DCT

3:24-cv-09298

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Volvo Car Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00429, W.D. Tex., 06/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Volvo maintains regular and established places of business in the district through its authorized dealerships. The complaint contends these dealerships act as agents of Volvo, ratified and controlled by Volvo, particularly through the "Care by Volvo" subscription service, which requires dealers to sign an addendum making them agents for those transactions. The complaint also references a prior case in which a Volvo entity allegedly consented to venue in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive vehicles, and their associated infotainment, connectivity, and driver-assistance systems, infringe eight patents related to in-vehicle networking, wireless data communication, high-dynamic-range cameras, and location-based services.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are foundational to modern automotive systems, including in-vehicle data buses for component communication, cellular-based Wi-Fi hotspots for passenger connectivity, and multi-camera systems for parking assistance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation, MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. Volvo Car USA LLC, Defendant Volvo Car USA LLC previously admitted it has a regular and established place of business in the district and consented to venue for the purposes of that action. This prior admission may be a focal point in arguments over whether venue is proper in the current case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-06 Earliest Priority Date for ’004 and ’008 Patents
2000-06-15 Earliest Priority Date for ’283 Patent
2002-03-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’318 Patent
2004-05-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’641 Patent
2004-08-25 Earliest Priority Date for ’158 Patent
2004-12-14 ’283 Patent Issued
2006-05-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’138 Patent
2009-01-27 ’008 Patent Issued
2010-03-23 ’318 Patent Issued
2011-02-15 ’004 Patent Issued
2012-10-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’608 Patent
2015-02-10 ’641 Patent Issued
2016-01-05 ’158 Patent Issued
2017-03-21 ’608 Patent Issued
2019-05-14 ’138 Patent Issued
2023-06-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,832,283 - Method for Addressing Network Components (Issued Dec. 14, 2004)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of addressing electronic components within a vehicle's data bus system, particularly when the system configuration varies between vehicles and components must also communicate with external networks like the Internet ('283 Patent, col. 1:11-2:20). A method was needed to allow both flexible internal communication and secure, simplified external access.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where components on a vehicle's internal network (the "first network") are addressed based on their function, rather than just their physical location. When a component needs to communicate externally (with a "second network"), it is assigned a separate, second address by that external network. This dual-addressing scheme allows internal, function-based communication to remain consistent while enabling a component to participate in an external network using that network's own addressing protocol ('283 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-44).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for integrating isolated, function-critical vehicle networks with external IP-based networks, a crucial step for enabling connected car features while maintaining internal system integrity ('283 Patent, col. 2:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A method for addressing components of a first network in a data bus system in a transport vehicle.
    • Each component is assigned a first address for communication within the network, which is stored in a central register.
    • At least one component communicates with a second network.
    • This component, when dialing into the second network, is assigned a second address by that second network.
    • Within the first network, addressing is based on function-specific address components, with identical function blocks being addressed via identical function-specific address components.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,891,004 - Method for Vehicle Internetworks (Issued Feb. 15, 2011)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a comprehensive architecture for in-vehicle networks ("internetworks") that can securely and flexibly integrate a diverse and growing number of electronic devices, manage communications between different internal buses, and provide connectivity to external networks ('008 Patent, col. 1:40-2:8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method centered on a "gateway node" within the vehicle. This gateway node couples and bridges multiple vehicle buses (e.g., a high-speed bus and a low-speed bus) and their connected network elements. The system is designed to "automatically form" a network, and the gateway enables at least one internal network element to be coupled to and controlled by a remote computer outside the vehicle ('008 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 10).
  • Technical Importance: This gateway-centric architecture provides a structured method for managing internal data flow and creating a secure bridge for external communications, enabling advanced features like remote diagnostics and control ('008 Patent, col. 4:12-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 68 (Compl. ¶95).

