DCT
2:25-cv-01150
Perrone Robotics Inc v. Toyota Motor
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Perrone Robotics, Inc. and Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (California) and Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.; Miller Fair Henry PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01150, E.D. Tex., 11/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. maintains its headquarters in Plano, Texas, and both defendants are alleged to have committed acts of infringement and conduct substantial business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with Toyota Safety Sense and Lexus Safety System+ advanced driver-assistance systems infringe five U.S. patents related to a configurable, hardware-independent "General Purpose Robotics Operating System" (GPROS).
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the software architecture for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles, a domain of intense competition and market significance in the global automotive industry.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit through a series of meetings, presentations, and communications with Plaintiff beginning in 2017, which form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-02-27 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2015-11-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 Issued |
| 2017-08-24 | Plaintiff and Toyota Research Institute allegedly sign NDA |
| 2017-12-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 Issued |
| 2018-05-01 | Plaintiff and Defendant representatives allegedly meet at Intel Capital Global Summit |
| 2019-12-01 | Defendant allegedly requests private meeting with Plaintiff for CES 2020 |
| 2022-04-26 | U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 Issued |
| 2023-10-10 | U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 Issued |
| 2024-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 Issued |
| 2025-11-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions, issued December 31, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a problem in the robotics industry where developing software for automated devices required creating new, specific hardware and software from scratch for each device (Compl. ¶ 17). This "vertically integrated" approach was inefficient, not scalable, and created barriers to interoperability between different hardware platforms (Compl. ¶ 21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "general purpose robotics operating system" (GPROS) that provides a standardized software platform to bridge the gap between robotics application software and the underlying hardware (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23; ’251 Patent, col. 1:53-57). It achieves this through a hardware-independent abstraction layer, allowing application services (e.g., for navigation, communication) to be configured and deployed across different robots and automated devices without being rewritten for specific hardware (Compl. ¶ 25).
- Technical Importance: This architectural approach sought to solve the problem of hardware heterogeneity, a long-standing challenge in robotics, by enabling the creation of scalable and interoperable automated systems, such as fleets of autonomous vehicles (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 43).
- Claim 1 of the ’877 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A vehicle comprising a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle;
- An operating system with a set of application services to manage an obstacle service and use a movement plan, where the services are independent of the hardware platform and configurable for communication and operational tasks;
- The application services are configurable via a configuration service, adaptable statically and dynamically, and can access configuration data through a generic abstraction;
- A graphical user interface;
- The vehicle is adapted to receive configuration data over a network and is adapted to avoid obstacles.
U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions, issued October 10, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of coordinating sensor processing, decision-making, and actuator control across disparate hardware platforms in robotics (Compl. ¶ 25). Prior-art systems often relied on hardware-specific, non-portable implementations to manage these tasks (Compl. ¶ 26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a GPROS with a hardware-independent abstraction layer that includes a service to manage synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads (’442 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 25). This allows for the development of applications that can be "written once and reused on different hardware systems," decoupling the application logic from the specific timing and communication protocols of the underlying hardware (Compl. ¶ 67).
- Technical Importance: This thread management system provides a technical solution to the problem of hardware heterogeneity in real-time control systems, which is critical for safety-critical applications like autonomous vehicles (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶ 63).
- Claim 8 of the ’442 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- An autonomous vehicle comprising a vehicle with a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle;
- A general purpose robotics operating system with application services configured to manage synchronous, asynchronous, or real-time application threads;
- The application services are independent of the underlying hardware and configurable for communication and operational tasks;
- A steering servomechanism to control steering based on a movement plan;
- A brake servomechanism to control the brake based on the movement plan;
- A throttle servomechanism to control the throttle based on the movement plan.
U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions, issued April 26, 2022
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes an autonomous vehicle equipped with a GPROS that enables robotics and automation applications through a standardized, configurable platform (Compl. ¶ 80). The technology solves the problem of prior art systems that required custom hardware and software for each specific device by introducing a hardware-independent architecture with configurable application services (Compl. ¶ 23).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶ 81).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Toyota vehicles with Toyota Safety Sense and Lexus Safety System+ infringe by using a GPROS (e.g., Blackberry QNX, AUTOSAR) that comprises a set of application services (e.g., Lane Tracing Assist, Pre-Collision System) that are hardware-independent and configurable both statically and dynamically (Compl. ¶¶ 86-89).
