DCT

2:20-cv-10023

2BCom LLC v. FCA US LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-10023, E.D. Mich., 01/06/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants have a principal place of business in the Eastern District of Michigan, conduct business in the district, and have committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Uconnect in-vehicle audio and multimedia integration systems infringe five patents related to wireless communication, power management, authentication, and data transfer protocols.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit targets in-vehicle infotainment systems, which serve as the central hub for communication, navigation, and media playback in modern automobiles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2020-00996), which resulted in the cancellation of claims 12-17 and 19-21. This proceeding may create estoppel, potentially limiting the arguments Plaintiff can make regarding the construction and validity of the remaining asserted claim from that patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’643 Patent
2000-04-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’166 Patent
2000-07-06 Earliest Priority Date for ’707 Patent
2001-09-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’210 Patent
2002-01-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’444 Patent
2004-12-14 ’444 Patent Issued
2005-04-26 ’643 Patent Issued
2005-08-09 ’166 Patent Issued
2006-10-24 ’210 Patent Issued
2007-02-27 ’707 Patent Issued
2020-01-06 Complaint Filed
2020-05-29 Inter Partes Review (IPR2020-00996) filed against the ’210 Patent
2023-04-05 Inter Partes Review Certificate issued, canceling claims of ’210 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,831,444 - "External Storage Device, And Remaining Battery Amount Notifying Method In The Same"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,831,444, "External Storage Device, And Remaining Battery Amount Notifying Method In The Same," issued December 14, 2004.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that as portable external storage devices became common, users often carried them in bags or pockets, making it difficult to check the remaining battery life of the device without physically accessing it (’444 Patent, col. 1:29-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, battery-powered storage device that can wirelessly communicate with a host device (e.g., a PC or PDA). The host device can transmit settings to the portable device, configuring how and when battery status should be reported. The portable device then detects its own battery level and transmits this information back to the host, which can display the battery status or a warning to the user (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-50, FIG. 8).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for remotely monitoring and managing the power status of peripheral wireless devices, a growing challenge as more battery-powered accessories entered the market.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A battery supplying power to a communication section.
    • Means for receiving "setting information" from an information processing apparatus, which defines a "notifying method."
    • Means for storing the received setting information.
    • Means for detecting the remaining energy of the battery.
    • Means for transmitting information about the remaining battery energy to the information processing apparatus "on the basis of the received setting information."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,928,166 - "Radio Communication Device And User Authentication Method For Use Therewith"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,166, "Radio Communication Device And User Authentication Method For Use Therewith," issued August 9, 2005.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inflexibility of conventional user authentication systems for wireless devices. A single high-security password can be cumbersome for temporary or low-risk interactions (e.g., a brief data exchange), while a simple password may be inadequate for more secure environments (e.g., an office network) (’166 Patent, col. 2:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a radio communication device that stores multiple passwords, such as a "temporary password" and a "private password." The device includes a selecting means that chooses the appropriate password for authentication based on the current communication context, external factors (e.g., location, time), or user input, thereby adapting the security level to the situation (’166 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-18).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled context-aware security for wireless devices, allowing for more flexible and user-friendly authentication protocols that could adapt to varying levels of security risk.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Means for acquiring an "external factor" associated with a security level.
    • Means for selecting a security level from a plurality of security levels based on the acquired external factor.
    • Means for receiving an authentication request and authentication information from another device.
    • Means for checking if the received information is valid "depending on the selected security level."
    • Means for sending a response that authenticates or rejects the other device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210 - "Wireless Communication Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210, "Wireless Communication Apparatus," issued October 24, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wireless device that, after establishing a connection with one device, can automatically shift into a "non-connectable" or "non-discoverable" mode. This prevents the device from responding to inquiries or connection requests from other, third-party devices, thereby avoiding interference with the established communication link (’210 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-12).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Uconnect system infringes by managing its wireless connections in a way that, once connected to a primary device (e.g., a user's phone), it inhibits or controls connections from other devices (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,184,707 - "Communication Device And A Method For Controlling The Communication Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,184,707, "Communication Device And A Method For Controlling The Communication Device," issued February 27, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for dynamically loading and unloading service information (such as drivers or software) based on flexible, user-defined conditions for link connection or disconnection. The goal is to avoid the performance degradation caused by unnecessarily loading or unloading services every time a wireless link is temporarily established or lost (’707 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-34).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Uconnect system infringes by managing its services and software based on the connection status of peripheral devices (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 6,885,643 - "Method And Device For Facilitating Efficient Data Transfer Via A Wireless Communication Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,885,643, "Method And Device For Facilitating Efficient Data Transfer Via A Wireless Communication Network," issued April 26, 2005.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of transferring data efficiently over a wireless link with variable conditions. It proposes a system where an upper-level application (e.g., an audio/video protocol) can acquire information about the condition of the underlying wireless link (e.g., available bandwidth, packet discard rate) and use that information to optimize data transfer parameters, such as selecting an appropriate data type or transfer rate (’643 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-37).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Uconnect system infringes by monitoring wireless link conditions to facilitate efficient data transfer within the vehicle (Compl. ¶65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Uconnect" system (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Uconnect system is identified as an "audio and multimedia integration system" installed in a wide range of vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants, including those under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo brands (Compl. ¶6-7). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the Uconnect system's internal architecture or operation, instead referencing its general role as a multimedia hub. It is alleged to be a commercially significant feature available across dozens of vehicle models (Compl. ¶7).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the narrative infringement counts.

