DCT
4:25-cv-03371
Tusimple Inc v. Bot Auto Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TuSimple, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Bot Auto Inc. (Delaware), Bot Auto TX Inc. (Texas), and Bot Auto CA Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dykema Gossett PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-03371, S.D. Tex., 07/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Texas based on Defendants having a regular and established place of business in Houston and an operating facility in Brookshire, Texas, and having committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s autonomous trucking vehicles and systems infringe six patents related to redundant vehicle control systems, sensor layouts, and mapping technology.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of Level 4 autonomous driving for commercial freight trucks, a highly competitive market focused on developing "driver-out" systems that operate without human intervention.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive factual background, alleging that Defendant’s founder, a former co-founder and CEO of Plaintiff, misappropriated proprietary technology and solicited key employees to form a competing enterprise. The complaint notes that a named inventor on three of the asserted patents is now Defendant’s Head of Hardware, a fact central to allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-02-26 | ’609 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-09-16 | ’109 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-09-16 | ’783 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-05 | ’776 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-05 | ’270 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-10-26 | ’284 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-07-27 | ’109 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-10-31 | Plaintiff discloses investigation finding its then-CEO improperly diverted data (Compl. ¶27) |
| 2022-12-05 | Defendant’s website domain name established (Compl. ¶31) |
| 2023-02-14 | ’776 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-01 | Plaintiff’s former CEO resigns from Board of Directors (approximate date) (Compl. ¶44) |
| 2024-01-01 | Inventor Xiaoling Han joins Defendant Bot Auto (approximate date) (Compl. ¶82) |
| 2024-01-30 | ’284 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-07-30 | ’270 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-01-07 | ’609 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-18 | ’783 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-07-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,577,776 - "Managing Redundant Steering System for Autonomous Vehicles"
- Issued: February 14, 2023
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Autonomous vehicles require robust steering systems to ensure safe operation, but a failure in a primary steering motor could be catastrophic without a reliable backup mechanism (’776 Patent, col. 1:11-24). The patent addresses the need for a method to monitor the primary steering motor’s performance and seamlessly activate a redundant motor if a fault is detected.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a control system sends a command to a primary steering motor and then monitors vehicle data (speed, yaw rate, steering position) to determine if the motor's response falls within an "expected range of steering angles" (’776 Patent, col. 1:30-44). If the actual steering position is outside this expected range, the system concludes the primary motor may be faulty and sends a command to a second, redundant motor to take over steering control (’776 Patent, col. 1:41-44). This creates a fail-safe operational mode for a critical vehicle system.
- Technical Importance: This technology is critical for achieving the high level of safety and reliability required for "driver-out" (Level 4) autonomous trucking, where no human is present to intervene in case of a hardware failure (Compl. ¶23).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- sending a first control command that instructs a first motor... to steer a vehicle;
- receiving, after sending the first control command, a speed of the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, and a steering position of the steering wheel;
- determining an expected range of steering angles... wherein the expected range... are determined as a function of at least the speed of the vehicle and the yaw rate of the vehicle; and
- upon determining that the steering position... is outside the expected range of steering angles, sending a second control command that instructs a second motor... to steer the vehicle.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 12,049,270 - "Managing Redundant Steering System for Autonomous Vehicles"
- Issued: July 30, 2024
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’776 Patent, addresses a similar problem of ensuring fail-safe steering but focuses on a slightly different control logic for managing the primary motor within its expected operational parameters (’270 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the system monitors the steering position to determine if it is within a specified range of values, which is also a function of vehicle speed and yaw rate (’270 Patent, col. 1:41-45). In response to a determination that the steering position is inside the acceptable range, the system sends a second command that causes the first motor to continue steering the vehicle, effectively confirming normal operation (’270 Patent, col. 1:45-49). This represents a "health check" logic path, contrasting with the fail-over logic of the ’776 patent.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for continuous validation of the primary steering system's health, a necessary component of a comprehensive safety architecture for autonomous vehicles (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶120).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- sending a first command that causes a first motor... to steer a vehicle;
- receiving a steering position of a steering wheel after the first motor is caused to steer the vehicle;
- performing a first determination that the steering position is within a range of values, wherein the range of values is a function of at least a speed of the vehicle and a yaw rate of the vehicle; and
- sending, in response to the first determination, a second command that causes the first motor... to steer the vehicle.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,884,284 - "Braking Control Architectures for Autonomous Vehicles"
- Issued: January 30, 2024
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for a highly reliable braking system in autonomous vehicles by creating a redundant architecture (’284 Patent, col. 1:10-20). The invention uses primary and secondary vehicle control units (VCUs) and primary and secondary brake controllers to generate four independent sets of braking commands; an arbitration logic then selects one operational set of commands to ensure the system remains functional even if some components fail (’284 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶135).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the redundant safety and braking systems in Defendants' autonomous trucks infringe the ’284 Patent (Compl. ¶¶75, 136-142).
