DCT

1:24-cv-00390

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Tesla, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC; Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00390, W.D. Tex., 04/12/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive vehicles and related components, including their connectivity and Autopilot features, infringe twelve patents concerning technologies such as vehicle assistance systems, wireless power control, image processing, and memory management.
Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) and in-vehicle wireless communications, which are critical features in the competitive modern automotive market.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,292,138 and 9,232,158) are also being litigated in a related case, Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Volvo Car Corporation, et al. (6:23-cv-00429, W.D. Tex.). A Markman hearing for claim construction in that case is scheduled for May 24, 2024, the outcome of which may influence proceedings in the present matter.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1991-12-18	U.S. Patent No. 6,894,639 Priority Date
2000-05-25	U.S. Patent No. 7,181,743 Priority Date
2003-01-31	U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805 Priority Date
2004-07-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153 Priority Date
2005-04-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,898,395 Priority Date
2005-05-17	U.S. Patent No. 6,894,639 Issued
2006-05-08	U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 Priority Date
2006-06-23	U.S. Patent No. 11,664,889 Priority Date
2006-09-28	U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416 Priority Date
2007-02-20	U.S. Patent No. 7,181,743 Issued
2007-04-19	U.S. Patent No. 7,916,180 Priority Date
2008-02-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805 Issued
2011-03-29	U.S. Patent No. 7,916,180 Issued
2011-07-01	U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158 Priority Date
2011-09-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500 Priority Date
2012-01-20	U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670 Priority Date
2014-11-25	U.S. Patent No. 8,898,395 Issued
2016-01-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158 Issued
2017-07-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500 Issued
2018-11-20	U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416 Issued
2019-05-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 Issued
2020-08-07	Tesla allegedly received notice of ’805 and ’639 Patents
2021-03-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153 Issued
2021-12-21	U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670 Issued
2023-05-30	U.S. Patent No. 11,664,889 Issued
2024-04-11	Tesla allegedly received notice of ten patents-in-suit
2024-04-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805 - “Docking Assistant” (Issued Feb. 26, 2008)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of assisting a vehicle operator in guiding a vehicle to a specific location, such as a parking bay or loading platform, particularly when pre-defined markings or symbols are not clearly visible or present (’805 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses an imaging sensor to capture data from the vehicle's surroundings. Instead of relying on specific symbols, the system performs edge detection and segmentation on the image data to identify geometric objects (e.g., rectangles) that correspond to the general shape of a potential destination. These objects are analyzed for plausibility, and the system then calculates an optimized travel path to the most likely destination (’805 Patent, col. 2:21-52).
Technical Importance: This approach suggests a more robust guidance system capable of identifying destinations based on their inherent geometric form, rather than being dependent on specially affixed, and potentially obscured or damaged, visual markers (’805 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but reserves the right to identify them later (Compl. ¶48). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

Acquiring image data from an imaging sensor in the vehicle's surrounding field.
Extracting positional parameters of at least one potential destination.
Calculating a trajectory describing an optimized travel path.
Wherein extracting includes: performing edge detection and segmentation, analyzing edge segments for a geometric object similar to a potential destination, analyzing the object for plausibility using a matching algorithm, and performing an acceptance analysis based on the imaging sensor's properties.
Storing the accepted object that corresponds to a most proximate destination in an object list.

U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500 - “Power Control in a Wireless Network” (Issued Jul. 11, 2017)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes inefficiencies in wireless communication power control, particularly in standardized systems like UTRA TDD. Conventional methods may require using separate, power-intensive control channels to manage transmissions, which can be inefficient for small data packets or for devices in a low-power state (’500 Patent, col. 10:48-54).
The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a network device and method for managing uplink power control by selecting a value from a "multi-level" transmit power control (TPC) command set—one that includes at least two "up" values and two "down" values of different magnitudes. This multi-level command is transmitted on a single physical channel along with an allocation of an uplink resource, allowing for more granular and efficient power adjustments without necessarily requiring a separate control channel (’500 Patent, col. 14:11-23).
Technical Importance: This method suggests a more efficient power control mechanism, allowing for finer adjustments to a mobile device's transmission power, which can improve battery life and overall network efficiency (’500 Patent, col. 14:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶87). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

