DCT

2:17-cv-12901

Michigan Motor Tech LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co Hyundai Motor Group Hyundai Motor Technical Center Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-12901, E.D. Mich., 04/30/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Michigan.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various Hyundai vehicles equipped with the Theta II Engine infringe twenty-two U.S. patents related to electronic throttle control, engine management, and powertrain systems.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve the electronic control of engine components such as the throttle valve, which is fundamental to modern vehicle performance, fuel efficiency, and emissions standards.
  • Key Procedural History: This Amended Complaint was filed on April 30, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the infringement allegations based on correspondence sent on March 8, 2017, a subsequent telephone call on March 13, 2017, and the filing of the original complaint on September 1, 2017.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-05-17 Priority Date for ’604 Patent
2000-09-08 Priority Date for ’281 & ’680 Patents
2000-10-24 Priority Date for ’260 Patent
2001-02-19 Priority Date for ’680 Patent
2001-03-03 Priority Date for ’106 Patent
2001-05-16 Priority Date for ’166 Patent
2001-06-22 Priority Date for ’128 Patent
2001-10-09 Priority Date for ’839 & ’804 Patents
2001-10-16 Priority Date for ’287 Patent
2001-12-11 Priority Date for ’540 Patent
2001-12-21 Priority Date for ’115 Patent
2001-12-28 Priority Date for ’031 & ’497 Patents
2002-02-12 ’604 Patent Issued
2002-04-30 ’281 Patent Issued
2002-09-03 ’128 Patent Issued
2003-01-28 ’839 Patent Issued
2003-05-06 ’540 Patent Issued
2003-05-13 ’166 Patent Issued
2003-05-23 Priority Date for ’157 Patent
2003-06-24 ’565 Patent Issued
2003-07-08 ’260 Patent Issued
2003-08-26 ’497 Patent Issued
2003-09-02 ’287 Patent Issued
2003-09-16 ’106 Patent Issued
2003-11-11 ’115 Patent Issued
2004-05-18 Priority Date for ’122 Patent
2004-06-29 Priority Date for ’149 Patent
2004-07-20 ’804 Patent Issued
2006-01-17 ’031 Patent Issued
2006-10-03 Priority Date for ’081 Patent
2006-12-05 Priority Date for ’501 Patent
2009-02-10 Priority Date for ’761 Patent
2010-01-01 Approximate Launch of Accused Instrumentalities (2010 MY)
2014-06-24 Priority Date for ’574 Patent
2017-03-08 Plaintiff's affiliate allegedly sent correspondence to Defendants
2017-09-01 Plaintiff filed original Complaint
2018-04-30 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,345,604 - Electronically Controlled Throttle Valve With Commanded Default Position for the Throttle Valve of an Internal Combustion Engine

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In electronic throttle systems, a throttle plate can freeze or stick in the closed position due to icing from condensation or buildup of hydrocarbon deposits, particularly when the engine is shut down ( ’604 Patent, col. 1:35-51). This requires an oversized, more expensive motor capable of generating high initial torque to break the throttle plate loose upon restart ( ’604 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a microprocessor that, upon receiving a signal that the engine ignition has been turned off, commands the throttle motor to move the throttle plate to a predetermined intermediate position (e.g., one-quarter open) rather than allowing it to rest fully closed ( ’604 Patent, col. 2:41-46; Abstract). By preventing the plate from seating against the throttle body wall during engine-off soak, this method avoids the freezing or sticking problem, allowing for the use of a smaller, less costly motor ( ’604 Patent, col. 2:28-35).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce the cost, size, and complexity of early electronic throttle control systems by eliminating the need for a high-torque motor designed to overcome worst-case stiction forces ( ’604 Patent, col. 2:28-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A throttle controller for an internal combustion engine having a throttle body with an adjustable throttle valve.
    • A throttle valve actuator motor connected to the throttle valve.
    • A throttle position sensor connected to the throttle valve.
    • An ignition switch for initiating engine startup and shutdown and for developing an engine shutdown signal.
    • An accelerator pedal and an accelerator position sensor.
    • An electronic microprocessor that receives the engine shutdown signal and includes means for developing a motor control signal responsive to that shutdown signal.
    • Whereby the motor adjusts the throttle plate to a position between closed and fully open to prevent throttle plate freezing when the engine is shut down.

