DCT
2:18-cv-00320
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v. Bentley Motors Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jaguar Land Rover Limited (England and Wales)
- Defendant: Bentley Motors Limited (England and Wales) and Bentley Motors, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Troutman Sanders LLP; Latham & Watkins LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00320, E.D. Va., 11/01/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. having a principal place of business in Virginia and both Defendants conducting continuous business, including the sale of the accused Bentley Bentayga, within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bentley Bentayga SUV, when equipped with the "All Terrain Specification," infringes a patent related to integrated, driver-selectable vehicle control systems for various driving terrains.
- Technical Context: The technology involves a centralized controller that allows a driver to select a terrain type (e.g., sand, mud, snow), which then automatically optimizes multiple vehicle subsystems for performance on that terrain, a key feature in the luxury off-road vehicle market.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE46,828, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of the original patent as early as February 2016 and subsequently provided notice of the reissued patent's allowance and issuance, which may be relevant to the claim of willful infringement. The patent file includes a disclaimer filed in 2021 for claims 27, 32, and 56-61.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-04-18 | '828 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-03-25 | Original '776 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-01-01 | Accused Bentley Bentayga Launched (approximate, "in 2016") |
| 2016-02-05 | JLR sends letter to Bentley regarding '776 patent |
| 2018-02-05 | JLR informs Bentley of '828 patent Notice of Allowance |
| 2018-05-08 | '828 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-05-24 | JLR sends letter to Bentley regarding '828 patent issuance |
| 2018-11-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. RE46,828 - "Vehicle Control"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE46,828, "Vehicle Control", issued May 8, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As vehicle control systems (suspension, transmission, steering, etc.) became more numerous and configurable, drivers, even experienced ones, faced increasing complexity and confusion in selecting the optimal settings for different driving surfaces, particularly off-road ('828 Patent, col. 1:35-40). This complexity could lead to "less than optimal stability, handling, and safety performance" ('828 Patent, col. 1:55-57).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes an integrated vehicle control system where a central controller coordinates multiple subsystems ('828 Patent, Fig. 4). The driver uses a simple input device, such as a rotary knob, to select a driving mode corresponding to the current terrain (e.g., "sand," "mud/ruts," "grass/gravel/snow") ('828 Patent, Fig. 13). The system then automatically adjusts the configuration of the various subsystems to a pre-determined, optimized state for that specific terrain, simplifying driver input and improving vehicle performance ('828 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
- Technical Importance: The invention simplified the user interface for complex vehicle dynamics, making advanced off-road capabilities more accessible and effective for a broader range of drivers (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 21, 41, and 46.
- Independent Claim 21: The essential elements are:
- A vehicle control system with a driver input device for selecting a driving surface.
- The system controls a plurality of vehicle subsystems, each operable in multiple configuration modes.
- The system is operable in a plurality of driving modes, including at least two off-road modes and an on-road mode.
- One of the off-road modes is a "sand mode" where subsystems are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on sand.
- Independent Claim 41: The essential elements include the system of claim 21, and further require:
- One of the vehicle subsystems is a suspension subsystem.
- In a second off-road mode, the suspension system is arranged to provide a higher ride height than in a first off-road mode.
- Independent Claim 46: The essential elements include the system of claim 21, and further require:
- One of the subsystems is a speed control system arranged to control the vehicle's speed when descending a hill.
- The speed control system is arranged to be switched on in at least one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on-road mode.
- The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims (e.g., claim 24, which depends on claim 21) and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶29, 46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Bentley Bentayga sport utility vehicle equipped with the optional "All Terrain Specification" (Compl. ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is part of the Bentayga’s "Drive Dynamics" system, which includes a rotary switch on the center console allowing the driver to select a driving mode (Compl. ¶54). The "All Terrain Specification" adds four "Responsive Off-Road Settings": "Snow, Ice & Wet Grass," "Dirt & Gravel," "Mud & Trail," and "Sand" (Compl. ¶40).
- Selection of a mode allegedly adjusts multiple vehicle subsystems, including the engine, gearbox, Electronic Stability Control (ESC), suspension ride height, and Hill Descent Control (HDC), to optimize performance for the chosen terrain (Compl. ¶¶41, 57). A screenshot from the Bentayga Owner's Manual shows the rotary switch and console buttons for mode selection (Compl. p. 16, Fig. 172, 173).
