response and the quality of support during a collision.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts unspecified claims of the ’949 Patent (Compl. ¶29). Original independent claims 1, 12, and 20 were cancelled during IPR. Claim 25 is a surviving independent claim.

Independent Claim 25:
- A seat and headrest arrangement comprising a headrest arrangement (with headrest, impact target, guide member/follower) and a seatback (with the other of the guide member/follower).
- A rearward load on the impact target causes the follower to engage a guideway in the guide member.
- This engagement causes the headrest to be moved in a "first manner and a second manner."
- The guide member is a "bushing having a cam configuration" and the follower is a "cam," where their engagement (along with headrest momentum) causes the two distinct manners of movement.

U.S. Patent No. 6,631,955 - "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,631,955, "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement," issued October 14, 2003.
Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of providing head support that mirrors the apparatus claimed in the related ’949 Patent. The method involves moving the headrest in a "first manner" (e.g., along a first trajectory at a first velocity) upon impact, and then moving it in a "second manner" (e.g., along a different trajectory at a different velocity) to provide support (’955 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: The operation of the NHK Active Head Restraint Systems (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 6,655,733 - "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,655,733, "Variable Movement Headrest Arrangement," issued December 2, 2003.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a headrest system that activates based on the forward inertia of the headrest itself, such as during the rebound phase of a front impact. The mechanism is designed to move the headrest forward to support the occupant's head irrespective of whether the occupant is in contact with the seatback (’733 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: NHK Active Head Restraint Systems (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 6,955,397 - "Vehicle Seat Assembly Having Active Head Restraint System"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,955,397, "Vehicle Seat Assembly Having Active Head Restraint System," issued October 18, 2005.
Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an active headrest system using a multi-part armature. It includes an upper armature holding the head restraint and a lower armature to receive force from the occupant's body. The two armatures are operatively connected by at least one linkage, such that force on the lower armature concurrently moves the linkages to actuate the upper armature and move the headrest toward the occupant (’397 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: NHK Active Head Restraint Systems (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,455,357 - "Active Head Restraint System For A Vehicle Seat"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,455,357, "Active Head Restraint System For A Vehicle Seat," issued November 25, 2008.
Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a "four-bar mechanism" that is operably connected to both the seatback frame and the head restraint. An input force from the occupant during an impact actuates the four-bar linkage, which in turn moves the head restraint to an actuated, supportive position. The geometry of the linkage is designed to provide a mechanical advantage that temporarily locks the headrest in the actuated position (’357 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: NHK Active Head Restraint Systems (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818 - "Variable Seat Having Active Head Restraint"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818, "Variable Seat Having Active Head Restraint," issued May 7, 2013.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a linkage assembly that includes a "coupler" movably connected to a primary linkage. The coupler has a first member connected to the seatback frame and a second member connected to the first. This assembly interconnects an upper armature and an impact body to transfer force and move the head restraint toward the occupant (’818 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features: NHK Active Head Restraint Systems (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: "NHK Active Head Restraint Systems" (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these systems are components "especially made and adapted for seat assemblies in vehicles" which Defendant has been making since at least 2006 (Compl. ¶¶26-27). Defendant allegedly sells these systems to Toyota Motor North America, Inc. for integration into a wide range of Toyota vehicles, including the Tacoma, Corolla, Matrix, RX, Sienna, Venza, RAV 4, Highlander, and Prius for model years spanning approximately 2008 to 2011 (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the accused systems. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide element-by-element infringement allegations or claim charts. It globally alleges that Defendant's "NHK Active Head Restraint Systems" directly, contributorily, and by inducement infringe unspecified claims of the seven patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶29, 34, 37). The analysis below identifies potential points of contention based on the patent claims and the general nature of the accused technology.

’043 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused systems contain a discrete component that meets the claim limitation of an "impact target." The defense may argue its force-receiving mechanism is an integrated part of the general lumbar support structure and not a distinct "target" as depicted in the patent's embodiments. Further, the functionality of any biasing "spring" in the accused device will be compared to the claim requirements.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused headrest is "pivotally attached" and that a force on a specific "target" causes it "to rotate forwardly" in the manner claimed, as opposed to moving via a different mechanical action such as a multi-link translation?

’949 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the components of the accused systems can be properly characterized as a "guide member" with a "guideway" and a corresponding "follower." A more specific question will be whether any such components constitute a "bushing having a cam configuration" and a "cam" as required by claim 25.
- Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide, or does discovery need to establish, technical evidence (e.g., high-speed video analysis, engineering diagrams) demonstrating that the accused headrest moves in two distinct manners with different velocity and trajectory profiles? A key dispute may be whether the accused system exhibits a single, continuous, variable motion or the two discrete "manners" of movement required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’043 Patent: "impact target"

The Term: "impact target" (Claim 2).
Context and Importance: This term defines the component that receives the actuating force from the occupant's torso. The case may turn on whether the force-receiving structure in the accused NHK system, which may be a modern, distributed lumbar support assembly, falls within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the component as an "impact target or plate 10," suggesting "target" may be a broader category than a simple "plate" ('043 Patent, col. 1:46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both embodiments described in the specification depict a discrete, rigid plate-like structure (10 in Fig. 2, 34 in Fig. 4) separate from other seat components, which may suggest a narrower construction limited to such distinct structures.

’949 Patent: "moved in a first manner and a second manner"

The Term: "moved in a first manner and a second manner" (Claim 25).
Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of the asserted invention, defining the variable, two-stage movement. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused device's motion profile can be characterized as two distinct "manners" or a single, continuous motion.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that as long as "at least one of the first forward velocity and first trajectory is different than one of a second forward velocity and second trajectory, movement in first and second manners...has been achieved" ('949 Patent, col. 5:22-28). This language could support an argument that any measurable change in velocity or path constitutes two "manners."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the two manners as functionally distinct: a first, high-velocity phase to "quickly decrease any gap" and a second, slower phase to "provide support to the occupant's head" ('949 Patent, col. 6:38-46). This functional distinction suggests the term requires more than an incidental change in motion, but rather two separate, defined stages of operation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that NHK sells its systems to Toyota "knowing and intending" that Toyota will incorporate them into infringing vehicles (Compl. ¶27). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the NHK systems are a "material part" of the patented inventions, are not a "staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use," and are "especially made or especially adapted" for an infringing use (Compl. ¶34).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that it put Defendant on notice of the ’043, ’949, ’955, and ’733 patents as early as August 8, 2007, and of the ’397 and ’357 patents as of September 30, 2009 (Compl. ¶¶31-32). For the more recently issued ’818 patent, knowledge is alleged from the filing of the complaint itself, which could support a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶33).

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

A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of technical specifics, the case will depend on what discovery reveals about the actual design and operation of the accused NHK systems. The central factual question is whether these systems employ the specific pivotal plates, cam-and-follower mechanisms, multi-part armatures, or four-bar linkages required by the asserted claims.
A second key issue will be one of claim scope and viability: the dispute will likely involve significant claim construction arguments over terms such as "impact target" and "first manner and a second manner." Furthermore, with numerous original claims cancelled during post-grant review, a critical question is whether Plaintiff’s infringement theories can be sustained on the surviving, potentially narrower, claim set.