U.S. Patent No. 6,619,106 - High-resolution Electronic Throttle Position System

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional electronic throttle position sensors, which typically encode position as a voltage over a fixed range (e.g., 0-5 volts), may lack the necessary resolution for fine motion control, particularly in the near-closed position which is critical for idle control ('106 Patent, col. 1:49-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with two throttle position sensors. A first sensor covers the full range of motion of the throttle plate. A second, higher-gain sensor is used over a smaller range of motion (e.g., from fully closed to approximately one-half open), providing higher signal resolution in this critical operating region ('106 Patent, Abstract). This allows for more precise control where it is most needed without requiring more expensive amplification circuitry in the powertrain control module (PCM) ('106 Patent, col. 2:29-32).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-sensor approach was designed to improve engine control and responsiveness during idle and low-throttle operation while potentially reducing overall electronic system cost by eliminating the need for amplification circuits ('106 Patent, col. 2:29-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A high-resolution position sensing apparatus for determining the angular position of a throttle plate.
    • A first throttle position sensor coupled to the throttle plate, generating a first output signal that is affine to the throttle plate's position over a first range of motion.
    • A second throttle position sensor coupled to the throttle plate, generating a second output signal that is affine to the throttle plate's position over a second range of motion.
    • Wherein the second range is less than the first range.
    • Wherein the first range of motion extends from approximately full closed to approximately full open.

U.S. Patent No. 6,588,260 - Electronic Throttle Disable Control Test System

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for testing the integrity of an electronic throttle's "disable" feature. The system intentionally disables the motor drive electronics, commands a closing voltage, and then checks if the throttle plate moved from its default position, thereby verifying that the disable function works correctly ('260 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶26).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Limp-Home" mode of the accused vehicles, which is triggered by a sensor or circuit error and returns the throttle plate to a default position, performs the integrity test recited by the patent (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 6,443,128 - Method of Controlling an Internal Combustion Engine

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method to handle momentary open-circuit conditions in a throttle control motor. After detecting that a closed-circuit condition has been restored, the system "clips" the throttle position command, ramping it up smoothly rather than applying it abruptly, to prevent a sudden surge in power ('128 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 6 are asserted (Compl. ¶33).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused systems detect open and closed circuit conditions and clip the throttle position command to ensure smooth changes in engine power (Compl. ¶¶36, 40). A screenshot of Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) conditions is provided as evidence of a "Clipped throttle position command" (Compl. p. 39).

U.S. Patent No. 6,581,565 - Engine Torque Controller

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a torque controller for a direct injection engine that uses a high-pass filter. It compares an estimated current torque to a desired torque, filters the resulting difference signal to remove low-frequency components, and uses this filtered signal to make transient adjustments to fuel and spark ('565 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The accused engine control systems are alleged to use a torque demand controller, an estimator, a comparator, and a transient torque controller that functions as a high-pass filter to make fuel and spark adjustments (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 6,379,281 - Engine Output Controller

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an engine control method that models and derives a "driveline torque demand" based on operator input, vehicle speed, and gear value. This demand, which accounts for vehicle inertia and transmission dynamics, is then used to control the engine output ('281 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused vehicles' control systems generate a driver-demanded acceleration value, generate a gear value, and derive a driveline torque demand from various models to control engine output (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 6,763,804 - Electronic Throttle Servo Overheat Protection System

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to prevent an electronic throttle motor from overheating. It detects when the control effort required to move the throttle exceeds a threshold for a set time (e.g., when stalled against a stop or obstruction) and reduces the control effort to prevent damage ('804 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 are asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused systems monitor control effort (motor torque) and, as evidenced by DTC descriptions, reduce closing force and enter a "limp home mode" when a threshold is exceeded for a predetermined time (Compl. ¶¶73, 65).

U.S. Patent No. 6,347,680 - Engine Output Controller

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for arbitrating between different requests for engine speed, such as driver demand and cruise control. It derives a first desired engine speed, limits it by vehicle and transmission speed limits to generate a second desired speed, and then controls the engine output based on this final value ('680 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are asserted (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The accused vehicles are alleged to practice this method by generating a driver-demanded speed value, generating a speed control system value, arbitrating between them, and limiting the result by various system limits to control engine output (Compl. ¶82).

