DCT
1:24-cv-00363
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Foras Tech Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Germany) and Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)
- Defendant: Foras Technologies Ltd. (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00363, E.D. Va., 03/06/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant, Foras Technologies, is a foreign resident and may be sued in any judicial district. Personal jurisdiction is alleged under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which grants jurisdiction over foreign patentees who have not designated an agent for service in the U.S.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for a patent related to fault tolerance in multi-processor systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing processing errors in "lockstep" multi-processor systems, which are critical for high-availability computing environments like servers and, as alleged here, advanced automotive systems.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a prior lawsuit filed by Defendant Foras against Plaintiffs BMW and Bosch in the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs assert in this complaint that the Texas court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. The complaint also notes that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition was filed against the patent-in-suit by affiliates of the Plaintiffs.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-25 | ’958 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-03-10 | ’958 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-04-23 | ’958 Patent assigned to Sonrai Memory, Ltd. |
| 2022-01-19 | ’958 Patent assigned to Defendant Foras Technologies Ltd. |
| 2023-05-19 | Defendant files infringement lawsuit against Plaintiffs in W.D. Texas |
| 2023-09-08 | IPR Petition (IPR2023-01373) filed against ’958 Patent by BMW and Bosch affiliates |
| 2024-03-06 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed in E.D. Virginia |
| 2024-03-14 | Preliminary Infringement Contentions due in W.D. Texas lawsuit |
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, System and Method for Providing Firmware Recoverable Lockstep Protection, issued March 10, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In high-reliability computer systems, multiple processors are often run in "lockstep" (performing the same operations simultaneously) to detect errors. A discrepancy, or "loss of lockstep" (LOL), often indicates "Silent Data Corruption" (SDC) (’958 Patent, col. 1:40-42). The traditional response to a detected LOL is to crash the entire system to prevent propagating corrupted data, but this is highly undesirable for "high availability" systems with many processors, where such events can occur more frequently (’958 Patent, col. 3:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for recovering from a loss of lockstep at the firmware level without crashing the system. Upon detecting an LOL, firmware determines if the error is recoverable (’958 Patent, col. 10:50-54). If it is, the firmware uses standard operating system (OS) interfaces, such as the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI), to trigger the OS to "idle" the faulty processor pair. The firmware then attempts to reset and recover lockstep for the pair. Once recovered, the firmware again triggers the OS to recognize the processors as available for use (’958 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6). This approach avoids embedding complex, processor-specific recovery logic into the OS itself (’958 Patent, col. 3:17-28).
- Technical Importance: By handling transient error recovery in firmware, the invention allows systems to maintain high availability and avoid disruptive crashes, while using standardized OS communication protocols that do not require OS-level modification for each specific hardware platform.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 13, 19, and 23 (’958 Patent, col. 1:13-14). The prior lawsuit by Foras specifically provided a claim chart for exemplary independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 19 (System Claim) essential elements:
- A pair of lockstep processors.
- Computer-executable firmware code stored to a computer-readable medium, comprising:
- Firmware code for determining if the lockstep is recoverable for the pair of processors.
- Firmware code for determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred.
- Firmware code, responsive to determining the lockstep is recoverable, for triggering an operating system to idle the processors, attempting to recover lockstep, and triggering the operating system to recognize the processors as being available.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement grounds against other claims (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Certain BMW branded automobiles (specifically the X3, X4, and X5 models) that incorporate Bosch electronic control units containing Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipsets (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" in the underlying Texas litigation (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint, a declaratory judgment action, focuses on denying infringement. It alleges that the Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipsets, which are components within Bosch electronic control units used in the specified BMW vehicles, do not contain the "firmware code" that performs the functions required by the asserted claims of the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 25-29). The dispute centers on the error-handling functionality within these automotive-grade microcontrollers.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The declaratory judgment complaint does not provide a full claim chart but instead identifies specific limitations of claim 19 that the accused products allegedly do not meet (Compl. ¶¶ 25-28). The following table summarizes the dispute based on those denials, outlining the functionality Foras must allege is present in the accused products to prove infringement.
