DCT

2:24-cv-00554

Longhorn Automotive Group LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00554, E.D. Tex., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are not residents of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendants’ vehicles, incorporating features such as adaptive headlights, telematics, direct injection engines, and advanced driver-assistance systems, infringe six U.S. patents.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover several key areas of modern automotive innovation, including vehicle-to-cloud connectivity, engine efficiency, and sensor-based driver assistance and safety systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a Second Amended Complaint, indicating prior amendments to the allegations or parties in the case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,089,101 Priority Date
2003-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353 Priority Date
2003-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,513,238 Priority Date
2003-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,987,002 Priority Date
2004-02-02 U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,331 Priority Date
2005-01-01 Defendants opened California Proving Ground (mentioned for venue)
2006-08-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,089,101 Issued
2007-11-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803 Priority Date
2009-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,513,238 Issued
2011-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,987,002 Issued
2012-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353 Issued
2013-07-02 U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,331 Issued
2014-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803 Issued
2025-05-01 Approx. date of Genesis GV70 test drive in Houston, TX
2025-10-10 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803 - "Lens System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803, "Lens System," issued August 19, 2014 (the ’803 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge for computer vision systems that use projected light patterns to detect objects. If the pattern is too regular, an object may visually "disappear" relative to the background at certain distances, compromising detection accuracy (’803 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses a light source with multiple emitters (e.g., an LED cluster) and a "cluster of lenses" positioned in front of it. This lens cluster is designed to focus and project light from the emitters in numerous directions, creating a complex, semi-random, or aperiodic dot pattern that is more robust for object detection by computer vision systems (’803 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-50). The system may also include a condenser lens between the source and the lens cluster to concentrate the light (’803 Patent, col. 3:56-61).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for generating textured, non-repeating light patterns, which can enhance the ability of computer vision systems to reliably track objects in three-dimensional space (’803 Patent, col. 2:3-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶ 40).
  • The essential elements of claim 15 are:
    • A light source including a plurality of emitters configured to emit light.
    • A cluster of lenses, with each lens configured to receive the emitted light from each of the plurality of emitters.
    • A condenser lens located between the light source and the cluster of lenses.
    • The condenser lens concentrating light from each emitter towards a center of the cluster of lenses.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,002 - "Arrangement for Distributed Measurement System for Measurement and Simulation in Distributed Control Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,987,002, "Arrangement for Distributed Measurement System for Measurement and Simulation in Distributed Control Systems," issued July 26, 2011 (the ’002 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of measuring, analyzing, and controlling functions within distributed control systems, such as the multiple electronic control units (ECUs) in a modern vehicle that communicate over a network like a CAN bus (’002 Patent, col. 1:29-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an architecture where an "interface unit" connects to the vehicle's internal "distributed control system" via a "second protocol" (e.g., CAN). This interface unit communicates with a "plurality of monitoring units" (e.g., servers and mobile devices) using a "first protocol" (e.g., a cellular network). This arrangement allows for the separation of tasks, with processor-intensive analysis and user interaction handled by external units, while the interface unit manages data exchange with the vehicle's internal systems (’002 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-31).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a modular and flexible architecture for vehicle telematics, enabling remote diagnostics, control, and data analysis without requiring deep, monolithic integration into the vehicle's core electronic systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶ 66).
  • The essential elements of claim 15 include:
    • A plurality of monitoring units comprising at least one complex monitoring unit and at least one basic monitoring unit.
    • The monitoring units communicate with at least one interface unit using a first protocol.
    • The interface unit is communicably connected to a distributed control system and receives data from it using a second protocol.
    • The complex unit receives data from the interface unit and generates programmatic instructions for the basic unit.
    • The basic unit receives the programmatic instructions and, in response, receives a subset of data from the interface unit.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,513,238 - "Directly Injecting Internal Combustion Engine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,513,238, "Directly Injecting Internal Combustion Engine," issued April 7, 2009 (the ’238 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a piston for a direct-injection internal combustion engine. The piston head features a specially shaped recess with a central elevation, designed to optimize the distribution of the injected fuel spray for both early and late injection timing, thereby improving air-fuel mixture formation and combustion efficiency (’238 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 90).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hyundai and Kia direct injection engines, such as the Gamma 1.6 Turbo GDI Engine, utilize pistons with the geometry claimed by the ’238 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 91-93).

U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353 - "Method of Reconstructing an Image Acquired Using Several Imagery Modes"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353, "Method of Reconstructing an Image Acquired Using Several Imagery Modes," issued September 11, 2012 (the ’353 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for improving the quality of images of a mobile object by combining data from two different imaging techniques (e.g., one for anatomical structure, one for functional activity). The method involves using the more precise movement data derived from the first technique to correct for motion blur and improve the reconstruction of the final image from the second technique (’353 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 111).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hyundai's SmartSense driver-assistance system, which fuses data from different sensor types (e.g., cameras and radar/ultrasonic sensors) to create a model of the vehicle's surroundings, practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 122).