For the ’444 Patent, the complaint alleges that the Uconnect system directly and indirectly infringes at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶16, ¶18). The narrative theory suggests the Uconnect system performs the claimed method by using its own battery or the vehicle's power system, receiving setting information (e.g., user preferences), storing these settings, detecting a power or battery status, and transmitting this information for display to the user based on the stored settings (Compl. ¶17).

For the ’166 Patent, the complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶28, ¶30). The infringement theory appears to be that the Uconnect system acquires an "external factor" (e.g., user input, vehicle status, or the presence of a paired device), selects a corresponding security level from multiple available levels, and authenticates other devices using a password or key associated with that selected security level (Compl. ¶29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’444 Patent

The Term

  • "external storage device" (from the patent title and description, framing the context of the "device" in claim 1)

Context and Importance

  • The patent was developed in the context of portable, battery-powered peripherals like wireless hard drives. The accused product is an integrated in-vehicle infotainment system. The construction of the term "device" in claim 1, informed by the specification's repeated use of "external storage device," will be critical to determining if the claim scope can read on a system like Uconnect.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claims govern, and claim 1 recites a "device" with a set of functional "means." The specification's focus on a "portable external storage device" could be presented as merely a preferred embodiment, not a limitation on the broader term "device" used in the claim itself (’444 Patent, col. 9:51).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the title, abstract, and background consistently and exclusively describe the invention as a "portable external storage device" (’444 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:17-23). This consistent framing may be used to argue that the invention is limited to physically separate, portable peripherals and does not cover a component integrated into a vehicle's dashboard.

’166 Patent

The Term

  • "external factor" (from claim 1)

Context and Importance

  • The infringement theory depends on the Uconnect system using inputs like vehicle status or user commands as an "external factor" to switch between security levels. Whether these inputs qualify as "external factors" under the patent will be a central dispute.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples of external factors such as "the presence or absence of AC power supply" or whether a "cable is connected," which relate to the device's operational environment and state (’166 Patent, col. 5:19-27). This may support an interpretation that includes a vehicle's operational state (e.g., ignition on/off) or the connection status of a paired phone.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples consistently relate to the physical environment and power status of a portable device (e.g., mobile vs. in-office, battery vs. AC power) (’166 Patent, FIG. 6; col. 5:19-30). A party could argue the term is limited to such environmental conditions and does not encompass user inputs or software-level state changes within an integrated system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendants provide instructions and user manuals, both online and with the vehicles, that encourage and direct customers and retailers to use the Uconnect systems in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶19, ¶31, ¶43, ¶55, ¶67).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents. However, the basis for knowledge is stated to be "since, at least, the date of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶20, ¶32, ¶44, ¶56, ¶68). This alleges willfulness based only on post-suit knowledge, which is a standard allegation, and does not assert that Defendants had knowledge of the patents or their alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit being filed.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can claim terms drafted in the early 2000s for portable consumer electronics (e.g., a "portable external storage device" in the ’444 patent, a "radio communication device" with context-aware passwords in the ’166 patent) be construed to cover a modern, complex, integrated in-vehicle infotainment system? This question will dominate claim construction and may require analysis under the doctrine of equivalents.

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Since the complaint lacks specific technical evidence, the case will turn on whether discovery reveals that the Uconnect system actually performs the specific functions recited in the means-plus-function claims. For instance, for the ’166 patent, does the system merely use one security protocol, or can Plaintiff prove it actively "select[s] a security level from a plurality of security levels" based on an "external factor" as required by the claim?

  3. A significant procedural question will be the impact of prior proceedings: The cancellation of multiple claims of the ’210 patent during Inter Partes Review will likely create issue preclusion (estoppel). A central question for the court will be how the arguments and findings from that IPR proceeding limit the infringement and validity arguments Plaintiff can now advance for the remaining asserted claim of that patent.