DCT

2:25-cv-01151

Perrone Robotics Inc v. Kia America Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01151, E.D. Tex., 11/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Kia America, Inc. maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district, specifically its Southwest Region office in Plano, Texas, and both defendants deriving substantial revenue from the sale of allegedly infringing vehicles within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Drive Wise” Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) infringe five patents related to a general-purpose robotics operating system (GPROS) designed to provide a hardware-independent software platform for autonomous vehicles.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the software architecture for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle control, a critical area of innovation and competition within the global automotive industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the foundational technology stems from work beginning in 2003, including participation in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. It also alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the earliest patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233) based on partnership discussions that occurred in June 2017 on behalf of Plaintiff with Hyundai Kia Motor Company.

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
2017-06-01 Alleged meeting disclosing '233 Patent technology to Hyundai Kia
2017-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 Issued
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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patents’ background sections describe the inefficiency of prior art robotics development, where manufacturers created bespoke, hardware-specific software for each new automated device, which inhibited scalability and interoperability (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a general-purpose robotics operating system (GPROS) that provides a standardized, hardware-independent software platform (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21). This GPROS uses a layer of generic abstractions and configurable application services, allowing the same core system to control different robotic hardware, including autonomous vehicles, by defining the vehicle's behavior through configuration data rather than custom code (’442 Patent, col. 3:1-4:6). This architecture is designed to enable dynamic reconfiguration and deployment of new features across a fleet of vehicles (’442 Patent, col. 4:46-51).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach intended to solve the long-standing robotics challenge of hardware heterogeneity, facilitating the scalable deployment of complex autonomous features across different vehicle models and platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 40).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A vehicle with a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle.
    • An operating system with application services for managing an obstacle service, using a movement plan, where the services are independent of the hardware platform.
    • The application services are configurable (via a service), adaptable (statically and dynamically), and access configuration data via a generic abstraction.
    • A graphical user interface.
    • The vehicle is adapted to receive configuration data over a network and to avoid obstacles.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The specific technical problem of coordinating sensor processing, decision-making, and actuator control in real-time across disparate hardware platforms in a robotic system (Compl. ¶ 25).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a GPROS that includes a specific service to "manage synchronous, asynchronous, and real time application threads" (’442 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 25). The system uses servomechanisms for steering, braking, and throttle that are controlled based on a "movement plan," allowing for coordinated physical actions based on the managed application threads (’442 Patent, col. 6:2-10).
  • Technical Importance: This thread management system provides a hardware-independent solution to the real-time coordination required for safety-critical functions in an autonomous vehicle (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶ 60).
  • The essential elements of claim 8 include:
    • An autonomous vehicle with a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle.
    • A GPROS with application services configured to manage synchronous, asynchronous, or real-time application threads, where the services are hardware-independent 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.
  • The complaint notes that it also accuses method claims in the ’442 Patent (Compl. ¶ 61).

U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251, titled “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions,” issued April 26, 2022 (Compl. ¶ 75).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an autonomous vehicle equipped with a GPROS comprising a service to manage application threads (synchronous, asynchronous, real-time). The application services are described as hardware-independent and configurable both statically and dynamically using a generic abstraction, and the vehicle uses servomechanisms controlled by a movement plan (’251 Patent, claim 2).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶ 79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Kia's Drive Wise system, using platforms like Blackberry QNX, infringes by managing various application threads for its ADAS functions and allowing for static and dynamic configuration of those functions across different vehicle models (Compl. ¶¶ 84-87).

U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901, titled “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions,” issued December 5, 2017 (Compl. ¶ 95).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method executed in a GPROS. The method comprises managing synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads, as well as managing autonomous vehicle and movement planning services. The application services are described as configurable, adaptable, and hardware-independent.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 99).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges Defendants infringe by performing the claimed method when testing and using vehicles with Kia Drive Wise, which allegedly uses a GPROS to manage threads and autonomous services like lane following assist (Compl. ¶¶ 101, 103-104).

