DCT
2:24-cv-00035
Facet Technology Corp v. General Motors LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Facet Technology Corp. (Minnesota)
- Defendant: General Motors LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00035, E.D. Tex., 01/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in the state, has conducted business in the District, maintains a regular and established place of business in Roanoke, Texas, and has previously consented to venue in the District in prior litigation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with Lane Keep Assist (LKA) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW) technologies infringe two patents related to automated systems for assessing reflective road markers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle-mounted optical systems that automatically identify and assess the reflective characteristics of road signs and pavement markings, a key capability for modern Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit as early as 2016 through a test project with a component supplier, GeoDigital, during which licensing was discussed. Plaintiff also alleges sending a formal notice letter regarding the ’328 Patent in February 2020. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, a statutory disclaimer was filed on December 9, 2024, disclaiming the entirety of claim 12 of the ’255 patent, the only claim asserted from that patent. A similar disclaimer was filed for claims 17-22 of the ’328 patent, which does not affect the asserted claim 9. This post-filing disclaimer of the asserted ’255 patent claim fundamentally alters the case, suggesting that litigation will likely proceed only on the ’328 patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-08-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '255 and '328 Patents |
| 2014-10-13 | '255 Patent Application Filed |
| 2016-05-10 | '255 Patent Issued |
| 2016-05-06 | '328 Patent Application Filed |
| 2016-11-28 | Alleged discussion of patent licensing between Facet and GM |
| 2017-06-06 | '328 Patent Issued |
| 2020-02-20 | Facet sent notice to GM regarding '328 Patent infringement |
| 2024-01-22 | Complaint Filed |
| 2024-12-09 | Statutory disclaimer filed disclaiming asserted claim 12 of '255 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255: System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway (Issued May 10, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the critical challenge of efficiently and accurately creating an inventory of the more than 58 million road signs in the United States, noting that prior manual or semi-automated methods were time-consuming and inadequate for large-scale assessment (Compl. ¶22; ’255 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an automated, vehicle-based method for assessing roadway markers. A light source on the vehicle illuminates an area including a reflective marker, and an intensity sensor captures light values from that area. A computer system then analyzes these intensity values to determine a "reflective characteristic" of the marker, such as its retroreflectivity, without needing to manually target each individual sign ('255 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶24). This process is illustrated in the patent's data flow diagrams, which show intensity measurements being used to classify sheeting types ('255 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This technology offered a path to automate the large-scale cataloging and condition assessment of road infrastructure, a critical task for ensuring roadway safety and managing public assets (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶25). (Note: This claim was statutorily disclaimed post-filing).
- The essential elements of claim 12, a method, include:
- Activating a light source on a traversing vehicle to illuminate an area including a reflective road marker.
- Determining a plurality of light intensity values using a sensor covering a field of view that includes the illuminated area.
- Using a computer processing system to identify a portion of the light intensity values associated with the marker's reflective surface.
- Using the computer processing system to analyze that portion of values to determine an assessment of the marker's reflective characteristic.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,671,328: System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway (Issued June 6, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’328 Patent addresses the problem of providing an automated, accurate, and efficient system for cataloging and assessing the millions of traffic signs and markers on U.S. roadways (Compl. ¶32).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a system for assessing reflective surfaces. This system includes an "active light sensor" (comprising both a light source and a sensor) that travels along a roadway. This sensor is operably connected to a computer processing system configured to detect objects, determine if they are reflective markers by analyzing light intensity values, and then use those values to determine an "assessment of a discrete location" of the marker ('328 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶34). The detailed description explains that the system can determine attributes like location and retroreflectivity ('328 Patent, col. 6:49-55).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a complete system that automates the assessment of road marker reflectivity, offering advantages over prior art that required manual targeting of individual signs (Compl. ¶33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of claim 9, a system, include:
- An "active light sensor" (including a light source and a light sensor) that is traversed along a roadway.
- A computer processing system operably connected to the active light sensor.
- The computer system is configured to detect objects of interest and, for each object, to:
- Determine if the object has a light intensity value associated with a reflective surface of a road marker.
- Analyze the light intensity value to determine an assessment of a discrete location of the road marker.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are General Motors vehicles equipped with Lane Keep Assist (LKA) and Lane Departure Warning (LDW) technology, which are implemented using Mobileye EyeQ3 and EyeQ4 Systems-on-Chip (SOCs) (Compl. ¶43, ¶52).