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,331 - "Vehicle Collision Detector"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,331, "Vehicle Collision Detector," issued July 2, 2013 (the ’331 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a collision detection system using pairs of emitters (e.g., left and right IR LEDs) that transmit sequential signals. An object is detected when it reflects signals from both beams back to a receiver, confirming its presence in a zone where the beams intersect. The system uses different sets of emitters to create distinct near-field and far-field detection zones (’331 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 21 (Compl. ¶ 138).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants’ Parking Distance Warning systems, which use pairs of ultrasonic sensors in the front and rear bumpers to detect objects in intersecting zones, of infringing the ’331 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 139-140).

U.S. Patent No. 7,089,101 - "Method for Assisting a Driver When Performing Driving Maneuvers"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,089,101, "Method for Assisting a Driver When Performing Driving Maneuvers," issued August 8, 2006 (the ’101 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a driver assistance method for maneuvers like parking. The system determines a reference trajectory and indicates the necessary steering wheel position to the driver. Crucially, if the driver's actual steering input deviates from the system's required input, the vehicle's longitudinal speed is automatically reduced, giving the driver more time to correct the steering (’101 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 154).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets driver assistance features like Lane Following Assist, alleging that they control the vehicle along a trajectory and influence speed based on deviations between the driver's steering and the system's intended path (Compl. ¶¶ 155-157).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide array of automotive vehicles sold under the Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis brands (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶ 28). The specific accused technologies include adaptive headlight systems (e.g., "Intelligent Front-Sighting System"), telematics services (e.g., "Hyundai Bluelink"), direct injection engines (e.g., "Gamma 1.6 Turbo GDI Engine"), and advanced driver-assistance systems (e.g., "Hyundai SmartSense") (Compl. ¶¶ 29-34).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionalities represent core technologies in modern vehicles. The adaptive headlights use matrix LEDs and lenses to dynamically shape the light beam, enhancing visibility without glaring other drivers (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43). The Bluelink telematics system connects the vehicle to a cloud server and smartphone app, enabling remote monitoring and control (Compl. ¶ 68). The GDI engines inject fuel directly into the combustion chamber using specially designed pistons to improve efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 91, 93). The SmartSense system is a suite of safety features that uses a combination of cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors to perceive the vehicle's environment and assist the driver (Compl. ¶ 112). These features are marketed as key safety, convenience, and performance differentiators for the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 89). An exploded diagram of the accused headlight system labels key components, including the 'Matrix Beam LED,' 'Optic lens,' and 'Freeform lens' (Compl. p. 26, image 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’803 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a light source including a plurality of emitters configured to emit light; The accused adaptive headlight system comprises Matrix Beam LED headlights, which include multiple individual LED emitters arranged in a matrix. ¶¶ 44, 45 col. 4:19-21
a cluster of lenses, each lens included in the cluster of lenses being configured to receive the emitted light from each of the plurality of emitters; The adaptive headlight system comprises a "cluster of lenses," which allegedly includes freeform lenses and an outer headlamp assembly lens, configured to receive light from the LED emitters. ¶¶ 47, 49 col. 3:45-48
and a condenser lens located between said light source and said cluster of lenses, the condenser lens concentrating light from each of the plurality of emitters towards a center of the cluster of lenses. The system allegedly includes an "optics lens" (identified as the condenser lens) positioned between the Matrix Beam LED (light source) and the freeform lenses (cluster of lenses) to concentrate light from the LEDs. ¶ 50 col. 3:56-61

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the components of Defendants' adaptive headlight system fall within the scope of the patent's claim terms. For example, the case may raise the question of whether the term "cluster of lenses," as described in a patent focused on creating semi-random patterns, can be construed to read on the highly structured optical components of an adaptive headlight system, such as "freeform lenses" and the main "outer headlamp assembly lenses" (Compl. ¶ 46).
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may question whether the accused "optics lens" performs the specific function of "concentrating light...towards a center of the cluster of lenses" as required by the claim. Evidence will be needed to show that this component functions as a condenser in the manner claimed, rather than performing a different optical function within the headlight assembly.

