DCT

1:23-cv-00640

Foras Tech Ltd. v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00640, W.D. Tex., 06/06/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations, making venue appropriate in any judicial district, and on the basis that they transact business and have committed acts of infringement within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ automobiles, which incorporate specific smart camera components with advanced chipsets, infringe patents related to lockstep processing technology used for ensuring system reliability and recovering from processor errors.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns fault-tolerant computing, specifically methods using redundant processors operating in "lockstep" to detect and recover from errors, a technique critical for safety-sensitive systems such as automotive advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS).
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are subject to terminal disclaimers. The complaint also asserts that the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. §287 were met because neither the Plaintiff nor any licensees made or sold products practicing the patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-25 Priority Date for '958, '781, and '302 Patents
2009-03-10 '958 Patent Issue Date
2009-11-24 '302 Patent Issue Date
2009-12-01 '781 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-30 Date prior to which Plaintiff alleges compliance with marking statute
2023-06-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 - "System and method for providing firmware recoverable lockstep protection," issued March 10, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "Silent Data Corruption" (SDC) in computer systems, where a hardware component produces an incorrect result without detection (’958 Patent, col. 1:40-44). In systems using "lockstep" processors (two processors performing identical operations to cross-check results), the traditional response to a detected mismatch is to crash the entire system, an approach the patent deems unattractive for high-availability, multi-processor systems where such errors may be more frequent (’958 Patent, col. 3:1-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a firmware-based recovery method that avoids a system crash. Upon detecting a "loss of lockstep" (LOL), the firmware triggers the operating system (OS) to idle the faulty processor pair using standard interfaces. The firmware then attempts to recover lockstep (e.g., by resetting the pair) and subsequently triggers the OS to recognize the now-functional processors, making them available again for use (’958 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 6:4-24).
  • Technical Importance: This firmware-centric approach enables fault recovery without requiring a full system shutdown, thereby increasing the overall reliability and uptime ("high availability") of complex computer systems (’958 Patent, col. 3:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶20).
  • The essential elements of claim 19 include: a system with a pair of lockstep processors and firmware code operable to: (1) determine if a detected loss of lockstep is recoverable, which involves determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred; and if recoverable, (2) trigger an operating system to idle the processors; (3) attempt to recover lockstep; and (4) trigger the operating system to recognize the recovered processors as available for use (’958 Patent, col. 15:58–col. 16:22).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 7,627,781 - "System and method for establishing a spare processor for recovering from loss of lockstep in a boot processor," issued December 1, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses a specific and critical failure scenario: a loss of lockstep occurring in the system's "boot processor." The patent notes that simply idling or "ejecting" the boot processor is problematic, as it is foundational to the operation of the system and its OS (’781 Patent, col. 3:20-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that pre-designates a "spare processor" to handle a boot processor failure. When an LOL is detected in the boot processor, the system transfers the role of boot processor to the spare processor during runtime. This allows the system to continue operating seamlessly while the original, failed boot processor can be reset or serviced (’781 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The spare can be a "hot spare" held in reserve or an "active spare" that is dynamically repurposed (’781 Patent, col. 5:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a robust recovery path for a critical failure mode (boot processor failure) that would otherwise necessitate a system crash, significantly enhancing the fault tolerance of high-availability systems (’781 Patent, col. 3:20-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include: a system with (1) a plurality of processors; (2) data storage that assigns a "role of boot processor" to one processor and a "role of spare processor" to another; and (3) logic that, upon detecting an LOL in the boot processor, transfers the role of boot processor to the spare processor during system runtime. The claim specifies the spare is a "hot spare" held in reserve (’781 Patent, col. 17:51–col. 18:3).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,624,302 - "System and method for switching the role of boot processor to a spare processor responsive to detection of loss of lockstep in a boot processor," issued November 24, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method to ensure system continuity when a "loss of lockstep" (LOL) error occurs in a critical boot processor (’302 Patent, col. 3:20-27). The described solution involves switching the functional role of the boot processor to a designated spare processor without requiring a system shutdown, thereby preserving system operation while recovery is attempted on the original boot processor (’302 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies exemplary independent claim 21 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is alleged to reside in the ZF Smart Camera 4.8, containing Infineon TC38XX chipsets, as incorporated into vehicles such as the Nissan Rogue (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Nissan-branded automobiles, including but not limited to the Nissan Rogue, that contain ZF components, specifically the ZF Smart Camera 4.8 which in turn contains Infineon TC38XX chipsets (Compl. ¶4, 19, 26, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products implement the patented "lockstep processing technology" (Compl. ¶1). The technical functionality of the ZF Smart Camera 4.8 and its chipset is not described in detail, but they are identified as the locus of the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶19). The complaint asserts that Defendants derive substantial revenue from infringing acts in the district (Compl. ¶8, 12). The complaint provides a table from a Nissan financial report to illustrate the scale of its U.S. automotive sales (Compl. p. 4, Ex. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories. The narrative allegations are summarized below.