- The complaint positions the Bentayga as a "direct competitor to JLR's Range Rover model" (Compl. ¶40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE46,828 Patent Infringement Allegations (Representative Claim 21)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface, | The Bentayga’s "Drive Dynamics" system includes a rotary switch on the front center console that allows the driver to select a driving mode. The complaint provides an image of this switch from the owner's manual (Compl. p.16, Fig. 172). | ¶54 | col. 10:59-64 |
| the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes, | The selected mode configures multiple vehicle systems, including the engine, gearbox, Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Hill Descent Control (HDC), and suspension ride height, each of which is alleged to have multiple configuration modes (e.g., ESC has On, All-Terrain, and Off modes). | ¶¶56-61 | col. 2:5-8 |
| ...the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on respective off-road driving surfaces, and an on-road mode... | The "All Terrain Specification" provides four off-road modes ("Snow & Grass," "Dirt & Gravel," "Mud & Trail," "Sand") and the standard system provides on-road modes such as "Sport," "Bentley," and "Comfort." | ¶¶63, 65 | col. 4:18-23 |
| ...one of the off-road modes is a sand mode in which the vehicle subsystems are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on sand. | The system includes an off-road driving mode explicitly labeled "Sand," which the owner's manual instructs "should be selected for driving on sand." | ¶67 | col. 4:30-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's named modes (e.g., "Sand") possess the specific technical characteristics and perform the functions required by the patent's disclosure for such a mode, or if the name alone is sufficient. For claim 41, a dispute may arise over whether the ride height difference between two distinct off-road modes in the accused vehicle (e.g., "Mud & Trail" vs. "Snow & Grass") constitutes the "higher ride height" taught by the patent.
- Technical Questions: For claim 46, the analysis will question whether the accused "Hill Descent Control" (HDC) system functions as the claimed "speed control system" and meets the limitation of being "switched on in at least one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on-road mode." Evidence will be needed to show that the HDC is functionally off or unavailable in the standard on-road modes as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sand mode" (Claim 21)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because its presence is a specific requirement of claim 21. The dispute will likely focus on whether the term requires a mode to have the specific operational characteristics described in the patent (e.g., allowing low wheel spin at low speeds but higher spin at high speeds) or if a mode merely being named "Sand" by the manufacturer is sufficient for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself simply recites "a sand mode in which the vehicle subsystems are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on sand," which a plaintiff might argue is met by a manufacturer's own designation and description of a mode as being for sand.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific technical behaviors for a sand mode, such as arranging the powertrain to provide "relatively low levels of drive torque... at low vehicle speeds" and "relatively high levels of drive torque... at higher vehicle speeds" ('828 Patent, col. 4:38-42). A defendant may argue this description limits the scope of the term to modes exhibiting these specific technical attributes.
The Term: "a higher ride height than in a first off-road mode" (Claim 41)
Context and Importance: This limitation requires a comparison between two different off-road modes. Its construction will determine what type of evidence is needed to prove infringement. The question is whether any measurable difference is sufficient, or if the patent implies a functionally significant change in height related to the different terrains.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not specify a quantum of difference, suggesting any increase could suffice. Plaintiff alleges this is met by comparing the "Mud & Trail" and "Sand" modes to the "Snow & Grass" and "Dirt & Gravel" modes (Compl. ¶91).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses ride heights in the context of specific driving conditions, such as "high" for off-road and "standard" for on-road ('828 Patent, col. 7:22-29). A defendant might argue that the term requires a change consistent with the distinct functional purposes outlined in the patent (e.g., a change from a "standard" off-road height to a "high" off-road height for greater clearance).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could potentially support such a claim, such as asserting that Defendant’s Owner’s Manuals instruct users on how to operate the allegedly infringing modes (Compl. ¶¶54, 115).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly alleges willful infringement. It claims Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family since at least February 5, 2016, through a letter concerning the parent '776 patent, and was later notified of the '828 reissue patent's allowance and issuance prior to the suit's filing (Compl. ¶¶11-13, 120).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "sand mode" require the specific bundle of technical configurations described in the '828 patent's specification, or is it sufficient that the accused product provides a driver-selectable mode explicitly named "Sand" and intended for that purpose?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional comparison: Will discovery show that the accused Bentley Bentayga’s various subsystems operate in a manner that strictly maps to the patent's claimed functional requirements? For example, does the suspension system consistently provide a "higher ride height" in one specified off-road mode versus another, and is the "Hill Descent Control" system functionally "switched off" in all on-road modes as claimed?