U.S. Patent No. 11,076,109 - "Sensor Layout for Autonomous Vehicles"
- Issued: July 27, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical challenge of achieving comprehensive environmental perception for an autonomous vehicle by optimizing the layout of its sensors (’109 Patent, col. 1:13-24). The invention claims a specific arrangement of cameras, including at least three forward-facing cameras with different focal lengths to perceive objects at varying distances, along with side-facing and backward-facing cameras to provide 360-degree coverage (’109 Patent, Abstract). The configuration is designed to balance data acquisition without creating excessive redundancy.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶152).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the array of cameras and other sensors used on Defendants' trucks for autonomous control infringes the ’109 Patent (Compl. ¶¶74, 153-157).
U.S. Patent No. 12,231,783 - "Sensor Layout for Autonomous Vehicles"
- Issued: February 18, 2025
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’109 Patent, also discloses an optimized sensor layout for autonomous vehicles. It claims a specific arrangement of forward-facing and backward-facing cameras, focusing on the relationship between their focal lengths (’783 Patent, Abstract). The invention requires one of the forward-facing cameras to have the same focal length as the backward-facing cameras, potentially to create consistency in perception algorithms for objects viewed from different angles.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶167).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the sensor configurations on Defendants' autonomous trucks infringe the ’783 Patent (Compl. ¶¶74, 168-172).
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,609 - "Method and System for Map Construction"
- Issued: January 7, 2025
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of creating accurate, computationally efficient maps for autonomous navigation (’609 Patent, col. 1:12-20). The invention describes a method for constructing a map by first creating an "outline circumscribing a plurality of lanes" and then identifying individual lane outlines within that larger boundary, based on segments derived from road shape data (’609 Patent, Abstract). This hierarchical approach may improve the speed and accuracy of map generation.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶182).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants are using Plaintiff's patented technologies, which would include mapping systems, to conduct product development on public roads (Compl. ¶¶52, 183-185).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' autonomous trucking vehicles, identified as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶74).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are commercial semi-trucks equipped with an array of cameras and other sensors to enable autonomous operation without a human driver (Compl. ¶74). Defendants promote these vehicles as having "full redundancy, from steering and braking systems to sensors and computing power" (Compl. ¶76). The complaint alleges that Defendants are testing prototype autonomous trucks on public roads in the Houston area and intend to commence "driver-out" testing, positioning themselves as direct competitors to Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶52, 54, 96). An image from Defendant's website shows one of the Accused Products, a semi-truck outfitted with sensors, operating on a highway (Compl. ¶74).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 11,577,776 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| sending a first control command that instructs a first motor coupled to a steering wheel in a steering system to steer a vehicle | The Accused Products send a first control command to a first motor in the steering system to steer the vehicle. | ¶107 | col. 1:30-33 |
| receiving, after sending the first control command, a speed of the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, and a steering position of the steering wheel | After sending the command, the Accused Products receive vehicle speed, yaw rate, and the steering wheel's steering position. | ¶108 | col. 1:33-35 |
| determining an expected range of steering angles that describes values within which the first motor is expected to steer the vehicle... wherein the expected range of steering angles are determined as a function of at least the speed of the vehicle and the yaw rate of the vehicle | The Accused Products determine an expected range for steering angles, with the range being calculated as a function of the vehicle's speed and yaw rate. | ¶109 | col. 1:35-41 |
| upon determining that the steering position of the steering wheel is outside the expected range of steering angles, sending a second control command that instructs a second motor coupled to the steering wheel in the steering system to steer the vehicle | If the actual steering position falls outside this calculated range, the Accused Products send a second command that instructs a second, redundant motor to take over steering. | ¶110 | col. 1:41-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of "expected range of steering angles." The patent defines this functionally, and litigation may focus on whether the specific algorithm or thresholds used by the Accused Products to detect a fault falls within the scope of this term as understood in light of the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the Accused Products employ a two-motor redundant steering system. A key evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products actually contain two distinct motors for steering as required by the claim, or if their redundancy is achieved through a different architecture, such as redundant controllers for a single motor.