A network device with a processor operatively coupled to a transmitter and receiver.
The processor is configured to select a value of a multi-level TPC command from a set of values that includes at least two "up" values and at least two "down" values.
The processor is configured to have the transmitter transmit, on a single physical channel, an allocation of an uplink resource and the multi-level TPC command.
The receiver is configured to receive a corresponding uplink signal from the user equipment.

U.S. Patent No. 10,292,138 - “Determining Buffer Occupancy and Selecting Data for Transmission on a Radio Bearer”

Technology Synopsis: The ’138 Patent addresses resource allocation in wireless communication. It describes a method for a user equipment (UE) to determine and transmit its data buffer status to the network and then select data for transmission from various radio bearers based on a single received allocation of uplink resources, using a multi-iteration selection process (’138 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶100); independent claims 1 and 8 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s in-vehicle wireless communication systems that manage uplink data transmissions for its connectivity services (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21).

U.S. Patent No. 10,952,153 - “Power Control in a Wireless Network”

Technology Synopsis: The ’153 Patent, related to the ’500 Patent, discloses a method for power control where a network device transmits a multi-level TPC command on a single channel along with scheduling information. This is intended to provide more efficient and granular power control for a user device’s uplink transmissions (’153 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶113); independent claims 1 and 11 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s wireless communication systems that manage power levels for uplink transmissions in its vehicles (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21).

U.S. Patent No. 8,898,395 - “Memory Management for Cache Consistency”

Technology Synopsis: The ’395 Patent describes a method for maintaining cache consistency in a computer system. An indicator bit is associated with a group of instructions and a cache line; the bit is set when an instruction accesses the cache line and is used to manage access conflicts from external agents, such as by rolling back the instruction group (’395 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶126); independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are representative.
Accused Features: Onboard computer processors within Tesla vehicles, such as those used for Autopilot and infotainment systems, that manage memory and cache (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14).

U.S. Patent No. 10,136,416 - “Communicating on a Shared Channel in a Wireless Network”

Technology Synopsis: The ’416 Patent discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network to efficiently monitor a shared channel. The UE receives broadcast information with bits that indicate specific time intervals when shared channel resources are utilized, allowing the UE to monitor the channel only during those intervals and power down its radio at other times to conserve energy (’416 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶139); independent claims 1 and 7 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s wireless communication systems that manage how in-vehicle modems monitor network channels for data related to connectivity features (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,916,180 - “Simultaneous Multiple Field of View Digital Cameras”

Technology Synopsis: The ’180 Patent describes a digital camera system with multiple channels, each with its own optics and sensors. The channels are configured to simultaneously capture images of a scene with different fields of view (e.g., one wide-angle, one telephoto), allowing for the acquisition of both broad context and detailed views at the same time (’180 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶152); independent claim 1 is representative.
Accused Features: The multi-camera Autopilot system in Tesla vehicles, which uses several cameras with potentially different fields of view to monitor the vehicle's surroundings (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13-14).

U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158 - “Large Dynamic Range Cameras”

Technology Synopsis: The ’158 Patent discloses a digital camera with multiple channels and a processor. The system is designed to create high dynamic range (HDR) images by controlling the integration time of each channel separately; one channel uses a short integration time to capture bright areas, while another uses a longer time for dark areas. The processor then combines the data to generate a single HDR image (’158 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶165); independent claims 1 and 9 are representative.
Accused Features: The camera-based Tesla Vision and Autopilot systems, which must operate in varied lighting conditions and are alleged to use HDR imaging techniques (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13-14).