Functionality and Market Context
- The LKA and LDW systems are described as automated safety technologies that are "essential for competitiveness in today's vehicle marketplace" (Compl. ¶44). The complaint alleges that these systems use a forward-looking camera as an intensity sensor and the vehicle's headlights as a light source to detect reflective road markers, such as lane markings, at night (Compl. ¶53, ¶54). The data is processed by the vehicle's Electronic Control Units (ECUs) to perform functions including lane departure warnings (Compl. ¶37, ¶55).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'255 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) activating a light source as the light source is traversed along a roadway to illuminate an area that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker... | The accused LKA/LDW systems use the vehicle's headlights as a light source to illuminate road markers as the vehicle travels. | ¶53 | col. 20:46-51 |
| (b) determining a plurality of light intensity values with at least one intensity sensor directed to cover a field of view which includes at least a portion of the area illuminated by the light source | The system's forward-looking camera acts as an intensity sensor to determine light intensity values from the area illuminated by the headlights. | ¶54 | col. 20:52-56 |
| (c) using a computer processing system configured to: (i) identify a portion of at least one light intensity value...associated with one of the at least one reflective surface of the road marker | The vehicle's ECUs, acting as the computer processing system, detect road markers based on the intensity of the reflected light. | ¶55, ¶56 | col. 20:57-62 |
| (ii) analyze the portion of the at least one light intensity value...to determine an assessment of the reflective characteristic of the road marker. | The ECUs analyze the reflected light intensity value to determine an assessment of the road marker's reflective characteristic. | ¶57 | col. 20:63-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the term "road marker", which is frequently exemplified in the patent with upright road signs, can be fairly construed to read on the painted lane markings detected by the accused LKA/LDW systems.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused systems' function—primarily identifying the location of a lane marker—satisfies the claim requirement to "determine an assessment of the reflective characteristic"? This raises the question of whether simply detecting an object via its reflectivity constitutes the claimed "assessment."
'328 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) an active light sensor that is traversed along a roadway that includes at least one reflective surface on a road marker...the active light sensor including: (i) a light source...and (ii) a light sensor... | The system includes the vehicle headlights (light source) and a forward-looking camera (light sensor), which together form the alleged "active light sensor" that travels with the vehicle. | ¶77, ¶78, ¶79 | col. 6:9-16 |
| (b) a computer processing system operably connected to the active light sensor and configured to detect objects of interest... | The vehicle's ECUs are operably connected to the camera system and are configured to detect objects of interest, such as lane markers. | ¶80 | col. 6:17-20 |
| for each object of interest: (i) determine whether the object of interest includes at least one light intensity value associated with a reflective surface of a road marker... | When detecting a lane marking, the system determines that the object has a light intensity value associated with its reflective surface. | ¶81 | col. 7:20-25 |
| (ii) analyze the at least one light intensity value to determine an assessment of a discrete location of the road marker... | The system analyzes the intensity value from the reflected light to determine the location of the lane marking. | ¶82 | col. 7:26-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the combination of a vehicle's standard headlights and a physically separate camera module constitute a single, integrated "active light sensor" as contemplated by the patent?
- Technical Questions: Does "determin[ing] an assessment of a discrete location" mean simply finding the coordinate of the marker, as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶82), or does it require a more substantive assessment of the reflectivity at that location?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "assessment of the reflective characteristic" ('255 Patent) / "assessment of a discrete location" ('328 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claims may hinge on this term. The accused LKA/LDW systems primarily use reflectivity to determine a marker's location for lane-keeping. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "assessment" is construed to require a quantitative or qualitative analysis of the reflectivity itself (e.g., its degradation or material type), the accused systems may not meet the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the type or degree of assessment, which may support an argument that any determination derived from the reflective property, including location, qualifies as an "assessment" (e.g., ’255 Patent, cl. 12).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifications heavily emphasize determining retroreflectivity values and classifying sheeting materials, suggesting "assessment" implies a more detailed analysis than mere detection ('255 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:58-62; Fig. 2).
The Term: "road marker"
- Context and Importance: Infringement is predicated on the detection of lane markings. The patents, however, predominantly illustrate and discuss upright road signs. The construction of "road marker" is therefore critical to determining if the claims cover the functionality of the accused systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly refers to "pavement markings" in the context of the invention, supporting a construction that is not limited to signs ('255 Patent, col. 17:27-31). The term itself is general and not explicitly defined in a limiting way.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The vast majority of figures and embodiments focus on road signs (e.g., '255 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 10). This could support an argument that the term's meaning is informed by these primary examples and is limited to such objects.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that GM knowingly encouraged and instructed its customers, via promotions and user manuals, to use the accused LKA and LDW systems in a manner that performs the patented methods and embodies the patented systems (Compl. ¶66, ¶70, ¶93, ¶97).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on GM’s alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint cites a 2016 test project with a GM supplier where licensing was discussed, and a specific notice letter sent in February 2020 regarding the ’328 Patent. The complaint alleges that GM continued its infringing conduct despite this knowledge, constituting blatant disregard for Facet's patent rights (Compl. ¶60-62, ¶87-89).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the post-filing disclaimer of the asserted claim of the ’255 patent, the dispute will likely center exclusively on the ’328 patent. The key questions for the court will be:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "active light sensor", as used in claim 9 of the ’328 patent, be construed to cover a vehicle's physically separate headlight and camera components, or does the claim require a more integrated device?
A second key question will be one of functional scope: does the accused system's function of determining a lane marker's location based on its reflectivity satisfy the claim requirement to "determine an assessment of a discrete location," or does the patent require a more substantive analysis of the reflective properties themselves?
A third question concerns the scope of "road marker": can this term, primarily exemplified in the patent by upstanding signs, be construed to cover the painted lane markings that are the principal object of detection for the accused LKA and LDW systems?