  • '958 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet all limitations of at least claim 19 of the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶20). It references an unattached claim chart in Exhibit 7 as evidence (Compl. ¶20). The core of the infringement theory is that the lockstep processing system within the ZF Smart Camera 4.8 uses firmware to manage and recover from detected processor errors by idling the faulty processors and reintroducing them to the system's control logic after recovery, mirroring the functionality claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶1, 19).

  • '781 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the '781 Patent, referencing an unattached claim chart in Exhibit 9 (Compl. ¶27). The narrative theory posits that the accused ZF Smart Camera 4.8 system includes a designated "boot processor" and a "spare processor." Upon detection of an error in the boot processor, the system is alleged to transfer the boot-up and control role to the spare processor to maintain operation, as claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶25-26).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are made "on information and belief" and lack specific public documentation detailing the internal operation of the accused chipsets (Compl. ¶19, 26, 33). A central dispute will concern the evidence, to be developed in discovery, of how the ZF Smart Camera 4.8 and its Infineon TC38XX chipsets actually perform fault tolerance.
    • Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether the patented methods, described in the context of general-purpose, high-availability server systems, can be read on the embedded system of an automotive smart camera. For example, does the error recovery within the accused ECU constitute "triggering an operating system" in the manner claimed by the ’958 Patent, or does it use a different control architecture?
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’781 Patent will likely focus on whether the accused camera's architecture includes components that function as a "boot processor" and a "spare processor" that performs the claimed role-switching, or if it employs a different architecture for fault management.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "operating system" (’958 Patent, Claim 19)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires the firmware to interact with an "operating system" to idle and reintroduce processors. The nature of the "operating system" in a specialized automotive component may differ from the server-class OS examples (e.g., HP-UX) in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a real-time operating system (RTOS) or other control software in the accused device qualifies.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "any ACPI-compatible OS may be used," which does not facially restrict the term to a particular class of OS (’958 Patent, col. 6:7-8).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s examples consistently refer to general-purpose, multi-processor server operating systems like "HP-UX and Open VMS" (’958 Patent, col. 6:8-10). Parties may argue this context limits the term to more complex OS environments rather than streamlined embedded ones.

  • The Term: "boot processor" (’781 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The novelty of the ’781 Patent’s claims hinges on a special recovery process for the "boot processor." Infringement depends entirely on whether a processor within the accused ZF Smart Camera system can be properly construed as a "boot processor."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition. The term could be interpreted functionally to mean any processor in a system that executes the initial code sequence from memory upon startup (’781 Patent, col. 7:45-51).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the boot processor’s role in a "traditional IPF system," where it performs initial system-wide checks and loads the main OS (’781 Patent, col. 7:38-66). This detailed context might support a narrower construction limited to processors in architectures with a similar, formally defined boot-up sequence.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by placing automobiles with the accused components into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be used in the U.S. (Compl. ¶5).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, it requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 12, ¶e).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what specific fault-tolerance architecture is implemented in the accused ZF Smart Camera 4.8 and its Infineon chipset? The case will depend on whether discovery reveals a system that uses firmware to idle processors via an OS and/or performs role-switching for a designated "boot processor," as opposed to an alternative error-handling mechanism not covered by the claims.
  • A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "operating system" and "boot processor," which are described in the patents' context of high-availability server computing, be construed to read on the potentially different software and hardware architecture of a dedicated automotive smart camera ECU? The outcome of claim construction for these terms will be pivotal.