U.S. Patent No. 12,049,270 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| sending a first command that causes a first motor in a steering system to steer a vehicle | The Accused Products send a first command to a first motor to initiate steering. | ¶122 | col. 1:29-31 |
| receiving a steering position of a steering wheel after the first motor is caused to steer the vehicle in accordance with the first command | After the command is sent, the Accused Products receive the steering position of the steering wheel. | ¶123 | col. 1:32-35 |
| performing a first determination that the steering position is within a range of values, wherein the range of values is a function of at least a speed of the vehicle and a yaw rate of the vehicle | The Accused Products determine if the steering position is within a calculated range of values, which is a function of vehicle speed and yaw rate. | ¶124 | col. 1:35-39 |
| sending, in response to the first determination, a second command that causes the first motor in the steering system to steer the vehicle | In response to determining the position is within the range, the Accused Products send a second command for the first motor to continue steering. | ¶125 | col. 1:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As with the ’776 Patent, the construction of "range of values" will be critical. The dispute may turn on whether the Accused Products' nominal operation and health-monitoring logic performs the specific determination and responsive command sequence claimed.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for this patent hinges on the system's behavior during normal operation, not just failure events. An evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Product's control loop sends a distinct "second command" to the first motor in response to a "determination" of being within a valid range, or if it operates via a continuous control signal that does not map onto the discrete steps required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "expected range of steering angles" (’776 Patent, Claim 1) / "range of values" (’270 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patented logic for both detecting a fault (’776 Patent) and confirming normal operation (’270 Patent). The definition of how this range is determined and what it encompasses will be central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its functional nature invites debate over whether the specific algorithms used by the Accused Products meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the range is determined "as a function of at least the speed of the vehicle and the yaw rate of the vehicle" (’776 Patent, col. 11:58-62). This "at least" language suggests other factors could be included without departing from the claim, potentially supporting a broad reading that covers various fault-detection algorithms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples, such as estimating that for a vehicle at 65 mph with a low yaw rate, "the actual range of steering angles can be 5 degrees to 8 degrees" (’776 Patent, col. 7:41-44). A defendant may argue that such examples narrow the term's scope to specific, pre-calculated, or model-based predictive ranges, rather than more generalized error thresholds.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While no separate count for indirect infringement is pleaded, the complaint alleges facts that may support such a theory. It claims Defendant Bot Auto, Inc. enables the infringement of its Texas and California affiliates by "knowingly and intentionally raising and providing funds in service to such infringements" and providing other assistance (Compl. ¶98).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges that Defendants had actual knowledge of the asserted patents through their employment of Xiaoling Han, a named inventor on the ’776, ’270, and ’284 patents, who now serves as Bot Auto's Head of Hardware (Compl. ¶¶82-84). The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’776 patent since at least January 2024 and the ’270 patent since its issue date of July 30, 2024, based on Han's employment (Compl. ¶¶85, 86, 114, 129).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears poised to center on the intersection of corporate history and technical specifics. The case will likely turn on the following key questions:
- A primary issue will be one of technical evidence versus allegation: The complaint's detailed narrative of alleged misappropriation provides a powerful motive for infringement, but the infringement allegations for the complex control system claims rely heavily on "information and belief." A central question for discovery will be whether the actual architecture and software logic of the Accused Products, once revealed, perform the specific, multi-step monitoring and command functions recited in the asserted claims.
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the functional claim term "expected range of steering angles," which is central to the asserted steering patents, be construed to cover the specific fault-detection thresholds and algorithms used in the Accused Products? The resolution of this claim construction issue may determine the outcome for a significant portion of the asserted patent portfolio.
- A third question will be the impact of inventor knowledge on willfulness: The fact that a named inventor on three key patents is now a senior employee at the Defendant presents a significant hurdle for the defense to overcome allegations of willful infringement. The case will test how knowledge possessed by a key technical employee is imputed to the corporate defendant for purposes of enhanced damages.