U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions, issued December 5, 2017
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a method performed within a GPROS for managing application threads and autonomous vehicle services (Compl. ¶ 102). The patented method addresses the problem of needing to build specific software for each vehicle by providing a hardware-independent platform that allows configurable application services to be deployed across different vehicle models (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 101).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 102).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges infringement by the methods performed by Toyota when testing and using vehicles equipped with Toyota Safety Sense and Lexus Safety System+, which allegedly practice the claimed steps of managing threads and autonomous services (e.g., Lane Tracing Assist, Pre-Collision System) within a GPROS (Compl. ¶¶ 104-107).
U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System, issued November 24, 2015
Technology Synopsis
As the foundational patent in the family, this patent claims a non-transitory medium encoded with a GPROS (Compl. ¶ 123). The technology solves the prior art problem of inefficient, single-purpose robotics development by providing a standardized, hardware-independent software platform with configurable application services for robotics and automation (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 122).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 123).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the non-transitory media (e.g., computer memory in Electronic Control Units) within Toyota vehicles infringe by encoding a GPROS (such as Blackberry QNX, AUTOSAR, or ROS) that provides automation application services like Dynamic Radar Cruise Control and Pre-Collision System (Compl. ¶¶ 126-127).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Toyota and Lexus vehicles that include any version of the Toyota Safety Sense or Lexus Safety System+ programs (Compl. ¶ 31, fn. 6). Specific vehicle models cited as examples include the Toyota RAV4 and the Lexus RX (Compl. ¶ 44).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused systems are Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) marketed as suites of "active safety technologies" (Compl. ¶ 31). Their core functionalities, as described in the complaint, include a Pre-Collision System that provides alerts and automatic braking, Lane Tracing Assist that provides steering inputs to keep the vehicle centered, and Dynamic Radar Cruise Control that adjusts speed to maintain distance from a vehicle ahead (Compl. ¶ 33). A promotional image provided in the complaint describes these features in detail. (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges these systems rely on a GPROS, such as Blackberry QNX, AUTOSAR, and ROS, to operate across different vehicle models (Compl. ¶ 30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle comprising: a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle | The accused Toyota RAV4 and Lexus RX vehicles are alleged to include a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle used by features like Lane Tracing Assist and Dynamic Radar Cruise Control. | ¶45 | col. 44:59-64 |
| an operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one obstacle service of the vehicle, the vehicle configured to use a movement plan | The accused vehicles allegedly use a GPROS (e.g., Blackberry QNX, AUTOSAR) to manage application services like the Pre-Collision System (an obstacle service) and Lane Tracing Assist, which uses a movement plan to keep the vehicle centered. | ¶¶46-47 | col. 45:1-12 |
| wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform | The Toyota Safety Sense and Lexus Safety System+ platforms are allegedly used across different Toyota and Lexus models, respectively, demonstrating independence from a specific underlying hardware configuration. | ¶48 | col. 45:13-19 |
| is configurable using a configuration service, is configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically, and is configurable to access configuration data using a generic abstraction | The accused systems allegedly allow ADAS settings to be configured and undergo static (e.g., at startup) and dynamic (e.g., while driving) calibration processes. | ¶49 | col. 45:21-27 |
| wherein the vehicle is adapted to receive the configuration data over a network | The accused systems allegedly include over-the-air software update capabilities. | ¶50 | col. 45:32-34 |
| wherein the vehicle is adapted to avoid obstacles | The Pre-Collision System feature is alleged to automatically apply braking to avoid vehicles or pedestrians. A marketing image from Toyota shows a diagram of the Pre-Collision System detecting a pedestrian. (Compl. p. 12). | ¶51 | col. 45:35-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused operating systems (e.g., Blackberry QNX, AUTOSAR) qualify as a "general purpose robotics operating system" as contextualized by the patent, or if they are instead considered specialized, non-infringing automotive operating systems.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the user-level configuration of ADAS settings and the process of sensor calibration in the accused vehicles perform the functions required by the "configurable using a configuration service" and "adapted both statically and dynamically" limitations in the manner claimed by the patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An autonomous vehicle comprising: a vehicle having a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle | The accused Toyota and Lexus vehicles allegedly possess these components, which are utilized by ADAS features like Lane Tracing Assist and Dynamic Radar Cruise Control. | ¶66 | col. 44:59-64 |
| a general purpose robotics operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one of synchronous, asynchronous, or real time application threads | The vehicles allegedly rely on a GPROS (e.g., Blackberry QNX) that manages multiple information threads from sensors and determines how to process synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time messages to enable ADAS functions. | ¶¶67-68 | col. 45:1-12 |
| wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform | The complaint alleges that Toyota Safety Sense is used across various Toyota models and Lexus Safety System+ is used across various Lexus models, suggesting the services are not tied to a single hardware configuration. | ¶69 | col. 45:13-19 |
| a steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan; a brake servomechanism...; and a throttle servomechanism... | Lane Tracing Assist allegedly relies on a steering servomechanism, while Dynamic Radar Cruise Control allegedly relies on brake and throttle servomechanisms, both operating based on a movement plan. | ¶70 | col. 45:49-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A key dispute may be whether the accused systems, which integrate numerous vehicle-specific functions, can be defined as having application services that are "independent of an underlying hardware platform," as the defendant may argue they are deeply integrated with a proprietary family of automotive hardware.
