DCT

2:14-cv-14441

Michelotti v. Robert Bosch LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:14-cv-14441, E.D. Mich., 11/19/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's principal offices being located in Farmington Hills, Michigan, within the Eastern District of Michigan.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive "electronic stability program" (ESP) infringes a patent related to a system that automatically activates a vehicle's hazard lights in response to rapid deceleration.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns automotive safety systems designed to provide enhanced visual warnings to following drivers during heavy braking events, aiming to reduce rear-end collisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in 2008, the plaintiff offered to license or assign the patent to Defendant's parent company, Robert Bosch GmbH. The offer was declined, with Bosch stating that the patent was of "no relevance for our current and future products." This exchange may become relevant to any future claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-08-25 ’221 Patent Priority Date
2000-02-08 ’221 Patent Issue Date
2008-07-21 Plaintiff allegedly sent letter to Robert Bosch GmbH offering license/assignment
2008-09-23 Robert Bosch GmbH allegedly declined the offer
2014-11-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,023,221 - System to Activate Automobile Hazard Warning Lights

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,023,221, "System to Activate Automobile Hazard Warning Lights," issued February 8, 2000.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional brake lights do not distinguish between normal slowing and a rapid, emergency deceleration, potentially delaying the reaction time of a following driver and leading to rear-end collisions ('221 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic system that uses a single-axis accelerometer to measure a vehicle's longitudinal deceleration. If the deceleration exceeds a pre-set threshold for a specific duration, a microcontroller automatically activates the hazard warning lights to provide an urgent warning to other motorists, independent of whether the driver has pressed the brake pedal ('221 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-10). The system is designed to automatically deactivate the lights when normal vehicle operation resumes ('221 Patent, col. 2:10-14).
  • Technical Importance: By providing an "earliest possible indication of heavy braking or collision," the system was intended to "greatly diminish the frequency and severity" of rear-end and chain-reaction accidents ('221 Patent, col. 1:40-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent generally, with the sole independent claim being Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An electronic circuitry for a motor vehicle that automatically activates hazard warning lights upon rapid deceleration.
    • The lights remain activated until manually reset or automatically reset upon "resumption of normal vehicle operation."
    • The circuitry comprises a "sensing means" to detect acceleration and deceleration.
    • A means to determine when the deceleration rate exceeds a "predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval."
    • A means to automatically activate the lights when that threshold is met.
    • A means to maintain the light activity after the initial deceleration event.
    • A means to automatically deactivate the lights when deceleration drops and vehicle acceleration indicates normal operation.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "multi-functional 'electronic stability program' commonly referred to... as ESP" (Compl. p. 2, ¶3). The complaint alleges infringement by "many ESP models and versions" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused ESP systems provide an "automatic warning function" that is also referred to as "Emergency Stop Signals or ESS," "Automatic Hazard Warning Lights," or "Adaptive Brake Lights" (Compl. ¶5-6). The infringement allegation is based on the plaintiff's "understanding and belief" that these systems operate "through the use of longitudinal acceleration sensing as described in U.S. Patent 6023221" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint further alleges that, according to a 2014 press release, approximately half of all new passenger vehicles manufactured worldwide were being equipped with Bosch ESP systems (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide sufficient technical detail to map specific features of the accused ESP systems to the limitations of the asserted patent claim. The infringement theory is presented in a narrative format.

Narrative Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that Robert Bosch LLC has engaged in the development, testing, and manufacture of its ESP systems in the United States (Compl. p. 2, ¶3). The core of the infringement allegation is that "many ESP models and versions are providing the automatic warning function through the use of longitudinal acceleration sensing" in a manner that practices the invention described in the ’221 Patent (Compl. ¶9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint's central infringement allegation is made on "understanding and belief" (Compl. ¶9). A key issue will be whether discovery yields evidence that the accused ESP systems use "longitudinal acceleration sensing" to trigger a warning, as the patent requires ('221 Patent, col. 2:3-6), or if they use a different, potentially non-infringing method. The complaint itself introduces this potential dispute by noting that a separate Bosch patent describes a system using "wheel-speed sensors" for a similar purpose (Compl. ¶7).
  • Functional Question: The court will need to determine if the accused systems meet the specific functional requirements of Claim 1, such as activating the lights only when deceleration exceeds a "predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval" and deactivating them upon a "resumption of normal vehicle operation" ('221 Patent, col. 4:31-45). The complaint provides no details on the operational logic of the accused ESP systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle"
  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in Claim 1, is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as its scope is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the function, and equivalents thereof. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case depends on whether the sensor technology in Bosch's ESP is structurally equivalent to what is disclosed in the ’221 Patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be construed to cover any sensor or combination of sensors capable of performing the stated function of detecting vehicle acceleration and deceleration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: a "single-axis digital accelerometer" ('221 Patent, col. 2:3-4) which "consists of a sensing element and an electronic chip assembled in a single integrated unit" that operates by measuring changes in capacitance ('221 Patent, col. 3:12-18). A party will likely argue that the claim's scope is limited to this specific accelerometer structure and its structural equivalents, potentially excluding different technologies like systems based on wheel-speed sensors.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement. It makes a general allegation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. p. 2, ¶3).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it lays a factual predicate for such a claim by alleging pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that the plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant's parent company on July 21, 2008, identifying the patent and offering a license, and that the company responded on September 23, 2008, stating the patent was of "no relevance" (Compl. ¶8).

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

The resolution of this dispute appears to hinge on three central questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of technological implementation: Does the accused Bosch ESP system detect rapid deceleration using an accelerometer-based system as described in the ’221 Patent, or does it rely on an alternative, non-infringing technology, such as the wheel-speed sensing which Plaintiff notes is described in a Bosch patent?
  2. A second issue will be one of claim scope: Assuming an accelerometer is used, is the specific sensor structure in the accused system a structural equivalent to the "digital accelerometer" disclosed in the patent specification, as required for infringement under the means-plus-function interpretation of the "sensing means" limitation?
  3. Finally, a key question for damages will be one of notice: Did the alleged 2008 correspondence provide Defendant with pre-suit knowledge of infringement sufficient to support a later claim for enhanced damages, especially given Defendant's documented conclusion that the patent was "of no relevance"?