U.S. Patent No. 7,181,743 - “Resource Allocation Decision Function for Resource Management Architecture…”

Technology Synopsis: The ’743 Patent describes a resource manager for a distributed computing environment. It generates signals to start, stop, or move copies of a scalable application running on various hosts, based on performance information from both the applications and the hosts, in order to meet quality-of-service (QoS) requirements (’743 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶178); independent claim 1 is representative.
Accused Features: The onboard computing systems in Tesla vehicles that manage the allocation of processing resources for various software applications, such as Autopilot and infotainment (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 14).

U.S. Patent No. 6,894,639 - “Generalized Hebbian Learning for…Automatic Target Recognition…”

Technology Synopsis: The ’639 Patent discloses a method for distinguishing targets from background clutter in image data. It uses data statistics and learning algorithms to select and generate target-specific feature information, which is then used to extract features and classify objects, for use in automatic target recognition systems (’639 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶190); independent claims 1 and 9 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s Autopilot and vision processing systems, which are used to identify and react to objects such as other vehicles, pedestrians, and traffic signs (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13-14).

U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670 - “Communication in a Wireless Network Using Restricted Bandwidths”

Technology Synopsis: The ’670 Patent describes a method for low-capability devices to connect to a wider-bandwidth network. The device receives synchronization signals and a master information block (MIB) within a narrow, first portion of the cell’s total bandwidth. The MIB contains an indication of resources the device can use to acquire further system information without having to process the entire cell bandwidth (’670 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶61); independent claims 1 and 18 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s wireless communication systems, which must manage network connections for various in-vehicle components that may have different bandwidth capabilities (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21).

U.S. Patent No. 11,664,889 - “Communications in a Wireless Network”

Technology Synopsis: The ’889 Patent discloses a method for a user equipment (UE) to receive a control message over a physical control channel that contains power control bits for multiple UEs. The UE extracts its specific power control information and transmits a signal back to the base station at a power level based on that information, enabling efficient shared-channel power control (’889 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims (Compl. ¶74); independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 are representative.
Accused Features: Tesla’s in-vehicle cellular communication systems that manage uplink power control on shared network channels (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Tesla automotive vehicles and components thereof," including but not limited to the Tesla Model Y and Cybertruck models (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

The infringement allegations focus on two core technology areas within the accused vehicles:
- Wireless Communication Systems: Tesla vehicles are equipped with "Standard Connectivity" and "Premium Connectivity" packages that provide features over Wi-Fi and cellular networks. These systems support infotainment services like maps, navigation, and music streaming, as well as remote vehicle control via the Tesla mobile app (Compl. ¶¶ 21, Ex. 1).
- Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS): The complaint highlights Tesla’s "Autopilot," "Enhanced Autopilot," and "Full Self-Driving Capability" features. These systems are described as utilizing multiple external cameras and "powerful vision processing" to provide functions like Traffic-Aware Cruise Control, Autosteer, Autopark, and Summon (Compl. ¶¶ 22, Ex. 3). The complaint includes a diagram from Tesla’s materials showing the placement of cameras, ultrasonic sensors, and radar on a Model 3 vehicle, which form the basis of its ADAS sensor suite (Compl. p. 13, Ex. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 21-32 that allegedly map the accused products to the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 68, 81, 94, 107, 120, 133, 146, 159, 172, 185, 197). As these exhibits were not publicly filed with the complaint, this analysis summarizes the infringement theories based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’805 Patent Infringement Allegations (Prose Summary):
The complaint alleges that Tesla's ADAS features, such as Autopark and Summon, infringe the ’805 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 48). The theory suggests that when these features are activated, the vehicle's onboard computer uses camera data to identify a potential destination (e.g., a parking space) based on its geometric properties, calculates a path into that space, and guides the vehicle. This process of identifying a destination without relying on specific markings and computing a trajectory allegedly practices the patented "Docking Assistant" method.
’500 Patent Infringement Allegations (Prose Summary):
The complaint alleges that Tesla's wireless communication systems infringe the ’500 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 87). The infringement theory appears to be that in managing data transmissions over cellular networks, Tesla's systems use power control methods that correspond to the patent's claims. Specifically, the network infrastructure and the vehicle's modem allegedly exchange multi-level TPC commands on a single channel to efficiently manage the vehicle's uplink transmission power, thereby practicing the claimed invention.

