DCT
5:23-cv-00022
NexGen Control Systems LLC v. NXP Semiconductors NV
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NexGen Control Systems, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: NXP Semiconductors N.V. and NXP BV. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Berger & Hipskind LLP; Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00022, E.D. Tex., 03/09/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the NXP defendants are foreign corporations not resident in the United States, and are therefore subject to suit in any judicial district where personal jurisdiction exists.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive semiconductor products infringe patents related to vehicle safety systems for detecting events such as rollovers and side impacts.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the use of sensors and processors in vehicles to reliably distinguish dangerous crash events from non-threatening events, in order to appropriately trigger occupant protection systems like airbags.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is pursuing related patent infringement remedies in other jurisdictions, including an action against an NXP affiliate in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court of the People's Republic of China.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-06 | ’395 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-11-14 | ’386 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-05-10 | ’188 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-04-12 | ’395 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-03-27 | ’386 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-05-17 | ’188 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,145,386 - Activation Apparatus for Occupant Protection System (Issued Mar. 27, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the problem of detecting certain types of vehicle accidents, like a "curb trip" rollover, where the initial impact is on a wheel rather than the side of the vehicle body. In such cases, a traditional side impact sensor may not register a sufficiently large impact to trigger the occupant protection system in a timely manner (’386 Patent, col. 1:21-46, col. 2:1-6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus with acceleration sensors on both the right and left sides of the vehicle. Crucially, each sensor is used to detect acceleration on the side of the vehicle opposite to where the sensor is located. This configuration allows the system to detect events like a curb trip, which generates acceleration across the entire vehicle body, and compare a physical quantity derived from this detection against a threshold to determine if activation is necessary (’386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-32).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for detecting dangerous rollover-initiating events that might otherwise be missed by conventional side-impact detection systems focused only on localized deformation (Compl. ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- Independent Claim 1:
- An activation apparatus for an occupant protection system, comprising:
- right and left acceleration sensors disposed on respective right and left sides of a vehicle, where each sensor is used for determining an acceleration for a side opposite from where the sensor is disposed; and
- a determining unit that determines whether to activate the occupant protection system by comparing a physical quantity computed from a sensor's detected value with a threshold.
U.S. Patent No. 7,925,395 - Rollover Judging Device (Issued Apr. 12, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies complexity in prior art rollover detection systems that use two-dimensional mapping of angular velocity versus tilt angle. Such systems often require variable thresholds for different operational quadrants, complicating the computation and making it difficult to express the severity of a potential rollover with a simple metric (’395 Patent, col. 1:11-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a simplified device. It uses an angular velocity sensor and an acceleration sensor. An integration processor first "adjusts" the measured angular velocity based on the measured acceleration (e.g., to compensate for lateral forces that are not indicative of a rollover). It then calculates an angle component by integrating this adjusted value. A "judging unit" takes the original measured angular velocity and the calculated angle component, multiplies them by preset weighting factors, sums the results, and compares the absolute value of this sum to a single, fixed threshold to judge if a rollover is occurring (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-22).
- Technical Importance: This method simplified the rollover detection algorithm by enabling the use of a fixed threshold and provided a straightforward way to express rollover risk as a percentage relative to that threshold (’395 Patent, col. 1:51-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
- Independent Claim 1:
- A rollover judging device comprising:
- an angular velocity sensor measuring an angular velocity component in the rollover direction;
- an acceleration sensor measuring acceleration in the right/left or up/down direction;
- an integration processor that adjusts the magnitude of the angular velocity component based on the acceleration component, and calculates an angle component by integrating the adjusted angular velocity; and
- a judging unit that multiplies the measured angular velocity and the calculated angle by preset weighting factors, and outputs a rollover signal if the absolute value of their sum exceeds a preset threshold.
U.S. Patent No. 9,340,188 - Occupant Protective Apparatus and Pedestrian Protective Apparatus (Issued May 17, 2016)
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the challenge of reliably distinguishing between sensor signals caused by an actual collision and those caused by non-threatening external forces, such as vibration from driving on rough terrain or the shock of a door slamming (’188 Patent, col. 1:16-36). The solution involves an integration processor that generates an output signal by integrating a physical quantity from the sensor, a process which reduces the effect of vibration. The apparatus also includes a diagnostic function that sends a pulsed "self-driving" signal to the sensor and evaluates its response to confirm proper operation (’188 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶113).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses NXP's Airbag System, including the MC33789 chip and various inertial sensors, of infringing by including a sensor, a processor that integrates sensor output to reduce the effect of vibration, and a diagnostic unit that performs self-diagnosis (Compl. ¶¶94, 96-103).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies three categories of accused products:
- NXP ‘386 Products: NXP’s Peripheral Sensor Interface 5 (PSI5) System, including components such as the FXLS93, MMA52xxW, MC33789, S32K1 Series Microcontrollers, and MC33797 Squib Driver IC (Compl. ¶42).
- NXP ‘395 Products: FXOS8700CQ series devices, which are 6-axis sensors combining an accelerometer and a magnetometer (Compl. ¶66).
