DCT
1:22-cv-00102
Aspiration Innovation Inc v. Subaru Of America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aspiration Innovation, Inc. (Colorado)
- Defendant: Subaru Corporation (Japan); Subaru of America, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Budo Law, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00102, E.D. Tex., 03/11/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue over Subaru of America, Inc. is based on an alleged regular and established place of business within the district. Venue and personal jurisdiction over Subaru Corporation are asserted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s STARLINK Multimedia system, used in vehicles like the Subaru Outback, infringes a patent related to creating, storing, and applying portable user-preference profiles.
- Technical Context: The technology involves systems that allow user-specific settings (e.g., for vehicle seats, climate, audio) to be saved as a portable profile and applied across different environments, a key feature for personalization in modern automotive and software products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter dated March 24, 2021, nearly one year before the complaint was filed. This notice may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-05-26 | '563 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-07-16 | '563 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-03-24 | Alleged pre-suit notice of infringement sent |
| 2022-03-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,489,563 - “Meta-configuration of profiles”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,489,563, “Meta-configuration of profiles,” issued July 16, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in storing and applying user preference profiles in a way that is portable and flexible, noting that prior systems were often tied to specific content or devices ('563 Patent, col. 1:25-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for creating profiles composed of various user-selected attributes (e.g., vehicle settings, software preferences) that are stored in a repository, which can be separate from the content to which they are applied ('563 Patent, Abstract). This allows a single profile to be retrieved and used across different environments (e.g., multiple vehicles), with the system applying only the attributes that are valid for the specific environment being configured ('563 Patent, col. 4:50-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables a unified and portable user experience, allowing a user's personalized environment to be recreated across different and potentially incompatible systems (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 25 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30, ¶26).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 25, a method claim, include:
- Selecting a plurality of attributes to define a profile for modifying the presentation of content data.
- Using a "profile controller" to determine if the profile has been assigned a unique identifier, and assigning one if it has not.
- Storing the profile in a profile repository using the profile controller.
- Sending a notification, via the profile controller, that the profile is available for use.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Product Identification: The Subaru Outback vehicle and its STARLINK Multimedia system (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the STARLINK Multimedia system allows drivers to create personal profiles that store and apply preferred settings, such as climate control, seat position, and audio system presets (Compl. ¶15, ¶22).
- This functionality allows a driver to have their preferred settings automatically applied, restoring their desired environment regardless of who previously operated the vehicle (Compl. ¶22, ¶35). The complaint alleges that Defendant provides user manuals and other resources instructing customers on how to create and use these profiles (Compl. ¶35). The complaint points to an online guide that allegedly illustrates setting up a driver profile using the vehicle's display screen to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶35, Ex. E).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 25 based on the complaint's narrative.
'563 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| selecting, at the direction of a user, a plurality of attributes... to define a profile to modify presentation of said content data... | The STARLINK system allows drivers to create profiles based on preferred settings for seat position, climate control, audio, mirrors, and other vehicle systems. | ¶15, ¶22, ¶35 | col. 4:11-24 |
| determining, using said profile controller, if said profile has previously been assigned a unique identifier; assigning a unique identifier to said profile using said profile controller if said profile has not previously been assigned a unique identifier | The accused system allows for the creation of a "profile unique to a given driver," which suggests the assignment and use of a unique identifier for each driver's profile. | ¶35 | col. 8:41-43 |
| storing said profile in a profile repository using said profile controller | Driver profiles are allegedly stored in the "vehicle's computer memory or other storage location," which functions as the profile repository. | ¶15 | col. 6:47-65 |
| sending a notification using said profile controller that said profile is available for use by said content data for modifying presentation of said said content data at run time... | The system's ability to automatically apply a driver's preferred settings upon recognition implies an internal notification or trigger that makes the corresponding profile available for use. | ¶22 | col. 7:22-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the integrated STARLINK Multimedia system qualifies as a "profile controller" as that term is used in the patent, which describes the concept in the context of various software applications, including general-purpose computing.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the "sending a notification" step based on the system's ability to apply a profile. The court may need to resolve the factual question of whether the internal mechanism that triggers the application of a profile in the accused system performs the function of "sending a notification" as required by the claim language, which the specification describes as potentially being a system-wide "broadcast."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "profile controller"
Context and Importance: The infringement case depends on whether the accused STARLINK system is a "profile controller". Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine if the patent's more abstract, software-oriented concept reads on the specific, embedded automotive system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention's applicability to a wide range of environments, from CAD applications to vehicle settings, suggesting the term is not limited to a specific type of software or hardware implementation ('563 Patent, col. 3:20-30; col. 4:1-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1C of the patent depicts a "profile controller" that "negotiates" with a client and "sends 'Profile Updated' message," which could imply a distinct software component with specific communication protocols not present in the accused system ('563 Patent, Fig. 1C, steps 172, 176).
The Term: "sending a notification"
Context and Importance: This is an active step required by the claim, and its construction is critical. The dispute may center on whether an internal system state change or trigger within the STARLINK system meets the definition of "sending a notification."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the notification as potentially being a "system-wide 'Broadcast' or targeted to specific clients," which could be argued to encompass internal software flags or events ('563 Patent, col. 7:24-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also mentions that the message may be sent to "remote destinations (such as over a network or the Internet)," language that could support a narrower construction requiring a communication act between distinct components or over a network ('563 Patent, col. 7:27-29).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by providing customers with advertisements, user manuals, and guides that instruct them on how to use the accused driver profile features (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 35). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, on the basis that the accused profile functionality has no substantial non-infringing use and cannot be disabled by the user (Compl. ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '563 Patent, stemming from a notice letter sent on March 24, 2021, and its continued sale of the Accused Products thereafter (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "profile controller", described in the patent across a range of software environments, be construed to cover the integrated hardware and software of the accused STARLINK automotive system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's internal process for recognizing a driver and applying their stored preferences perform the specific step of "sending a notification" as required by Claim 25, or is there a technical distinction between the system's operation and the claim's requirements?