The complaint asserts fourteen additional patents. For brevity, this analysis omits individual capsules for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,561,166; 6,557,540; 6,988,031; 6,510,839; 6,612,287; 7,487,761; 6,644,115; 6,581,574; 6,609,497; 6,571,157; 6,736,122; 6,757,149; 7,143,501; and 7,116,081.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the 2011-2017 Hyundai Sonata (2.0L & 2.4L), 2010-2017 Hyundai Genesis Coupe (2.0L), 2013-2017 Hyundai Santa Fe (2.0L), 2010-2017 Hyundai Tucson (2.4L), and 2010-2017 Hyundai Santa Fe (2.4L) (Compl. ¶12). For certain patents, only hybrid models are accused (Compl. ¶166).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these vehicles incorporate the Theta II Engine, which includes an Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) system (Compl. ¶13). This system is controlled by a microprocessor, referred to as the Engine Control Module (ECM) or Powertrain Control Module (PCM) (Compl. p. 11). The complaint provides numerous technical diagrams and screenshots, such as "Figure 3- Electronic Throttle Control System," which shows the system consists of a throttle body, an ETC motor, and a Throttle Position Sensor (TPS) (Compl. p. 6). The ETC system is alleged to replace a traditional mechanical throttle cable, allowing the ECM to control the throttle valve opening based on various sensor inputs, including the accelerator position sensor (APS) (Compl. p. 6). These systems are central to the operation of modern vehicles.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,345,604 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a throttle controller for an internal combustion engine having a throttle body including an adjustable throttle valve in an intake air passage; The accused vehicles' ETC system includes a throttle body with an adjustable throttle valve in an intake air passage, as shown in a technical diagram of the Electronic Throttle Control System (Compl. p. 6, Figure 3). ¶15 col. 3:5-7
a throttle valve actuator motor connected to the throttle valve for activating the throttle valve between a closed position and a full-open position; The accused ETC system includes an "ETS motor" that "Regulates the throttle valve to the set opening by ECM" (Compl. p. 7, Figure 5). ¶15 col. 3:9-12
a throttle position sensor connected to the throttle valve for developing a position signal indicating the actual throttle valve position; The accused vehicles include a Throttle Position Sensor (TPS) integrated into the ETC module which determines the throttle plate's angular position (Compl. p. 9, Figure 7). ¶15 col. 3:13-16
an ignition switch for initiating engine startup and engine shutdown and for developing an engine shutdown signal; The accused vehicles have an ignition switch that initiates engine startup and shutdown (Compl. p. 11, Figure 9). ¶15 col. 3:24-27
an electronic microprocessor comprising an input signal conditioning circuit receiving the engine shutdown signal, the electronic microprocessor including means for developing a throttle valve actuator motor control signal responsive to the presence of an engine shutdown signal whereby the throttle valve actuator motor adjusts the throttle plate to a throttle plate position... to prevent throttle plate freezing... The ECM in the accused vehicles allegedly functions as the microprocessor. It is alleged to position the throttle plate upon engine shutdown to prevent freezing, and a technical document is cited stating the "ECM and TPS learn the closed throttle voltage when the throttle plate is positioned at engine shutdown" (Compl. p. 14, Figure 11). ¶15 col. 3:16-23; 45-50

Identified Points of Contention (’604 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: The complaint's primary evidence for the "prevent throttle plate freezing" limitation appears to be documentation related to a "fail-safe mode" where the throttle moves to a 5-degree open position upon a system fault (Compl. p. 11). This raises the question of whether a fault condition response meets the claim limitation of a system that acts "...responsive to the presence of an engine shutdown signal..." The patent specification consistently links this shutdown signal to the operator turning the ignition switch to the "off" position, suggesting a routine action during normal operation, not a fault response ( ’604 Patent, col. 3:39-41).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system's alleged shutdown procedure is specifically to prevent freezing? The complaint cites a document (Compl. p. 14, Figure 11) stating the ECM learns the closed throttle voltage at shutdown to prevent freezing, but it is not clear if this learning process involves physically moving the throttle plate to an intermediate position as claimed, or if it is a purely electronic calibration.