- Technical Questions: It raises the question of what evidence will be presented to show that the accused GPROS is actively "manag[ing]... application threads" in the specific manner required by the claim, beyond the standard message-passing and task-scheduling functions of a conventional real-time operating system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "general purpose robotics operating system (GPROS)" (appears in the preambles of asserted claims of the ’442, ’901, and ’233 patents and provides context for all patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted patents. Its construction will be critical, as Defendant may argue that its specialized automotive operating systems (e.g., AUTOSAR-based systems) are not "general purpose" in the way a robotics OS might be, but are instead tailored specifically for the automotive environment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the GPROS as a platform bridging "a vertical end-user robotics or automation application and an underlying robotics or automation platform" and is not limited to vehicles, suggesting a broad, cross-domain definition (’251 Patent, col. 1:49-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents' titles include "with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions," and numerous embodiments focus on UGVs, UAVs, and UUVs (’251 Patent, col. 4:5-18). This could support an interpretation where "general purpose" means general applicability within the field of autonomous mobility, not robotics at large.
The Term: "independent of an underlying hardware platform" (appears in claim 1 of the ’877 Patent and claim 8 of the ’442 Patent)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's theory relies on the accused software platforms being used across multiple Toyota and Lexus models to meet this limitation. Defendant may argue that portability across a proprietary family of hardware does not equate to being "independent" in the manner claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states an object is to "dramatically lower[] the cost points for hardware vendors to supply underlying mechanics, sensors, and actuators to be driven by such a platform," suggesting a strong separation between the GPROS and the hardware it controls (’251 Patent, col. 5:35-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a "completely extensible platform enabling plug-and-play of extensions" for specific hardware like sensors and actuators, which may suggest that while extensible, the system is not entirely agnostic to or "independent" of the hardware it is designed to control (’251 Patent, col. 3:30-34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing instructional, marketing, and sales materials that instruct and encourage customers and dealers to use the accused ADAS features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 72, 92, 113, 136).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a series of alleged meetings, presentations, and technical discussions between Plaintiff and Defendant beginning in 2017, during which the patents and underlying technology were allegedly disclosed to Toyota (Compl. ¶¶ 110-112, 132-135). The complaint alleges that after learning of the technology, Defendant chose to infringe rather than license it (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 135).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "general purpose robotics operating system," which is central to the patents' claims, be construed to read on the specialized, industry-standard operating systems (e.g., AUTOSAR, Blackberry QNX) used in the accused Toyota and Lexus vehicles?
- A second key issue will be technical and factual: does the accused software architecture for Toyota Safety Sense and Lexus Safety System+ function as "independent of an underlying hardware platform" simply because it is deployed across different vehicle models, or is there a degree of hardware-software integration that places it outside the scope of the claims?
- A significant question for damages will be evidentiary: what level of technical detail regarding the patented technology was actually disclosed to Toyota during the alleged pre-suit meetings, and does the evidence support a finding that Toyota's subsequent conduct was objectively reckless, potentially justifying enhanced damages for willful infringement?