  • Claim 68 requires:

    • A method for internetworking, comprising coupling, at a gateway node, a plurality of network elements in a vehicle that includes a first vehicle bus and a second vehicle bus.
    • Automatically forming a network where the gateway node provides a bridge between the first and second vehicle buses.
    • Coupling at least one network element to a remote computer outside the vehicle.
    • Remotely controlling, at the remote computer, at least one function of the network elements.

  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158, titled LARGE DYNAMIC RANGE CAMERAS, issued January 5, 2016 (Compl. ¶58).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for expanding the dynamic exposure range of a digital camera. It uses a plurality of channels, each with its own sensor, and a processing component that sets a different integration time (exposure time) for each channel before combining the data to create a single, high-dynamic-range image (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 111).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶111).
    • Accused Features: The "Volvo 360° Surround View Camera" system is accused. This system allegedly uses multiple cameras (the claimed "plurality of channels") and a processing component that "stitches together" the video inputs to create an overhead view, thereby allegedly determining integration times and combining data as claimed (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 114-115).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138, titled DETERMINING BUFFER OCCUPANCY AND SELECTING DATA FOR TRANSMISSION ON A RADIO BEARER, issued May 14, 2019 (Compl. ¶61).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system. The UE is configured to determine the amount of data in its transmission buffers ("buffer occupancies"), report this to the network, receive a single allocation of uplink resources, and then select data for transmission from its various radio bearers using a two-step iterative process (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 124).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶124).
    • Accused Features: Volvo's Mobile Hotspot Systems, which include 4G LTE modems, are accused of being the infringing "UE." The complaint alleges these systems operate according to 3GPP standards that require the claimed steps of determining buffer status, reporting it, and selecting data for transmission based on network grants (Compl. ¶¶ 126-135).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,953,641

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,953,641, titled METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-CARRIER COMMUNICATIONS WITH VARIABLE CHANNEL BANDWIDTH, issued February 10, 2015 (Compl. ¶64).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a mobile station for an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) system. The station receives broadcast information in a narrow, fixed-width "first band" and uses that information to determine the "second band," which is the wider, variable operating channel bandwidth of the system (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 144).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶144).
    • Accused Features: Volvo vehicles equipped with in-vehicle Wi-Fi and 4G LTE modems are accused of being the infringing "mobile station." The complaint alleges these systems comply with 3GPP LTE standards, which use a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) transmitted over a narrow, fixed number of subcarriers in the center of the channel to inform the device of the full, variable system bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶ 146-158).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,684,318

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,684,318, titled SHARED-COMMUNICATIONS CHANNEL UTILIZATION FOR APPLICATIONS HAVING DIFFERENT CLASS OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS, issued March 23, 2010 (Compl. ¶67).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for managing access to a shared communications channel. It involves queuing data frames and setting the length of a station's "transmit opportunity" based on the priority of the queue, thereby allowing applications with different quality-of-service requirements to share the channel effectively (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 167).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶167).
    • Accused Features: The Wi-Fi functionality in Volvo vehicles is accused. The complaint alleges this functionality implements the IEEE 802.11 standard, which uses the Enhanced Distributed Channel Access (EDCA) mechanism for Quality of Service (QoS). This mechanism allegedly infringes by using different priority queues (Access Categories) to determine the length of the transmission opportunity (TXOP) (Compl. ¶¶ 169-173).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,602,608

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,602,608, titled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NOTIFYING A USER OF PEOPLE, PLACES OR THINGS HAVING ATTRIBUTES MATCHING A USER'S STATED PREFERENCE, issued March 21, 2017 (Compl. ¶70).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a computer-implemented method that matches users with information by receiving a user's preference, location, and a geographic limit. It determines a match from a database of objects by comparing the object's attributes to the user's preference and its location to the user's location and geographic limit, then sends information about the match to the user (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 183).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶183).
    • Accused Features: Volvo's "Connected Navigation System" is accused. The system is alleged to receive user preferences and device location, store a plurality of objects (e.g., points of interest), and determine matches to provide navigation-related services and information, such as Real Time Traffic Information (RTTI) (Compl. ¶¶ 182, 184-189).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,484,008

