DCT

1:25-cv-02181

Perrone Robotics Innovations LLC v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02181, E.D. Va., 11/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendants have regular and established places of business in the District, including a training center, and offer for sale the accused infringing vehicles at numerous dealerships within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ vehicles equipped with the ProPILOT Assist Advanced Driver-Assistance System infringe five patents related to a general purpose robotics operating system.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to a hardware-independent software framework for controlling robotic and autonomous systems, a foundational technology in the automotive industry's development of advanced driver assistance and fully autonomous vehicles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233, which stems from a February 2006 patent application, as its foundational intellectual property, with the other four patents-in-suit filed subsequently. No prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint. Plaintiff alleges patent marking via its corporate website.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-02-27 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 Issued
2017-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 Issued
2019-11-25 Alleged Infringement Begins (at least by this date)
2022-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 Issued
2023-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 Issued
2024-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 Issued
2025-11-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877, "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions," issued December 31, 2024 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the inefficiency of prior art robotics development, where developers created custom, hardware-specific software for each new robotic or automated device (Compl. ¶17). This "monolithic" approach created technical barriers to interoperability, scalability, and widespread deployment (Compl. ¶21; ’251 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "general purpose robotics operating system" (GPROS) that provides a standardized, hardware-independent software platform (Compl. ¶18). It introduces a layer of generic software services and abstractions that allows application software to be developed, configured, and deployed across different hardware platforms, sensors, and actuators ('251 Patent, col. 2:11-23). This architecture is designed to enable "plug and play" extensibility for various components, from communication protocols to sensor types ('251 Patent, col. 3:1-35).
  • Technical Importance: The GPROS architecture was designed to solve the "long-standing robotics challenge of hardware heterogeneity," a solution described as "not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of the invention" (Compl. ¶¶21, 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A vehicle with a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle.
    • An operating system with application services to manage an obstacle service and use a movement plan.
    • The application services are independent of the hardware platform and configurable for communication and operational tasks.
    • The application services are configurable via a configuration service, adaptable statically and dynamically, and access configuration data via a generic abstraction.
    • A graphical user interface.
    • The vehicle is adapted to receive configuration data over a network and to avoid obstacles.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-21 (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442, "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions," issued October 10, 2023 (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem of coordinating sensor processing, decision-making, and actuator control across disparate hardware platforms in robotics (Compl. ¶25). Traditional systems often required hardware-specific, non-portable implementations to meet real-time control requirements (Compl. ¶26).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a General Purpose Robotics Operating System (GPROS) that integrates "a service to manage synchronous, asynchronous, and real time application threads" (’442 Patent, col. 66:8-11; Compl. ¶66). This thread management system operates within a hardware-independent abstraction layer to coordinate tasks across different hardware, enabling functionality like over-the-air updates for safety-critical systems like steering and braking (Compl. ¶¶25, 27).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a "non-conventional" method for achieving hardware independence while maintaining the tight timing requirements of real-time vehicle control, a problem previously solved with hardware-specific implementations (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 8 include:
    • An autonomous vehicle comprising a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle.
    • A GPROS with a set of application services configured to manage at least one of synchronous, asynchronous, or real time application threads.
    • The set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform and configurable for communication and operational tasks.
    • A steering servomechanism to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan.
    • A brake servomechanism to control the brake based on the movement plan.
    • A throttle servomechanism to control the throttle based on the movement plan.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251, "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions," issued April 26, 2022 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an autonomous vehicle equipped with a GPROS that provides a standardized, hardware-independent platform. The GPROS includes a set of application services that are configurable both statically and dynamically and can manage synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads from various sensors and other inputs (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 78, 80).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 2 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The ProPILOT Assist system is accused of being an autonomous vehicle equipped with a GPROS whose application services manage multiple information threads from sensors and control steering, brake, and throttle servomechanisms based on a movement plan (Compl. ¶¶ 82-88).

U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901, "General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions," issued December 5, 2017 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed within a GPROS that uses a set of application services to manage system functions. The claimed method includes managing application threads (synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time) and managing autonomous vehicle and movement planning services, all within a hardware-independent and dynamically configurable framework (Compl. ¶101).
  • Asserted Claims: All claims (1-20) are asserted, with independent method claim 1 highlighted (Compl. ¶¶100-101).
  • Accused Features: The operation of Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist systems during testing and use is alleged to practice the claimed method by managing sensor data threads and executing autonomous movement planning services like lane centering (Compl. ¶¶102-105).