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: For the ’805 Patent, a potential point of contention is whether the term "docking assistant," described in the context of commercial loading platforms, can be construed to read on a consumer vehicle's general-purpose parking assistance feature. For the camera and image processing patents, a question may arise as to whether Tesla's neural network-based "Tesla Vision" system operates in the same way as the more procedural, rule-based image processing steps described in patents such as the ’639 Patent.
Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’805 Patent is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused Autopilot features perform the specific sequence of "edge detection," "segmentation," and "matching algorithm" analysis required by the claims, as opposed to a different, holistic scene recognition method. For the ’500 Patent and other wireless patents, a question is whether the accused systems implement the specific novel command structures and channel management claimed, or if they operate according to conventional methods defined by industry standards like LTE.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’805 Patent

The Term: “potential destination”
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the patent is limited to the specific "docking" scenarios described in the specification or can cover the general-purpose parking spaces identified by the accused Tesla Autopilot system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "motor vehicle" without limitation to commercial trucks, and "potential destination" is not explicitly restricted to any particular type of location (e.g., ’805 Patent, col. 7:1-67).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is "Docking Assistant", and the detailed description repeatedly uses "docking stations" and "loading platform" as primary examples, suggesting the invention was conceived for those specific environments (’805 Patent, col. 1:11-15, col. 3:39-45).

For the ’500 Patent

The Term: “a multi-level transmit power control (TPC) command from a set of values that includes at least two values up or at least two values down”
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific nature of the power control signal required by the claims. The infringement dispute may turn on whether Tesla's systems use a TPC command with this level of granularity or a simpler binary (one up, one down) command structure common in the prior art.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any non-binary TPC system meets the spirit of the invention, though the claim language appears restrictive.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, requiring a command set with at least four distinct levels ("at least two... up" and "at least two... down"). The specification describes this as a key feature for providing more nuanced power adjustments compared to conventional binary TPC systems, suggesting this granularity is a defining element of the invention (’500 Patent, col. 13:10-17).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement across all asserted patents, stating that Tesla encourages and instructs its customers to use the accused features through "advertising, promoting, and instructing the infringing use" of its vehicles, which may refer to user manuals, marketing materials, and in-vehicle software prompts (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 90). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that Tesla provides software and technology that is especially adapted for use in an infringing manner and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 92).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the ’805 and ’639 patents, this allegation is based on alleged actual knowledge from a letter dated August 7, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 192). For the other ten patents, including the ’500 patent, the willfulness allegation is based on a letter dated April 11, 2024, one day before the complaint was filed, suggesting the willfulness claim for these patents may focus on post-filing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 76, 89, 102, 115, 128, 141, 154, 167, 180).

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

A central issue will be one of technical implementation: Do Tesla's modern, AI-driven vehicle systems, developed years after most of the patents' priority dates, operate in a manner that maps onto the specific, often procedural, claim limitations of the asserted patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their underlying technological approaches?
A crucial procedural question will be the impact of parallel litigation: How will the claim construction proceedings in the related Volvo case, which involves two of the same patents and is set for a Markman hearing, influence the scope and trajectory of this case, particularly regarding claim interpretation and potential estoppel issues?
A key damages question will be one of willfulness: For the ten patents where notice is alleged just one day before the suit was filed, can the plaintiff establish the pre-suit knowledge and objectively reckless conduct necessary to support a claim for willful infringement, or will the dispute focus primarily on post-filing conduct?