U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233, titled “General Purpose Robotics Operating System,” issued November 24, 2015 (Compl. ¶ 114).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, described as foundational, claims a non-transitory medium encoding a GPROS. The GPROS comprises a set of application services that are completely configurable, adaptable (statically and dynamically), hardware-independent, and include services for peripherals, sensors, and actuators, as well as for managing application threads (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 118).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 118).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that the non-transitory media (e.g., memory in ECUs) in Kia vehicles infringe by storing the GPROS software (e.g., Blackberry QNX) that operates the Drive Wise system and its various automation application services (Compl. ¶¶ 121-122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Kia vehicles incorporating the “Kia Drive Wise” suite of Advanced Driver-Assistance System (“ADAS”) technologies (Compl. ¶ 31). The 2025 Kia Sportage is identified as an exemplary infringing product (Compl. ¶ 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The Kia Drive Wise system is promoted as an autonomous driving and parking assistance technology suite designed to enhance on-road safety and convenience (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32). Its core functionalities include Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist, which automatically applies brakes to prevent or lessen collisions; Smart Cruise Control with Stop & Go, which maintains a set distance from a vehicle ahead; Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist, which helps prevent lane changes when an object is in the driver's blind spot; and Lane Following Assist, which helps keep the vehicle centered in its lane (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). A diagram illustrates the accused Auto Emergency Braking Technology, showing a forward-mounted sensor detecting a potential collision and an overlay indicating the system will apply the brakes (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges these features are implemented using a GPROS architecture based on components such as NVIDIA DRIVE, Blackberry QNX, and AUTOSAR platforms (Compl. ¶ 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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; Kia vehicles, such as the Kia Sportage, include steering, brake, and throttle mechanisms controlled by Drive Wise features like blind-spot assist and smart cruise control. ¶43 ’442 Patent, col. 4:62-65
an operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one obstacle service of the vehicle... Kia Drive Wise allegedly relies on GPROSs (e.g., Blackberry QNX) and includes services like Forward Collision-Avoidance Assist, which manages obstacle detection and avoidance. ¶44 ’442 Patent, col. 3:1-6
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform... The Drive Wise system is alleged to be independent of the underlying platform because it can be deployed across different Kia models, such as the Kia Sportage. ¶46 ’442 Patent, col. 4:30-34
is configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically... Drive Wise ADAS settings can be adjusted by a driver at startup (statically) and are also adjusted automatically by the system while the vehicle is in motion (dynamically). ¶47 ’442 Patent, col. 2:30-34
wherein the vehicle is adapted to receive the configuration data over a network... The Kia Drive Wise system is capable of receiving over-the-air software updates, which provide configuration data over a network. ¶48 ’442 Patent, col. 4:46-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "independent of an underlying hardware platform", as used in the patent, reads on an automotive software system like Drive Wise, which is deployed across multiple vehicle models but is still integrated with specific types of automotive-grade hardware.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the user-adjustable settings and automated calibrations in Kia's ADAS (Compl. ¶ 47) meet the specific claim requirements of being "configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically" and "configurable to access configuration data using a generic abstraction".

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; Kia vehicles like the Sportage include these components, which are controlled by autonomous Drive Wise functions such as lane following assist and smart cruise control. ¶64 ’442 Patent, col. 4:62-65
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 complaint alleges that Kia Drive Wise uses Blackberry QNX Neutrino, which is publicly documented as managing synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads for ADAS functions. ¶66 ’442 Patent, col. 21:20-24
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform... The Drive Wise system is alleged to be hardware-independent because it is used across various Kia models, demonstrating its functionality is not tied to one specific hardware set. ¶67 ’442 Patent, col. 4:30-34
a steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan; Lane following assist allegedly relies on a steering servomechanism to keep the vehicle centered in its lane based on a movement plan. ¶68 ’442 Patent, col. 6:2-4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "servomechanism" will be critical. The case may explore whether the integrated electronic steering and braking systems in modern cars perform the function of the claimed "servomechanism configured to control... based on a movement plan".
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question may be how Kia's system technically "manages" the different types of application threads. Plaintiff may need to provide evidence beyond public documentation for Blackberry QNX to show that the system's operation matches the specific functions required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "independent of an underlying hardware platform"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's assertion of a "general purpose" system. Its construction will be critical in determining if the patents apply to software systems like Drive Wise, which are deployed across a family of vehicles but are still tailored for automotive environments. Practitioners may focus on whether "independence" requires operability on any hardware (a narrow view) or merely portability across different, but related, hardware platforms (a broader view).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a goal of bridging the "gap and complexities between robotics and automation application software and hardware," suggesting an intent to abstract away hardware differences broadly (’251 Patent, col. 2:54-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses specific hardware interfaces like serial and USB ports, which could be argued to ground the invention in the context of conventional computer peripherals rather than deeply embedded automotive control systems (’442 Patent, col. 4:9-12).

  • The Term: "movement plan"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the basis for controlling the vehicle's servomechanisms. The dispute will likely center on whether the dynamic, reactive path calculations of ADAS features like lane keeping constitute a "movement plan", or if the term implies a more structured, pre-defined route with waypoints.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims link the "movement plan" directly to the control of steering, braking, and throttle servomechanisms, suggesting it can encompass any data structure that dictates the vehicle's path and speed (’442 Patent, Claim 8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's figures, such as Figure 62, depict an "AutonomousMovementPlanner" interacting with a "course::Route" and "course::Waypoint," which suggests the "movement plan" is conceptualized as a planned route, akin to a GPS navigation path (’251 Patent, Fig. 62).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement by providing customers and dealers with instructional materials, marketing, and sales information that instruct and encourage the use of the accused Kia Drive Wise features (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 70, 90, 108, 129).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are made for all five patents. For four of the patents, willfulness is based on knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 69, 89, 107). For the foundational '233 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge dating back to at least June 2017, stemming from a meeting between a representative for Perrone Robotics and Hyundai Kia Motor Company to discuss a potential partnership using the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 127-128).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the key term "independent of an underlying hardware platform", which originates from the context of general-purpose and modular robotics, be construed to cover integrated software systems like Blackberry QNX and AUTOSAR that are adapted for and deployed across a range of related, but still specific, automotive hardware platforms?
  2. A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused Kia Drive Wise system actually perform the specific management of "synchronous, asynchronous, and real time application threads" and utilize a "movement plan" in the manner claimed by the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patents' architectural teachings and the real-world operation of a modern, safety-critical ADAS?
  3. The dispute may also turn on a question of pre-suit knowledge and intent, particularly regarding the '233 Patent. The outcome of discovery concerning the alleged June 2017 partnership discussions could be dispositive for the willfulness claim and substantially influence the potential damages landscape if infringement is found.