DCT
1:23-cv-01689
HL Klemove Corp v. Foras Tech Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HL Klemove Corp. (Republic of Korea)
- Defendant: Foras Technologies Ltd. (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01689, E.D. Va., 12/11/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation with no designated agent for service in the United States, making venue appropriate in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Personal jurisdiction is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which allows suit against a foreign patent owner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an automotive parts supplier, seeks a declaratory judgment that its Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) radar products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to processor error recovery methods.
- Technical Context: The patent concerns methods for maintaining system reliability in multi-processor environments by using firmware to manage recovery from "loss of lockstep" errors, a technology relevant to safety-critical systems like modern automotive electronics.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed by supplier HL Klemove after Defendant Foras, described as a patent monetization entity, initiated a litigation campaign against automotive manufacturers, including HL Klemove’s customer Kia. The action follows Foras’s lawsuits asserting the patent-in-suit against companies like Toyota, Kia, BMW, and Volkswagen, and an attempt by Foras to serve a subpoena on HL Klemove.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-25 | ’958 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-03-10 | ’958 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-04-05 | Foras files suit against Toyota (EDTX) |
| 2023-05-18 | Foras files suit against Kia (EDTX) |
| 2023-05-19 | Foras files suit against BMW (WDTX) |
| 2023-06-06 | Foras files suit against Nissan (WDTX) |
| 2023-06-28 | Foras files suit against Volkswagen (EDTX) |
| 2023-11-02 | Foras attempts to serve a subpoena on HL Klemove |
| 2023-12-11 | HL Klemove files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 - System And Method For Providing Firmware Recoverable Lockstep Protection
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958, issued March 10, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In high-availability computing systems with paired "lockstep" processors (which perform identical operations to check for errors), a detected error or "loss of lockstep" traditionally forced a full system crash. This is highly undesirable in complex multi-processor systems where other, unaffected processors could continue operating (’958 Patent, col. 3:1-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where firmware, rather than the operating system (OS), manages the error recovery process. Upon detecting a loss of lockstep, the firmware is invoked. It first triggers the OS to "idle" the faulty processor pair, effectively taking them offline without crashing the system. The firmware then works to recover the lockstep synchronization. Once recovered, the firmware triggers the OS again to recognize the processors as fully functional and available to receive instructions, as illustrated in the process flow of Figure 1 (’958 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:50-59).
- Technical Importance: This approach decouples the specific, hardware-level recovery mechanics from the OS, allowing for a more modular and platform-agnostic solution that avoids requiring OS vendors to embed processor-specific recovery code (’958 Patent, col. 3:17-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 19 as the basis of the infringement dispute (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 (method) recites the essential elements:
- Detecting loss of lockstep for a lockstep pair of processors.
- Using firmware to determine if the lockstep is recoverable, which involves determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred.
- Using firmware to trigger an operating system to idle the lockstep pair of processors.
- Recovering lockstep for the pair of processors.