- NXP ‘188 Products: The NXP Airbag System, including the MC33789 Airbag System Basis Chip and a range of inertial sensors (Compl. ¶94).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are semiconductor components—including microcontrollers, sensors, and system basis chips—designed for use in automotive occupant protection systems (Compl. ¶¶41, 65, 93). Their alleged function is to process data from various sensors to detect crash, rollover, and other hazardous events, and subsequently trigger safety devices like airbags and seatbelt pretensioners. The complaint positions Defendant NXP as a "global semiconductor company and a long-standing supplier in the industry" providing these components to the automotive market (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’386 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| right and left acceleration sensors... each... being used for determining an acceleration for a side opposite from the side where the... sensor is disposed | The NXP '386 Products allegedly consist of acceleration sensors placed on both sides of a vehicle, where a sensor on one side is used to measure the acceleration of the opposite side. An annotated diagram from an NXP user guide shows "Satellite Acceleration Sensors Placed On The Left & Right To Measure Acceleration On The Opposing Side." (Compl. p.13). | ¶¶46-47 | col. 2:22-28 |
| a determining unit determining whether or not the occupant protection system is to be activated by comparing a physical quantity computed based on a value detected... with a threshold for activating the... system | The accused products allegedly include a "Safing Block" that compares sensor data to "pre-defined threshold acceleration values." (Compl. p.15). Another NXP document shows configurable "Safing Threshold" values in the accused chip. (Compl. p.16). | ¶¶49-51 | col. 2:29-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the accused semiconductor components, as sold by NXP, meet the claim limitation of a complete "activation apparatus." A defense may arise that NXP sells components and that the claimed "apparatus" is only created when a downstream customer integrates and programs these components.
’395 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an angular velocity sensor for measuring an angular velocity component | The accused FXOS8700CQ device is marketed for "Angular rate monitor" applications and can measure "angular positions and rates," as shown in an NXP presentation slide. (Compl. p.19). | ¶68 | col. 2:2-4 |
| an acceleration sensor for measuring... an acceleration component | The accused FXOS8700CQ device is an integrated 6-axis sensor that includes a 3-axis accelerometer, as shown in a block diagram from its datasheet. (Compl. p.22). | ¶72 | col. 2:4-9 |
| an integration processor for adjusting a magnitude of the angular velocity component... on a basis of the acceleration component... and for calculating an angle component by integrating... said adjusted angular velocity component | The accused products allegedly contain a processor that adjusts angular velocity based on acceleration measurements using techniques like "tilt-compensation" and a "virtual gyro" function that computes angular rates from accelerometer and magnetometer data, as depicted in an NXP presentation. (Compl. p.25). This adjusted value is allegedly integrated to determine orientation. | ¶¶74-76 | col. 2:9-15 |
| a judging unit for multiplying the angular velocity component... and the angle component... by preset weighting factors... and for outputting a signal... when an absolute value of a sum... exceeds a preset threshold | The accused products allegedly contain a judging unit that determines if a rollover is occurring by evaluating if the sum of weighted components exceeds a preset threshold. NXP documentation describes "event detection with programmable reference, threshold, and debounce time values." (Compl. p.26). | ¶¶77-78 | col. 2:15-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's algorithm performs the specific calculation required by the claim: multiplying weighted angular velocity and angle components and comparing the sum to a threshold. The complaint's evidence shows the use of thresholds for event detection (Compl. p.26) but does not explicitly show the claimed
(α * ω) + (β * θ₀)calculation, raising the question of a potential technical mismatch between the accused functionality and the claim language.
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's algorithm performs the specific calculation required by the claim: multiplying weighted angular velocity and angle components and comparing the sum to a threshold. The complaint's evidence shows the use of thresholds for event detection (Compl. p.26) but does not explicitly show the claimed
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
U.S. Patent No. 8,145,386
- The Term: "determining unit"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the boundary of the infringing article. Practitioners may focus on this term because NXP could argue it sells only a general-purpose processor, and the "determining unit" is not formed until a customer implements a specific algorithm, thereby shifting infringement downstream.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the unit functionally as that which "determines whether or not an occupant protection system is to be activated" (’386 Patent, col. 2:29-32), which could support construing the term to cover any component performing this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures depict the "determination section" (e.g., 121) as a distinct functional block within the larger "Control Unit" 11, separate from the "processor" (120) (’386 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more specific, pre-configured structure rather than a general-purpose processor.
U.S. Patent No. 7,925,395
- The Term: "adjusting a magnitude of the angular velocity component... on a basis of the acceleration component"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patent's technical contribution for correcting raw sensor data. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the "tilt-compensation" and "sensor fusion" algorithms allegedly used in NXP's products (Compl. p.21, p.25) fall within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the purpose of adjusting is to account for unnecessary components in the angular velocity signal that are not related to the vehicle's roll angle (’395 Patent, col. 5:20-29). This purpose-driven language could support a broad reading covering any algorithm that uses acceleration data to refine a raw angular velocity signal for rollover detection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific embodiments where the adjustment is based on the output of a band-pass filter (BPF) applied to the acceleration signal and provides specific characteristic curves for the adjustment (’395 Patent, col. 5:46-63, Fig. 6). This may support a narrower construction limited to the specific types of adjustment disclosed, rather than all forms of sensor fusion.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that NXP induces infringement by providing customers with products and accompanying documentation, user manuals, application notes, and training materials that instruct them how to use the products in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶60, 88, 117).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on NXP's knowledge of the patents and their infringement "since at least service of this Complaint or shortly thereafter," establishing a basis for potential post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶58, 86, 115). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of algorithmic correspondence: does the sensor fusion logic described in NXP's documentation for its "Virtual Gyro" and "eCompass" functions perform the specific computational steps of the '395 patent—namely, adjusting angular velocity, integrating it, and then combining the weighted result with the original angular velocity—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- The case will also present a question of infringement locus: do the accused semiconductor chips, as sold by NXP, constitute the complete "apparatus" and "device" claimed in the patents, or are they merely components that only become infringing when configured by a downstream customer, potentially limiting direct infringement liability for the defendant?
- A key question of claim construction will be whether the term "adjusting" in the '395 patent can be interpreted broadly to cover modern sensor fusion techniques, or if it is constrained to the specific filtering and signal modification methods detailed in the patent's written description and figures.