’002 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of monitoring units...comprises at least one complex monitoring unit and at least one basic monitoring unit; The system allegedly comprises the Hyundai Bluelink Server Platform as the "complex monitoring unit" and a mobile device running the MyHyundai App as the "basic monitoring unit." ¶ 70 col. 3:31-40
configured to communicate with at least one interface unit using a first protocol, The server and app communicate with the vehicle's Telematics Control Unit (TCU) via a cellular network, which is alleged to be the "first protocol." ¶ 69 col. 4:2-4
wherein the at least one interface unit is communicably connected to a distributed control system...using a second protocol; The TCU (interface unit) is connected to the vehicle's electronic control modules (the distributed control system) via the CAN bus (the "second protocol"). A system diagram illustrates this architecture (Compl. p. 52, image 60). ¶ 69 col. 4:30-33
wherein the at least one complex monitoring unit is configured to receive a plurality of data values from the at least one interface unit...and to generate programmatic instructions for the at least one basic monitoring unit; The Bluelink server receives data (e.g., engine performance, fuel level) from the TCU and generates instructions (e.g., "remote engine start") for the mobile app. ¶ 71 col. 2:14-25
wherein the at least one basic monitoring unit is configured to receive the programmatic instructions and in response thereto to receive a subset of the plurality of data values from the at least one interface unit... The MyHyundai app receives instructions (e.g., a command to display vehicle status) and in response receives data (e.g., fuel level, door lock status) from the TCU via the server. ¶ 72 col. 2:25-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the client-server architecture of the Bluelink system maps onto the claimed "basic" and "complex" monitoring units. A question for the court could be whether a cloud-based server and a smartphone app fit the patent's description of distinct units with a specific division of labor for processing and analysis.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise regarding the functional relationship between the components. For instance, does the basic monitoring unit (the app) truly "receive a subset of the plurality of data values...in response to" receiving a programmatic instruction, as required by the claim's sequential logic, or does the data flow follow a different operational sequence in the accused system?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’803 Patent

  • The Term: "cluster of lenses"
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on it covering both the internal "freeform lenses" of the high beam module and the main "outer headlamp assembly lenses" (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47). A narrow construction limited to a specific type of lens arrangement could undermine the infringement theory, while a broad one could support it. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a modern, structured adaptive headlight system can be considered equivalent to the patent's "fragmented lens" concept.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the cluster as being to "focuses and projects light...in numerous directions" (’803 Patent, col. 2:43-44). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any group of lenses performing this role.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patent depicts the "cluster of lenses" (320) as being formed from "Displaced Lens Fragments" of an "Original Lens" (310). This embodiment may suggest that the term implies an arrangement of physically separate or fragmented lens pieces, potentially narrower than a molded multi-lens assembly.

For the ’002 Patent

  • The Term: "complex monitoring unit" and "basic monitoring unit"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory maps these terms directly onto the "Hyundai Bluelink Server Platform" and the "mobile device running the My Hyundai App," respectively (Compl. ¶ 70). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this server/app architecture meets the distinct functional roles assigned to the "complex" and "basic" units in the claim language.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides examples of a "PC" and a "PDA," suggesting the terms are meant to encompass a general-purpose computer and a more limited handheld device, which is analogous to a server and a smartphone (’002 Patent, col. 3:31-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification clarifies the division of labor, stating that "processor-intensive and memory-intensive tasks" can be allocated to one unit to reduce the capacity requirements of the other (’002 Patent, col. 3:35-38). A defendant may argue that the specific tasks performed by the Bluelink server and app do not align with this described functional separation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all six patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendants providing instructional materials to customers, including owner's manuals, online videos, and marketing brochures, that allegedly instruct end-users on how to operate the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 57, 78, 102, 129, 163).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The primary basis for knowledge appears to be post-suit, with the complaint asserting knowledge "at least as of the date of the Original Complaint" for each patent count (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 77, 101, 128, 144, 162). The complaint also pleads an alternative theory of pre-suit willful blindness, alleging that Defendants have "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶ 56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological mapping: Can claim language drafted for one technological context be mapped onto modern, and potentially different, implementations? For example, does the ’002 patent’s "basic/complex unit" architecture, envisioned with PCs and PDAs, read on the accused client-server telematics architecture, and do the ultrasonic sensors of the Parking Distance Warning system function as the intersecting IR emitters claimed in the ’331 patent?
  • A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely feature significant disputes over the meaning of key claim terms. A primary question for the court will be whether the ’803 patent’s "cluster of lenses," described in the context of creating randomized light patterns for computer vision, can be construed to cover the highly engineered, multi-part optical systems of Defendants' adaptive headlights, which are designed for precise, non-random illumination.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proving method step performance: For the asserted method claims (e.g., in the ’101 and ’353 patents), Plaintiff will need to establish that all claimed steps are performed in the United States. The complaint's theory appears to rely on testing activities by Defendants' employees within the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 126, 160), raising the question of whether this activity is sufficient to prove direct infringement of the methods across the vast number of accused vehicle models.