U.S. Patent No. 6,619,106 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a high-resolution position sensing apparatus for determining the angular position of a throttle plate located in an electronic throttle and controlled by a PCM... The accused vehicles comprise a position sensing apparatus controlled by a PCM (Compl. p. 23, Figures 3, 7). ¶22 col. 2:10-14
a first throttle position sensor coupled to the throttle plate and generating a first throttle position sensor output signal... over a first range of motion of the throttle plate... wherein said first range... extends from approximately full closed to approximately full open. The accused system includes a first throttle position sensor (TPS1) that generates an output signal over the full range of motion from closed to open (0-105 degrees) (Compl. p. 24). ¶22 col. 1:53-56
a second throttle position sensor coupled to the throttle plate and generating a second throttle position sensor output signal... over a second range of motion of the throttle plate, where said second range is less than said first range... The accused system includes a second throttle position sensor (TPS2). The complaint alleges the second range is less than the first "at least given the closed throttle ('CT') and wide open throttle ('WOT') tolerances of the two sensors" (Compl. p. 25, Figure 21). ¶22 col. 2:25-28

Identified Points of Contention (’106 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the construction of the term "range of motion." The complaint provides a data table showing both TPS1 and TPS2 providing output voltage signals over the same 0 to 105-degree angular travel (Compl. p. 24). This appears to contradict the claim requirement that the "second range is less than said first range." The plaintiff's theory seems to rely on an interpretation where "range" is defined by operational tolerances rather than the full angular travel over which a signal is generated (Compl. ¶22, citing Figure 21).
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused system actually use the second sensor to achieve higher resolution over a limited portion of travel, as described in the patent? Or are the two sensors used for redundancy across the full range of travel, with differing voltage slopes for diagnostic purposes? The complaint does not detail how the PCM uses the signals from TPS1 and TPS2.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’604 Patent

  • The Term: "responsive to the presence of an engine shutdown signal"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent describes a proactive, routine procedure to prevent freezing that occurs every time the engine is shut down normally. The complaint's evidence, however, primarily describes a "fail-safe" or "limp-home" mode, which is a reactive response to a system fault. The case may turn on whether a signal indicating a system fault can be considered an "engine shutdown signal" within the meaning of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the shutdown signal to the operator's action of turning off the ignition switch, a normal event. It states the microprocessor "responds further to a signal from the engine ignition that indicates when the engine has been turned off" and "activates the motor when the engine is shut down" ('604 Patent, col. 2:38-42). The flowchart in Figure 2 shows the logic path beginning with the query "IGNITION SWITCH ON?" and proceeding down the "NO" path ('604 Patent, Fig. 2).
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any signal that causes the microprocessor to cease normal throttle control and move to a default position—whether from a key-off event or a system fault—qualifies as an "engine shutdown signal" in the context of shutting down normal engine operation.

For the ’106 Patent

  • The Term: "second range is less than said first range"
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 hinges on this limitation. The accused product appears to use two sensors that both generate signals across the full 0-105 degree angular travel. Plaintiff's infringement theory depends on defining "range" in a way that is not coextensive with the full mechanical travel of the throttle plate.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "range of motion" has its plain meaning: the physical extent of movement. Since the complaint's own data table (Compl. p. 24) shows both sensors providing signals across the same angular travel, there would be no infringement.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract states the second sensor is affine to the position "from full closed to approximately one-half open," and the purpose is to "achieve a higher signal resolution over that smaller range" ('106 Patent, Abstract). This language suggests the "range" is the intended high-resolution operational range, not necessarily the full mechanical range over which a signal might be produced. Plaintiff's infringement argument appears to rely on this interpretation, pointing to different "tolerances" for the two sensors (Compl. p. 25, Figure 21).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts allege only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶12, 19, 26, etc.). No specific facts are alleged to support inducement or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It alleges pre-suit knowledge stems from correspondence sent by Plaintiff's affiliate on March 8, 2017, and a subsequent telephone call (Compl. ¶¶204, 205). It alleges post-suit knowledge from the filing of the original complaint on September 1, 2017 (Compl. ¶206).

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

  • A central issue will be one of operational context: can evidence of a vehicle's fault-response or limp-home mode, which is designed to handle system errors, satisfy claim limitations describing proactive, routine procedures performed during normal operation, such as a specific sequence upon every engine shutdown to prevent icing?
  • A key question of claim construction will be whether technical terms like "range of motion" should be interpreted by their full mechanical scope or by a narrower, effective operational scope. The viability of the infringement allegation for the '106 patent, for example, may depend on whether the "lesser range" can be defined by software-interpreted tolerances rather than the physical arc of sensor operation.
  • An evidentiary question will be one of purpose and function: for claims requiring a specific purpose (e.g., "to prevent throttle plate freezing"), what technical evidence demonstrates that the accused feature was designed for and actually performs that specific function, as opposed to achieving a similar result as a byproduct of a different function (e.g., a fault-tolerant design)?