U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 - "General Purpose Robotics Operating System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233, "General Purpose Robotics Operating System," issued November 24, 2015 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: As the foundational patent in the family, this patent claims a non-transitory medium (e.g., computer memory) encoded with a GPROS. The GPROS is described as comprising a set of application services that are completely configurable (statically and dynamically), hardware-independent, and provide access to configuration data through a generic abstraction while managing peripherals and application threads (Compl. ¶¶118, 120).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: The non-transitory media (e.g., ROM) within Nissan's vehicles are alleged to be encoded with a GPROS that provides automation services like intelligent cruise control and lane centering. These services are alleged to be configurable, hardware-independent, and manage sensor and actuator services (Compl. ¶¶122-127).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Nissan and Infiniti vehicles equipped with Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) features marketed as "ProPILOT Assist," including versions 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, and ProPILOT Assist with Navilink (Compl. ¶31 & fn. 6). The Nissan Rogue is identified as a non-limiting example (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The ProPILOT Assist system is an ADAS that combines "Intelligent Cruise Control and Steering Assist technologies" to provide functions such as lane centering, maintaining speed and distance from other vehicles, and stop-and-hold capability in traffic (Compl. ¶31). More advanced versions are alleged to offer "hands-off single-lane driving" and "guided lane changing abilities" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint alleges these systems are built upon various general purpose robotics operating systems (GPROS), including Linux-based, MICROSAR, and AUTOSAR-based platforms (Compl. ¶30). The complaint positions the adoption of these features as a response to market demand and regulatory pressure for increased vehicle automation and safety (Compl. ¶29). A screenshot from Nissan's website describes ProPILOT Assist as a system that combines cruise control and steering assist technologies (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'877 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A vehicle comprising: a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle; Accused vehicles such as the Nissan Rogue include these components, which are used for features like lane centering and intelligent cruise control. ¶43 col. 65:50-52
an operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one obstacle service of the vehicle... Vehicles with ProPILOT Assist allegedly use a GPROS (e.g., AUTOSAR-based) with application services, such as intelligent cruise control, that manage obstacle avoidance. ¶44 col. 15:1-5
the vehicle configured to use a movement plan... ProPILOT Assist allegedly uses a movement plan for functions like lane centering to keep the vehicle centered. ¶45 col. 47:1-5
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform... The ProPILOT Assist system is alleged to be independent of the underlying platform because it can be used across different Nissan and Infiniti models. ¶46 col. 6:40-54
and is configurable to perform at least one communication task and at least one operational task... ProPILOT Assist performs operational tasks (e.g., cruise control) and communication tasks (e.g., over-the-air updates, sensor communications). ¶46 col. 33:50-55
wherein the set of application services: is configurable using a configuration service, is configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically, and is configurable to access configuration data using a generic abstraction... ProPILOT Assist allows ADAS settings to be configured statically (at startup) and dynamically (while moving), and sensor calibration is also performed both statically and dynamically. ¶47 col. 33:1-10
wherein the vehicle is adapted to receive the configuration data over a network... The ProPILOT Assist system is capable of receiving over-the-air software updates. ¶48 col. 4:46-59
and wherein the vehicle is adapted to avoid obstacles. The intelligent cruise control feature slows the vehicle to avoid hitting obstacles in front of it. ¶49 col. 44:5-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Nissan's software architecture, allegedly based on automotive standards like AUTOSAR (Compl. ¶44), qualifies as the claimed "operating system comprising a set of application services" that is "independent of an underlying hardware platform." Defendants may argue their system is a conventional, highly integrated automotive architecture, not a general-purpose, hardware-agnostic system as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that configurability is met because a driver can adjust settings and sensors undergo calibration (Compl. ¶47). A point of contention may be whether these user-level adjustments and routine calibrations meet the specific claim limitations of being configurable "using a configuration service" and accessing data via a "generic abstraction."