- Triggering the operating system to recognize the lockstep pair of processors as having recovered lockstep.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 20 are also part of the dispute (Compl. ¶2, ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Plaintiff's ADAS radar products, specifically the MRR-20 Mid-Range Radar and the Hella RS4 Lane Change Assist Radar, also known as Blind Spot Detection Radar Generation 4.0 (BSD GEN4.0) (Compl. ¶8, ¶36). These products are alleged to contain Infineon SAK-TC297TA or SAK-TC264DA chipsets (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- These products are hardware and software systems incorporated into automobiles to provide ADAS features such as adaptive cruise control, blind spot detection, lane change assistance, and cross-traffic assistance (Compl. ¶3). The infringement allegations do not concern the products' radar functions, but rather the internal error-handling methods of the embedded microcontrollers, which allegedly perform loss of lockstep detection and recovery (Compl. ¶27, ¶29). These components are supplied by Plaintiff to automotive manufacturers, such as Kia, for integration into their vehicles (Compl. ¶4, ¶8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. It does so by describing the infringement allegations made by Foras in underlying litigation and then denying that its products meet key claim limitations (Compl. ¶37). The following table summarizes Foras's alleged infringement theory for claim 1, based on the complaint's description of Foras's contentions against Plaintiff's customer.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting loss of lockstep for a lockstep pair of processors | The Infineon microcontrollers within the accused ADAS radar products perform lockstep processing and are capable of detecting a loss of lockstep between processor cores (Compl. ¶27, ¶29). | ¶27, ¶29 | col. 4:56-60 |
| using firmware to trigger an operating system to idle the lockstep pair... | The firmware of the accused products allegedly triggers an operating system to idle the processor pair upon detecting a loss of lockstep (Compl. ¶18, ¶37.b). | ¶18, ¶37 | col. 6:10-18 |
| recover lockstep for the lockstep pair of processors | The firmware of the accused products allegedly recovers lockstep between the processor pair after they have been idled (Compl. ¶18, ¶37.c). | ¶18, ¶37 | col. 6:39-44 |
| trigger the operating system to recognize the lockstep pair...has recovered… | After lockstep is recovered, the firmware of the accused products allegedly triggers the operating system to recognize that the processors are available again for receiving instructions (Compl. ¶18, ¶37.d). | ¶18, ¶37 | col. 6:55-63 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Architectural Question: A central question is whether the software architecture in the accused embedded radar systems constitutes a "firmware" layer and a distinct "operating system" layer as contemplated by the patent. Plaintiff's denials suggest its products may not have the specific two-layer interactive structure required by the claims (Compl. ¶37).
- Technical Question: What specific steps do the accused products take to recover from a processor error? The complaint directly denies that its products "trigger an operating system to idle" the processors or "recover lockstep" in the claimed manner, raising a fundamental question about a potential mismatch in the technical operation of the accused systems versus the patented method (Compl. ¶37.b-c).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "trigger, by firmware, an operating system to idle the processors"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the patented method and is explicitly disputed by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶37.b). The definition of this interactive, two-part step is critical. A narrow construction may support Plaintiff's non-infringement position, while a broader one may aid Defendant's infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the specific causal relationship between the firmware and the OS that distinguishes the invention from prior art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses using "standard OS methods," such as Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) methods, to accomplish this step (e.g., an "ACPI method 104 to 'eject' master processor 12A") ('958 Patent, col. 6:10-15). This could support a construction that covers any standardized firmware-to-OS communication that results in the processor becoming idle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show a specific sequence where firmware is invoked by an error and then directly calls an OS function to perform a task ('958 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:10-18). This could support a narrower reading requiring a direct command from the firmware to the OS, as opposed to a more passive status update that the OS independently acts upon.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not contribute to or induce its customers' infringement (Compl. ¶35). The complaint states Foras's allegations are premised on the "incorporation of and/or use of Plaintiff's products in automobiles that the customer imports, makes, offers for sale and/or sells" (Compl. ¶10). The factual basis for inducement would likely relate to user manuals, technical documentation, or software development kits Plaintiff provides to its customers.
- Willful Infringement: This declaratory judgment complaint does not address allegations of willfulness. Plaintiff does request a finding that the case is "exceptional" for the purpose of seeking attorneys' fees, but this is a defensive claim made by the declaratory judgment plaintiff, not an offensive claim of willfulness by the patentee (Compl. ¶40(b)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural interpretation: can the software stack within the accused embedded ADAS radars—which may use a real-time operating system (RTOS) or a more simplified scheduler—be properly characterized as having the distinct "firmware" and "operating system" layers whose specific interaction is required by the claims?
- The central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused products' error recovery mechanism perform the specific, multi-step sequence of the claims? Plaintiff’s denials (Compl. ¶37) frame the key factual dispute: whether its products use a firmware layer to actively "trigger" an OS to idle and later re-engage processors, or whether they employ a different, non-infringing technical method for ensuring processor reliability.