’958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| firmware code... for determining if the lockstep is recoverable for the pair of lockstep processors | The functionality of the Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipsets that analyzes a detected error to determine if recovery is possible without a system reset. | ¶25 | col. 16:36-40 |
| firmware code for determining if a lockstep mismatch has occurred between the pair of lockstep processors | The functionality of the Infineon chipsets that compares the outputs of the lockstep processors to detect a mismatch. | ¶26 | col. 16:36-40 |
| firmware code, responsive to determining that the lockstep is recoverable, for triggering an operating system to idle the processors, attempting to recover lockstep between the pair of processors | The functionality of the Infineon chipsets that, after deeming an error recoverable, signals the vehicle's operating system to temporarily halt tasks for the affected processors while a recovery sequence is performed. | ¶27 | col. 16:41-49 |
| [firmware code...] triggering said operating system to recognize the processors as being available for receiving instructions | The functionality of the Infineon chipsets that, after a successful recovery, signals the vehicle's operating system to resume scheduling tasks for the restored processors. | ¶28 | col. 16:45-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The central dispute appears to be factual and technical: does the error-handling logic within the Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipsets actually perform the specific, multi-step recovery sequence recited in claim 19? The complaint’s denials suggest that Plaintiffs will argue the accused chipsets either lack these specific firmware functions entirely or implement a fundamentally different error-handling mechanism (Compl. ¶¶ 25-28).
- Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will be whether the specific architecture described in the patent (an IPF-based system using PAL/SAL firmware and ACPI interfaces) limits the scope of the claims. Plaintiffs may argue that the term "firmware code" as claimed does not read on the software architecture of the accused automotive-grade chipsets.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "firmware code"
Context and Importance: This term appears in every functional limitation of independent claim 19. The definition will be critical to determining whether the software on the accused Infineon chipsets, which may be structured differently from the examples in the patent, can be considered infringing "firmware." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification heavily ties the invention to a specific processor architecture (IPF) and its associated firmware layers (PAL, SAL, EFI).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "firmware code," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., any low-level software that interfaces with hardware, distinct from a high-level operating system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly references specific firmware implementations like the Processor Abstraction Layer (PAL) and System Abstraction Layer (SAL) within the Itanium Processor Family (IPF) architecture (’958 Patent, col. 5:20-40). This consistent focus on a specific environment could be used to argue that "firmware code" should be construed as being limited to such specific firmware layers.
The Term: "triggering an operating system to idle the processors"
Context and Importance: This is a key active step in the claimed recovery process. The dispute will likely involve whether the mechanism used by the accused products to handle processor faults constitutes "triggering" the OS to "idle" the processors as claimed, or if it is a different, non-infringing process.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not specify how the triggering must occur, potentially covering any method where firmware causes the OS to stop scheduling tasks for a processor.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of how this is accomplished: using an ACPI method to "eject" the master processor (’958 Patent, col. 6:10-15). An accused infringer may argue this specific disclosure limits the scope of the claim term to only the described ACPI-based method or its direct equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement both "directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶29), but provides no specific facts regarding the basis for any indirect infringement allegations from the underlying Texas case. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint for declaratory judgment does not mention willfulness allegations from the underlying case.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core functional question: Does the error-handling software in the accused Infineon TriCore TC29XX chipsets perform the specific, sequential functions required by claim 19? The case will likely depend on expert analysis of whether the accused code contains modules for (1) determining error recoverability, (2) triggering an OS to idle the processors, (3) attempting recovery, and (4) triggering the OS to re-engage the processors, as distinct, claimed steps.
- A central claim construction issue: Can the term "firmware code," as described in a patent heavily focused on the server-class Itanium (IPF) architecture, be construed broadly enough to read on the embedded software of a modern automotive microcontroller? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.
- A significant procedural question: The filing of this declaratory judgment action, explicitly challenging personal jurisdiction in the prior Texas lawsuit (Compl. ¶21), indicates that a primary battleground for the parties will be determining the proper forum for the dispute, a conflict that will proceed in parallel with the substantive patent questions.