'442 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An autonomous vehicle comprising: a vehicle having a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle; Accused vehicles provide autonomous functions via ProPILOT Assist and contain the claimed mechanical components for lane centering and cruise control. ¶¶63-64 col. 45:15-20
a general purpose robotics operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one of synchronous, asynchronous, or real time application threads... The accused vehicles are alleged to use a GPROS that has a service to manage multiple synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads providing information from sensors. ¶¶65-66 col. 34:1-5
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform and is configurable to perform at least one of communication tasks and operational tasks; ProPILOT Assist is alleged to be platform-independent as it is used across Nissan and Infiniti models, performing operational tasks (cruise control) and communication tasks (OTA updates). ¶67 col. 33:31-38
a steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan; Lane centering allegedly relies on a steering servomechanism to keep the car centered based on a movement plan. ¶68 col. 23:23-26
a brake servomechanism configured to control the brake based on the movement plan; and Intelligent cruise control allegedly relies on a brake servomechanism to control speed based on a movement plan. ¶68 col. 20:1-4
a throttle servomechanism configured to control the throttle based on the movement plan. Intelligent cruise control allegedly relies on a throttle servomechanism to control speed based on a movement plan. ¶68 col. 20:5-8
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "autonomous vehicle" may be a key point of dispute. Defendants could argue that the ProPILOT Assist system, which requires driver supervision, does not render the vehicle "autonomous" within the meaning of the claim, but is instead a driver-assistance feature.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that ProPILOT Assist has a service to manage multiple threads from sensors (Compl. ¶66). A technical question will be what evidence supports the existence and operation of this specific thread management service, as distinct from the general operation of a modern vehicle's electronic control unit (ECU).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "general purpose robotics operating system (GPROS)" ('442 Patent, Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the asserted patents. The infringement case hinges on whether Nissan’s accused systems, allegedly built on platforms like AUTOSAR (Compl. ¶30), fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the patent covers industry-standard automotive software architectures or is limited to a more specific, novel platform described by the inventor.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '251 Patent specification describes the GPROS as a "general purpose software platform" providing services for "any robotics or automation application" and enabling "pluggability of third party, proprietary, open source, or other types of extensions" ('251 Patent, col. 1:21-38, col. 3:1-4). This language may support a broad definition covering any flexible, service-based operating system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the GPROS from "conventional technologies" and "monolithic robotics and automation architectures" ('251 Patent, col. 1:50-54). Figure 1 of the patents depicts a specific layered architecture where the "GPROS" is a distinct layer, which may support an argument that the term is limited to this specific structure and does not read on a standardized automotive architecture.

  • The Term: "independent of an underlying hardware platform" (’877 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical to the allegation that the ProPILOT Assist software infringes because it is deployed across various Nissan and Infiniti models (Compl. ¶46). The dispute will likely focus on the degree of hardware abstraction required to meet this "independent" standard.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '251 Patent states the GPROS is intended to "isolate the robotic software from the robotic hardware, such that the abstraction of the robot can be performed without full knowledge of the actual robot... configuration" ('251 Patent, col. 4:50-54). This could be interpreted to mean any level of software abstraction above the hardware driver level.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '251 Patent also describes enabling communication "regardless of the robot-specific technology underneath" ('251 Patent, col. 5:13-15). This may suggest a requirement for a higher degree of independence, potentially requiring operability on fundamentally different hardware architectures, not just different vehicle models from the same manufacturer that may share core electronic components.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) based on Defendants’ "instructional, marketing, and sales materials" that instruct customers and dealers on the use of the accused ProPILOT Assist features (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead willful infringement. It alleges that Defendants have had notice of the patents "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 72, 92, 111, 131). These allegations may form the basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but do not establish pre-suit knowledge required for a typical willfulness claim.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "general purpose robotics operating system (GPROS)," rooted in the patent's description of a novel, non-conventional architecture, be construed broadly enough to encompass the allegedly conventional, industry-standard automotive software platforms (e.g., AUTOSAR) used in the accused Nissan vehicles?
  • A second key question will be one of claim construction: Does a Level 2 driver-assistance system like ProPILOT Assist, which requires driver supervision, render a vehicle "autonomous" as required by claims in the '442 and '251 Patents, or is the term limited to fully self-driving technology?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What is the degree of hardware abstraction in the ProPILOT Assist software, and does its deployment across different Nissan models demonstrate that it is "independent of an underlying hardware platform" as claimed, or is it fundamentally coupled to a proprietary Nissan-specific hardware ecosystem?