DCT
6:23-cv-00386
Foras Tech Ltd v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Foras Technologies Ltd. (Ireland)
- Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Germany) and Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BC LAW GROUP, Group
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00386, W.D. Tex., 05/19/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign corporations, against whom suit may be brought in any judicial district, and because Defendants have allegedly transacted business and committed infringing acts within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain BMW automobiles, which contain electronic control units manufactured by Bosch, infringe a patent related to firmware-based methods for recovering from errors in lockstep processor systems.
- Technical Context: Lockstep processing, which involves running two or more processors in parallel to detect errors, is a critical technology for ensuring the reliability and safety of computer systems in applications such as modern automotive electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior court order in a separate case involving BMW (Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG) to support its jurisdictional allegations. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patent itself.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-25 | '958 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-03-10 | '958 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-05-19 | 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" in high-reliability computer systems that use paired "lockstep" processors to detect errors ('958 Patent, col. 1:40-44). The traditional response to detecting a "loss of lockstep" (LOL) was to crash the entire system, an unacceptable outcome for high-availability systems where uptime is critical ('958 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a firmware-based method to recover from an LOL without crashing the system. The firmware layer, which sits between the hardware and the operating system (OS), manages the recovery process. It uses standard OS interfaces, such as the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI), to command the OS to "idle" the faulty processor pair, attempts to reset and recover lockstep, and then signals the OS that the processors are once again available for use ('958 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This approach decouples the hardware-specific recovery logic from the OS, enabling robust error recovery without requiring the OS itself to contain complex, platform-specific code ('958 Patent, col. 5:4-9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19.
- The essential elements of independent claim 19 are:
- A system with a pair of lockstep processors and computer-executable firmware code.
- Firmware code for determining if a detected loss of lockstep is recoverable, which includes determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred.
- Firmware code that, upon determining the loss of lockstep is recoverable, (1) triggers an operating system to idle the processors, (2) attempts to recover lockstep, and (3) triggers the operating system to recognize the processors as available again if recovery is successful.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are certain BMW-branded automobiles, including the X3, X4, and X5 models, which incorporate a Bosch Electronic Control Unit (ECU) containing an Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipset (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these ECUs manage critical vehicle functions and employ the patented lockstep processing technology to ensure high reliability (Compl. ¶¶1, 17). The technical functionality at issue is the system's alleged method for detecting and recovering from processor errors without a full system failure.
- The complaint asserts that BMW derives substantial revenue from selling these vehicles in the United States and the Western District of Texas (Compl. ¶¶8, 10). A table from BMW's 2022 Financial Statement details the company's revenues by geographic region, including €23,019 million from the USA (Compl. p. 4, Ex. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy all limitations of claim 19 and refers to an attached claim chart in Exhibit 8 (Compl. ¶18). As this exhibit was not provided with the publicly filed complaint, the following chart summarizes the infringement allegations based on the general assertions in the complaint body.
'958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system comprising a pair of lockstep processors and computer-executable firmware code... | The complaint alleges that the Bosch ECU, containing an Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipset, is a system embodying this element. | ¶¶1, 17 | col. 4:15-24 |
| firmware code...for determining if the lockstep is recoverable...wherein said firmware code...further comprises firmware code for determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred... | The complaint alleges the firmware within the accused Bosch ECU performs this determination. | ¶18 | col. 15:13-19 |
| firmware code...for triggering an operating system to idle the processors, attempting to recover lockstep...and if lockstep is successfully recovered...triggering said operating system to recognize the processors as being available... | The complaint alleges the firmware within the accused Bosch ECU performs this three-part recovery process. | ¶18 | col. 15:41-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused ECU's architecture fits the patent's definition of "firmware." The patent describes specific layers like PAL and SAL ('958 Patent, col. 7:27-35), and the court will have to determine if the software in the accused Bosch ECU functions in a manner consistent with the claimed "firmware."
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence detailing how the accused ECU firmware allegedly operates. A key factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused system actually performs the specific three-step recovery sequence recited in claim 19: (1) triggering the OS to idle, (2) attempting recovery, and (3) triggering the OS to recognize the recovered processors.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "firmware"
- Context and Importance: The distinction between hardware, firmware, and operating system software is central to the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused code that performs the recovery logic resides at the "firmware" layer as understood by the patent, rather than as part of the OS or a different software layer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally throughout the patent, suggesting it could encompass various forms of low-level code that interfaces with hardware. The summary of the invention describes "firmware" as the agent for triggering the OS and performing recovery ('958 Patent, col. 3:50-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of firmware in the IPF architecture, including the Processor Abstraction Layer (PAL), System Abstraction Layer (SAL), and Extended Firmware Interface (EFI) ('958 Patent, col. 7:27-35). A defendant may argue that "firmware" should be limited to these specific types of low-level, hardware-initializing code.
The Term: "triggering an operating system to idle the processors"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the interaction between the claimed firmware and the OS. The case may turn on whether the accused system's method for taking a processor offline qualifies as "triggering" the OS to "idle" it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, suggesting any firmware action that causes the OS to stop scheduling tasks for the processor could infringe. Figure 6 shows this as a high-level step (62), not tied to one specific mechanism ('958 Patent, Fig. 6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of this step: using an ACPI method to "eject" the master processor ('958 Patent, col. 5:11-15). A defendant could argue the claim should be limited to this or a similar "ejection" mechanism, rather than any method of making a processor idle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by their subsidiaries, partners, and customers by placing infringing automobiles into the stream of commerce "knowing or understanding that such products would be sold and used in the United States" (Compl. ¶5). The complaint does not specify the basis for this knowledge beyond the general distribution of products.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement or allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '958 Patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is the statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees, often in cases of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "firmware", as described in a patent from the server-oriented Itanium processor era, be construed to read on the software architecture of a modern automotive ECU? The outcome will depend on the court's interpretation of where the claimed recovery logic must reside and how it must function.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: As discovery proceeds, the case will likely focus on whether the accused Bosch ECU performs the specific, multi-step recovery process required by Claim 19. Plaintiff will need to produce evidence demonstrating not just that the ECU can recover from errors, but that it does so by using firmware to trigger the OS to idle the processors, attempting recovery, and then reintroducing them in the manner claimed.