DCT

2:17-cv-00105

Blitzsafe Texas LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00105, E.D. Tex., 02/03/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, have regularly conducted business there, and certain of the alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive integration systems infringe patents related to interface technology that enables third-party audio and multimedia devices to be controlled by a vehicle's factory or aftermarket stereo system.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of integrating aftermarket audio sources, which use their own communication protocols, with vehicle stereo systems that use different, often proprietary, protocols.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-12-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’786 and ’342 Patents
2009-02-10 ’786 Patent Issued
2012-04-10 ’342 Patent Issued
2013-01-01 Alleged First Import/Sale of Accused Product (approx.)
2017-02-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786: "Audio Device Integration System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,489,786 (the ’786 Patent), titled “Audio Device Integration System,” issued February 10, 2009.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of integrating after-market audio devices (e.g., CD changers, MP3 players, satellite receivers) with existing car stereos, particularly factory-installed Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) systems. Such systems often use proprietary communication buses and protocols, preventing them from recognizing or controlling external devices. (’786 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is an interface device that sits between the car stereo and an external audio device. The interface is designed to receive control commands from the car stereo (e.g., "next track"), process and convert those commands into a format the external device can understand, and transmit the formatted command to the device. In the other direction, it receives data (e.g., track number, song title) from the external device, processes and converts it into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and sends it to the stereo for display. (’786 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-51; Fig. 1).
    • Technical Importance: The described technology enabled consumers to add new audio sources to their vehicles without replacing the factory-installed head unit, thereby preserving the vehicle’s original dashboard aesthetics and integrated controls. (’786 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention and its elements include:
    • A first connector for a car stereo, a second for an after-market audio device, and a third for auxiliary sources.
    • An interface connected between the first and second connectors containing a pre-programmed microcontroller.
    • A "first pre-programmed code portion" for receiving a control command from the car stereo in an "incompatible" format, processing it, and transmitting a "compatible" formatted command to the after-market device.
    • A "second pre-programmed code portion" for receiving data from the after-market device in an "incompatible" format, processing it, and transmitting "compatible" formatted data to the car stereo for display.
    • A "third pre-programmed code portion" for switching to one or more auxiliary input sources. (’786 Patent, col. 21:31-col. 22:4).

U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342: "Multimedia Device Integration System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,155,342 (the ’342 Patent), titled “Multimedia Device Integration System,” issued April 10, 2012.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’786 Patent, the ’342 Patent addresses a similar problem in an evolving technological landscape. It expands the scope to include "multimedia" devices such as video players and cellular telephones, and notes the additional challenge of integrating these devices wirelessly. (’342 Patent, col. 1:15-29; col. 2:17-25).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an integration system, which can be implemented as an interface or an integration subsystem within a portable device, that communicates with a car's audio/video system via a wireless link (e.g., Bluetooth). This system obtains information about media files on the portable device, transmits it to the car system for display, and allows the user to control playback of the media file using the car system's controls. The patent also discloses voice recognition and speech synthesis capabilities. (’342 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-13; Fig. 18).
    • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from wired, audio-only integration to wireless, multimedia integration, reflecting the rise of smartphones and other portable media devices as primary in-vehicle entertainment sources. (’342 Patent, col. 2:39-44).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶22). Independent claim 1 is representative of the wireless integration aspect of the invention and its elements include:
    • An integration subsystem in communication with a portable device.
    • A first wireless interface connected to the subsystem, which establishes a wireless link with a second wireless interface connected to the car audio/video system.
    • The subsystem obtains audio file information from the portable device and transmits it over the wireless link for display on the car system.
    • The subsystem instructs the portable device to play the audio file in response to user selection via the car system's controls.
    • The subsystem transmits the audio generated by the portable device over the wireless link for playback on the car system. (’342 Patent, col. 39:4-col. 40:24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused product as the "Bosch Model LCN2K70A00" (Compl. ¶11).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused product is an "audio and multimedia integration system" that has been manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States since at least 2013 (Compl. ¶11). It is alleged to contain "interfaces that permit an end user to use a car radio's controls to control an external third party audio device" (Compl. p. 4, ¶16). The complaint further alleges that Defendants provide product manuals that instruct automotive OEMs and end users on how to connect external devices to a car stereo using the accused product (Compl. p. 4, ¶15). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused product.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed mapping of the accused product's features to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally. The core narrative theory suggests that the Bosch LCN2K70A00 product functions as the claimed interface by enabling an external audio or multimedia device to be controlled by a car's native stereo controls and to display information on the car's screen (Compl. ¶9, p. 4, ¶16, p. 6, ¶24). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for the construction of a claim chart.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question for discovery will be the precise mechanism by which the accused Bosch LCN2K70A00 system operates. Does it perform the active "processing" and "converting" of commands and data between different protocols as required by the claims, or does it function through a different method, such as a direct pass-through of signals? The complaint's allegations do not provide technical evidence to resolve this question.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the communication protocols of the car stereos and external devices that the Bosch product connects are, in fact, "incompatible" as the term is used in the patent claims. The degree of difference required to meet this limitation will be a central issue. For the ’342 Patent, a key question will be whether the product's functionality relies on a "wireless communication link" that performs all the functions recited in the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "format incompatible with" (from ’786 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as the necessity of the interface's "processing" function is predicated on the idea that the car stereo and the external device cannot communicate directly. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the protocols at issue meet this definitional threshold.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not define the term, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any difference in signal structure or protocol that prevents direct interoperability.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly refers to the problem of "proprietary buses and protocols" that are unique to specific manufacturers (’786 Patent, col. 1:28-30, 1:37-39). This context suggests the term may be construed to require fundamentally different and proprietary communication schemes, not merely minor differences in data formatting.

  • The Term: "processing the received control command into a formatted command" (from ’786 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the active translation function performed by the claimed microcontroller. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused device's operations constitute "processing... into" a new command, as opposed to merely passing along, amplifying, or re-timing an existing command signal.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "processing," which could allow for a broad interpretation that includes any manipulation of the command signal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts in the patent depict a distinct step of "convert[ing] instruction to format recognized by CD player," which occurs after waiting for and receiving an instruction from the radio (’786 Patent, Fig. 4A, steps 116, 120). This may support a narrower construction requiring a substantive translation of the command's content or protocol structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide "product manuals and documentation" that instruct OEMs and end users on how to perform the infringing act of connecting external devices via the accused product (Compl. p. 4, ¶15; p. 6, ¶23). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused product contains non-staple components "especially made or especially adapted" for infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶16; p. 6, ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having knowledge of the patents and infringement "at least as of the date of this Complaint," suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶15, ¶19, ¶23, ¶27). The complaint also alleges Defendants "knew or should have known" their actions constituted a high risk of infringement, which could form the basis for a pre-suit willfulness claim, though no specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded (Compl. ¶19, ¶27).

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

Given the general nature of the complaint, the case will likely turn on the resolution of two fundamental, open questions that will require factual development during discovery.

  • A central issue will be one of technical operation: what is the precise functionality of the accused Bosch LCN2K70A00 system? The case will depend on evidentiary findings establishing whether the product performs the specific, multi-step protocol conversion and data processing functions recited in the patent claims, or if it achieves integration through a different, non-infringing technical method.
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: how should the term "format incompatible with" be construed? The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether this term can be interpreted to cover the specific communication protocols used by the systems interacting with the accused product, or if those protocols are sufficiently similar to fall outside the scope of the claims.