DCT
2:25-cv-10658
FMReps Consulting Enterprises, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fmreps Consulting Enterprisess, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Ford Motor Co (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Evia Law PLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10658, E.D. Mich., 05/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Defendant Ford has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital certified pre-owned vehicle program infringes patents related to automated systems and methods for vehicle certification.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns digital platforms that streamline the traditionally paper-based process of inspecting, certifying, and managing the inventory of certified pre-owned vehicles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Plaintiff supplied Defendant with a digital certified pre-owned solution ("Ford eCPO") from 2018 until mid-2021. Plaintiff alleges that after Defendant terminated the relationship and switched to a new supplier, the new system continued to use Plaintiff's patented technology. The complaint also alleges Plaintiff notified Defendant of the patent application that became the '789 Patent in June 2021, prior to its issuance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '789 and '571 Patents |
| 2017 | Plaintiff began preparing to supply Defendant with a CPO solution |
| 2018 | Plaintiff launched the "Ford eCPO" program for Defendant |
| 2021-02 | Defendant introduced the "Ford Blue Advantage" name for its CPO program |
| 2021-Mid | Defendant terminated its use of Plaintiff's "Ford eCPO" and substituted a new supplier |
| 2021-06 | Plaintiff notified Defendant of the patent application that would become the '789 Patent |
| 2022-10-04 | '789 Patent Issued |
| 2024-10-15 | '571 Patent Issued |
| 2025-05-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,461,789 - “SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR DIGITAL CERTIFICATION OF PRE-OWNED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT”
- Issued: October 4, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of certifying pre-owned vehicles as historically being a "delicate and error prone process," with a high percentage of dealer infractions due to documentation issues, which undermines the reliability and trustworthiness of a certification program (’789 Patent, col. 2:36-42). The patent identifies a need for an improved, integrated system to minimize clerical errors while providing accurate, real-time information to all stakeholders (’789 Patent, col. 2:42-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated system and method that uses networked computing devices and a suite of applications to manage the certification process (’789 Patent, col. 3:24-33). It provides distinct graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for different stakeholders (e.g., technicians, managers, administrators) to input and access data. The system automates key steps, such as checking a vehicle's eligibility via its VIN, integrating third-party vehicle history reports, generating vehicle-specific inspection forms, and routing the results for electronic approval, all while updating a central inventory database in real time (’789 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This digital approach sought to replace inefficient, paper-based workflows, thereby increasing the speed, accuracy, and integrity of the vehicle certification process (’789 Patent, col. 2:36-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 (Compl. ¶23).
- Claim 8 recites an automated method comprising the essential elements of:
- Providing specific graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for a technician, a manager, and an administrator on first, second, and third portable computing devices, respectively.
- Receiving a vehicle identification number (VIN) via the technician GUI.
- Checking the VIN against a database for initial program eligibility.
- Automatically sending the VIN to vehicle history reporting agencies and analyzing the received vehicle history report (VHR) for further eligibility.
- Generating on-screen inspection forms that are automatically populated with items specific to the VIN.
- Receiving user responses to the inspection forms via the technician GUI.
- Providing an alert to the manager's device for certification authorization and receiving approval via the manager GUI.
- Sending the approved VIN to a database of certified vehicles.
- Generating a digital certification.
- Making the VHR, inspection forms, and certification data simultaneously accessible on the first, second, and third portable devices.
U.S. Patent No. 12,118,571 - “SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR DIGITAL CERTIFICATION OF PRE-OWNED VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT”
- Issued: October 15, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’789 Patent, the ’571 Patent shares an identical specification and thus addresses the same problems of error-prone, inefficient, paper-based vehicle certification processes (’571 Patent, col. 2:36-48).
- The Patented Solution: The ’571 Patent describes the same integrated digital platform as the ’789 Patent, utilizing multiple GUIs for different stakeholders to automate and track the vehicle certification workflow (’571 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:24-33).
- Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this technology aimed to bring efficiency, accuracy, and real-time data access to the management of certified pre-owned vehicle programs (’571 Patent, col. 2:42-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 9 (Compl. ¶37).
- Claim 9 recites an automated method comprising the essential elements of:
- Providing a technician GUI on a portable computing device.
- Receiving a VIN and checking it against a database for eligibility.
- Sending the VIN to vehicle history reporting agencies and analyzing the received VHR.
- Generating automatically populated, VIN-specific inspection forms.
- Receiving user responses to the inspection forms.
- Providing access to the VHR and inspection responses via a manager GUI.
- Receiving certification approval via the manager GUI.
- Sending the VIN to a database of certified vehicles and generating a digital certification.
- Generating an administrator GUI providing real-time information, with data from the technician and manager GUIs displayed in one of at least two visual forms.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's digital Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) program, marketed as "Ford Blue Advantage" (Compl. ¶¶14, 19). The complaint specifies that the infringement began when Defendant switched from Plaintiff's "Ford eCPO" system to a new, unnamed supplier in mid-2021 (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Ford Blue Advantage program performs the same functions as Plaintiff's former system (Compl. ¶16). This includes processes for vehicle inspection and certification, such as passing a detailed multi-point inspection to become "Gold, EV or Blue Certified" (Compl. p. 4). The system also integrates third-party vehicle history data, providing customers with a "Free CARFAX® Vehicle History Report" for each certified vehicle (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges Ford instructs its dealers on how to use this new digital CPO system via a document titled "Online Certification Job Aid: Vehicle Certification" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s digital CPO program meets every feature of the asserted claims, with detailed infringement contentions provided in sealed claim charts (Exhibits D and E) (Compl. ¶¶19, 24, 38).
’789 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automated method for certifying pre-owned vehicles... | The Ford digital CPO program is alleged to be an automated method for certifying vehicles. | ¶24 | col. 3:1-4 |
| providing a technician graphical user interface (GUI) on a first portable computing device; | The program allegedly provides a GUI for technicians at Ford dealerships to conduct inspections. | ¶24, ¶30 | col. 7:40-44 |
| providing an alert to a second portable computing device for certification authorization; | The system allegedly notifies managers when a vehicle inspection is ready for approval. | ¶24, ¶30 | col. 8:65-col. 9:2 |
| providing access to the VHR, user generated responses... via a manager GUI provided on the second portable computing device; | The program allegedly allows managers to review inspection results and VHRs on their own devices. | ¶24, ¶30 | col. 9:3-8 |
| generating an administrator GUI on a third portable computing device, said administrator GUI providing real time information... | The system allegedly provides a high-level administrative interface for viewing certification data and analytics. | ¶24, ¶30 | col. 9:55-67 |
| wherein the VHR, eligibility status, inspection forms... are accessible, once created, simultaneously on both the first, second, and third portable computing devices. | The data related to a certified vehicle is allegedly accessible concurrently by technicians, managers, and administrators. | ¶24, ¶30 | col. 10:55-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's system uses "first," "second," and "third portable computing devices" as required by claim 8. The defense may argue its system architecture does not map onto this three-device structure, for instance, if roles are accessed via a web portal on any device rather than through distinct device types or instances as claimed.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation of infringement will depend on evidence that Defendant's system performs every step of the detailed method claim. The limitation requiring information to be "simultaneously... accessible" on all three devices may be a point of dispute regarding its technical meaning and implementation in the accused system.