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,484,008, titled APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE INTERNETWORKS, issued January 27, 2009 (Compl. ¶73).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a gateway node for a vehicle network. The node comprises at least one interface port, a real-time processor configured for real-time operations, and an application processor for high-level processing functions, with the real-time processor coupled between the interface port and the application processor (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 198).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 75 (Compl. ¶198).
    • Accused Features: Volvo infotainment systems that use MOST (Media Oriented System Transport) are accused. The complaint alleges that the Display and Navigation Module Display Electronic Control Unit (ECU) functions as the claimed gateway node, where a MOST Intelligent Network Interface Controller (INIC) acts as the real-time processor and an External Host Controller serves as the application processor (Compl. ¶¶ 197, 200-203).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names various Volvo vehicle models across different infringement counts, including the C40, V40, XC40, S60, V60, XC60, S90, V90, XC90, and XC90 Recharge models (Compl. ¶¶ 77, 94, 110, 123, 143, 166, 182, 197). The accused instrumentalities are specific systems within these vehicles, such as the infotainment systems (e.g., Sensus Connect), connectivity modules (in-car Wi-Fi), and driver-assistance systems (Surround View Camera).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionalities are central to the modern connected vehicle experience. The complaint alleges that Volvo's infotainment systems use network architectures like MOST to integrate various components (Compl. ¶80). It further alleges that Volvo's "Connected Services" and "Sensus Connect" systems provide in-car Wi-Fi hotspots by using cellular modems to connect to external servers and the internet, enabling remote control and data services (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 100-102). The complaint includes a marketing screenshot describing the ability to turn a Volvo into a "POWERFUL WI-FI HOTSPOT" (Compl. p. 18, Fig. 9). The complaint also describes the "360° Surround View Camera" as a parking aid that digitally stitches together inputs from four cameras to create an overhead panorama (Compl. ¶114; p. 42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'283 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Method for addressing components of a first network in a data bus system in a transport vehicle... The accused Volvo automobiles are transport vehicles containing data bus systems with networked components. ¶79 col. 1:11-17
...in which each component is assigned a first address for mutual communication within the network and the first addresses are stored in a central register... The accused vehicles include a MOST network in which components are assigned a first address. These addresses are allegedly stored in a central registry generated by the NetworkMaster. The complaint provides a diagram from the MOST Specification illustrating an example of a central registry (p. 30). ¶¶80, 81, 82 col. 4:9-14
...wherein at least one particular component of the first network communicates with a second network, said one component, when dialling into the second network, is assigned a second address by the second network... A Human Machine Interface (HMI) module within the MOST network includes a Bluetooth component that connects to a second network, such as a mobile phone's Bluetooth network. This HMI is allegedly assigned a second address by that second network upon connection. ¶¶83, 84, 85 col. 2:24-30
...and wherein, within the first network, addressing takes place on the basis of function-specific address components, identical function blocks of the components being addressed via identical function-specific address components. The MOST network allegedly uses function-specific addressing, where components are addressed based on function blocks (e.g., tuner, amplifier). The complaint provides a diagram of a MOST ring network (p. 29). ¶81 col. 2:30-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does a Bluetooth pairing process constitute "dialing into" a "second network" which then "assigns a second address" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which uses the language of IP networks? The interpretation of these terms will be critical.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on generalities of the MOST specification to allege function-specific addressing. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that Volvo's specific implementation of MOST uses "function-specific address components" and addresses "identical function blocks" via "identical function-specific address components" as strictly required by the claim language.