’571 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automated method for certifying pre-owned vehicles... | The Ford digital CPO program is alleged to be an automated method for certifying vehicles. | ¶38 | col. 3:1-4 |
| generating on screen inspection forms and certification checklists that are automatically populated with only items specific to the VIN... | The Ford digital CPO program allegedly generates inspection checklists tailored to the specific vehicle being certified. | ¶38, ¶44 | col. 8:1-6 |
| providing access to the VHR, user generated responses to the inspection forms, and certification checklists via a manager GUI; | The system allegedly provides a manager-level interface for reviewing all pertinent vehicle data before approval. | ¶38, ¶44 | col. 9:3-8 |
| generating an administrator GUI... providing real time information... in one of at least two visual forms. | The program allegedly provides an administrative dashboard with data visualizations for tracking the CPO program. | ¶38, ¶44 | col. 9:55-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: While broader than claim 8 of the ’789 patent, claim 9 still contains numerous specific steps. The analysis will question whether Defendant's system, sourced from a different vendor, implements the exact sequence of VHR analysis, form generation, data routing, and GUI generation as claimed.
- Technical Questions: Evidence will be required to show that the accused system’s inspection forms are "automatically populated with only items specific to the VIN," as opposed to using a generic checklist that technicians must manually adapt.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "portable computing device" (asserted in both claims)
- Context and Importance: This term appears multiple times in the asserted claims, particularly in '789 Claim 8, which recites a "first," "second," and "third portable computing device" for the technician, manager, and administrator, respectively. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether this term can read on the full range of hardware (tablets, phones, laptops, desktops) used by different personnel within the Ford dealer network.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the inventive tool is "designed for mobile phone and tablet computer platforms... as well as traditional desktops and laptops" (’789 Patent, col. 3:36-39). This language may support a construction that is not limited to hand-held devices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The numerous figures depicting the user interface are consistently shown on a tablet-style device (e.g., ’789 Patent, Figs. 4B, 4C, 4J). This consistent depiction of a specific embodiment could be cited to argue for a narrower construction limited to mobile or tablet-like devices.
- The Term: "simultaneously on both the first, second, and third portable computing devices" (’789 Patent, Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: This final limitation of claim 8 requires a specific state of data accessibility across the system. The infringement analysis will turn on the technical meaning of "simultaneously." Practitioners may focus on this term because it could impose a high evidentiary bar, potentially requiring proof of a specific real-time data synchronization architecture in the accused system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes "real-time information availability" and "instant access to available inventory" (’789 Patent, col. 3:41-42; col. 3:53-54). This focus on real-time access might support a functional definition, where data is considered "simultaneously accessible" if it is available on-demand from a central, continuously updated database, rather than requiring a specific push-notification or identical-state architecture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "simultaneously" itself suggests events occurring at the exact same time. An argument could be made that this requires more than just access to a central database; it may imply that a change made on one device is instantly reflected on the others without needing a manual refresh or new query. The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition to resolve this ambiguity.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant instructs and encourages its dealers to use the accused digital CPO program, which constitutes direct infringement by the dealers. This instruction is allegedly provided through a "Job Aid" document (Exhibit C) distributed to dealers (Compl. ¶¶30, 44).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is willful. For the '789 Patent, this is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a June 2021 notification in which Plaintiff informed Defendant of the pending patent application (Compl. ¶¶20, 30). For both patents, the complaint asserts Defendant "was willfully blind to the existence of the" patents (Compl. ¶¶31, 45). The complaint also points to Plaintiff's public patent marking on its website as a basis for notice (Compl. ¶21, p. 6).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate, on an element-by-element basis, that Defendant's current CPO system—provided by a third-party supplier—practices every step of the lengthy and detailed asserted method claims, particularly the specific multi-device architecture and data synchronization requirements of '789 Claim 8?
- The case may turn on a question of claim construction: How will the court define "portable computing device"? A broad construction inclusive of desktops could favor Plaintiff, while a narrow construction limited to mobile tablets could create challenges in proving infringement across the distinct "first, second, and third" devices required by the '789 Patent's claim 8.
- A significant question for damages will be willfulness and intent: Given the parties' prior business relationship and Plaintiff's alleged notice to Defendant of the pending patent application before it issued, what evidence supports the allegation that Defendant was "willfully blind" to the risk of infringement when it launched a functionally similar system with a new supplier?