'004 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 68) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for internetworking, comprising: coupling, at a gateway node, a plurality of network elements in a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle comprising the gateway node, a first vehicle bus... a second vehicle bus... Volvo's infotainment systems (e.g., Sensus Connect) allegedly act as a gateway node coupling network elements on multiple buses, such as the MOST bus and CAN bus. A diagram of a "Volvo XC90 network" shows multiple interconnected buses and modules (p. 38). ¶¶97, 98 col. 34:25-40
...automatically forming a network of the plurality of network elements in which the gateway node provides a bridge between the first vehicle bus and the second vehicle bus... The accused systems are alleged to automatically form a network upon vehicle startup, with the gateway node bridging communication between the different buses. ¶99 col. 31:4-9
...coupling at least one network element of the assembled plurality of network elements to a remote computer located outside of the motor vehicle... A "Telematics and Connectivity Antenna Module" or "Vehicle Connectivity Module" allegedly couples the in-vehicle network to remote Volvo Sensus Connect servers. Marketing materials for in-car Wi-Fi are provided as evidence of this external coupling (p. 34). ¶¶100, 101 col. 30:56-62
...and remotely controlling, at the remote computer, at least one function of the assembled plurality of network elements Features connected to the remote Volvo servers are allegedly used to remotely control vehicle functions. ¶102 col. 4:19-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: What is the scope of "automatically forming a network"? Does this term, in the context of the patent, read on the standard, pre-configured power-on initialization of vehicle buses, or does it require a more dynamic, ad-hoc network formation process as discussed in the patent's specification?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint identifies the overall infotainment system as the "gateway node." The case may require detailed evidence pinpointing which specific hardware component(s) perform the claimed bridging function between a "first vehicle bus" and a "second vehicle bus."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’283 Patent

  • The Term: "function-specific address components"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether the addressing scheme used in Volvo's MOST network, which is based on a published standard, meets the specific requirements of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that addressing can be performed "via its main function block" and that "the function of a component" is described by this address component, suggesting any addressing scheme tied to a device's primary role could qualify ('283 Patent, col. 4:40-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures show specific hexadecimal codes assigned to functions (e.g., "0x51" and "0x06") ('283 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a pre-defined, standardized set of codes that map directly to specific hardware functions, rather than just a general logical address.

For the ’004 Patent

  • The Term: "automatically forming a network"
  • Context and Importance: This term is crucial for infringement, as the accused functionality is the standard operation of an automotive system. Practitioners may focus on whether "automatically forming" requires more than a pre-configured system simply powering on.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of formation, which may support an interpretation that any network creation without manual user intervention is "automatic."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding specification ('008 Patent) describes the network architecture as "self-organizing," referencing protocols for "automatic adjustment" and "discovery and initialization of software and hardware" ('008 Patent, col. 28:25-33). This context suggests a more dynamic process than the initialization of a fixed, pre-designed network topology.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Volvo provides customers with instructions on how to use the accused features (e.g., connecting to Wi-Fi, using the surround-view camera) in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 106). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging that Volvo sells products that either have no substantial non-infringing use or contain a component that is especially made or adapted for use in infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 90, 107).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Volvo gained "actual knowledge" of each patent-in-suit "not later than receipt of a letter dated June 7, 2023, and received on the same date," one day before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 88, 105, 118, 138, 161, 177, 192, 206).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: Can the plaintiff prove that Volvo’s specific commercial implementations of broad industry standards (e.g., MOST, IEEE 802.11, 3GPP LTE) operate in the precise manner required by the patent claims, or will the infringement theories rely on the general functionalities described in the standards themselves?
  • A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on whether claim terms rooted in one technical context can be construed to cover accused functionality from another. For example, can the Bluetooth pairing process be defined as the "assignment of a second address by a second network," and can the standard power-on sequence of pre-configured vehicle buses be considered "automatically forming a network"?
  • A significant threshold question will be venue: The dispute will likely focus on whether Volvo's network of independent but authorized dealerships constitutes "regular and established places of business" of Volvo itself, a determination that may depend on the degree of control Volvo exerts and the legal interpretation of agency theory in the context of patent venue.