2:23-cv-00647
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: 2:23-cv-00647, E.D. Va., 12/11/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant is a foreign corporation with no designated agent in the U.S., making venue proper in any district where personal jurisdiction exists under 35 U.S.C. § 293. The Alexandria Division is asserted as proper due to the location of the USPTO.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an automotive supplier, seeks a declaratory judgment that its radar products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to processor lockstep protection, following lawsuits filed by Defendant against Plaintiff's automotive customers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for ensuring operational reliability in multi-processor systems by detecting and recovering from a "loss of lockstep" between paired processors, a critical function in high-availability and safety-critical computing.
- Key Procedural History: Defendant, a patent monetization entity, has filed multiple lawsuits against major automotive manufacturers over the patent-in-suit. This declaratory judgment action was filed by a component supplier (Plaintiff) after its customer, Kia Corporation, was sued for infringement based on its use of Plaintiff's radar products. Defendant has also attempted to serve a subpoena on Plaintiff in connection with the underlying litigation. The patent was originally assigned to Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-25 | '958 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-03-10 | '958 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-02-11 | '958 Patent assigned to Foras Technologies Ltd. |
| 2023-04-05 | Foras files patent infringement suit against Toyota |
| 2023-05-18 | Foras files patent infringement suit against Kia Corporation |
| 2023-05-19 | Foras files patent infringement suit against BMW and Robert Bosch |
| 2023-06-06 | Foras files patent infringement suit against Nissan and ZF |
| 2023-06-28 | Foras files patent infringement suit against Volkswagen, Aptiv, and Valeo |
| 2023-07-21 | Foras serves Preliminary Infringement Contentions on Kia |
| 2023-11-02 | Foras attempts to serve subpoena on HL Klemove Corp. |
| 2023-12-11 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
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" (SDC) in computing systems, where hardware or cosmic-ray events cause errors that go undetected ('958 Patent, col. 1:41-53). A known solution, "lockstep processing," uses paired processors performing identical tasks; a mismatch in their outputs indicates a "loss of lockstep" (LOL). The traditional response to a detected LOL is to crash the entire system to prevent propagating corrupted data, which is an unacceptable approach for high-availability systems that must remain operational ('958 Patent, col. 2:65 - col. 3:9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a firmware-based method to recover from a detected LOL without a system crash. The firmware interacts with the computer's operating system (OS) using standard interfaces, such as the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) ('958 Patent, col. 6:1-10). Upon detecting a recoverable LOL, the firmware triggers the OS to "idle" the faulty processor pair, recovers the lockstep (e.g., by resetting the pair), and then triggers the OS to recognize the processors as available for use again ('958 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This firmware-centric approach allows a system to recover from transient processor faults dynamically, enhancing system reliability and uptime without requiring the OS to have custom, platform-specific knowledge of the recovery procedure ('958 Patent, col. 3:16-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 (a method) and 19 (a system) as being asserted by Foras (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method comprising the core steps of:
- detecting loss of lockstep for a lockstep pair of processors;
- using firmware to trigger an operating system to idle the lockstep pair of processors;
- recovering lockstep for the lockstep pair of processors; and
- triggering the operating system to recognize the recovered lockstep pair of processors.
- Independent Claim 19 recites a system comprising a pair of lockstep processors and computer-executable firmware code for performing similar steps of determining recoverability, triggering an OS to idle the processors, attempting to recover lockstep, and triggering the OS to recognize the recovered processors.
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 19, and 20 and reserves the right to supplement its defenses (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff’s Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (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. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
These radar products are used by automotive manufacturers for safety and convenience features such as adaptive cruise control, blind spot detection, and parking assistance (Compl. ¶3). The infringement allegations made by Foras against Plaintiff's customer Kia are predicated on the incorporation and use of these radar products in Kia automobiles (Compl. ¶10). The allegations focus on the functionality of Infineon microcontrollers (SAK-TC297TA and SAK-TC264DA chipsets) contained within the radar products (Compl. ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegations described in the complaint are those made by Defendant Foras in its separate lawsuit against Plaintiff's customer, Kia. Plaintiff HLK's complaint seeks a judgment that its products do not meet these allegations.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as described in the DJ Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting loss of lockstep for a lockstep pair of processors | Foras alleges that the Infineon microcontrollers within HLK's radar products perform loss of lockstep detection and recovery as recited in the patent claims. | ¶¶26, 27 | col. 15:7 |
| using firmware to trigger an operating system to idle the lockstep pair of processors | Foras alleges this functionality is performed by the accused radar products. HLK denies its products trigger an operating system to idle a processor pair. | ¶¶27, 37(b) | col. 15:8-10 |
| recover lockstep for the lockstep pair of processors | Foras alleges this functionality is performed by the accused radar products. HLK denies its products recover lockstep for a processor pair. | ¶¶27, 37(c) | col. 15:9-10 |
| trigger the operating system to recognize the lockstep pair of processors having recovered lockstep | Foras alleges this functionality is performed by the accused radar products. HLK denies its products trigger an operating system to recognize a recovered pair. | ¶¶27, 37(d) | col. 15:11-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary point of contention is whether the accused radar products, which are specialized automotive safety components, actually perform the specific firmware-to-OS interactions required by the claims. HLK explicitly denies that its products "trigger an operating system to idle a lockstep pair of processors" or "trigger an operating system to recognize that a lockstep pair or processors has recovered lockstep" (Compl. ¶37). The case may turn on evidence of the software architecture within the Infineon microcontrollers and whether it mirrors the claimed method.
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether the software environment in an embedded automotive radar controller constitutes an "operating system" that is triggered by "firmware" in the manner contemplated by the patent. The '958 Patent was developed in the context of general-purpose computer servers and describes interactions with OSs like HP-UX via standard ACPI methods ('958 Patent, col. 6:1-10). Whether this claim scope can read on the real-time, embedded environment of the accused products is a central question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Term: "operating system"
Context and Importance
The claims require "firmware" to trigger an "operating system" to perform key actions (idling and re-recognizing processors). The definition of "operating system" is critical because HLK's defense appears to rest on the argument that its embedded radar products do not contain and/or interact with an "operating system" in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶37). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent's scope, rooted in server architecture, can extend to embedded automotive controllers.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument for applying the term's plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any software that manages hardware resources, including a real-time operating system (RTOS) in an embedded device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to ACPI-compatible operating systems like HP-UX and OpenVMS ('958 Patent, col. 6:8-10) and describes using specific ACPI methods to "eject" a processor or "check for" a processor ('958 Patent, col. 6:11-16, col. 6:55-61). This context may support a narrower construction limited to a more complex OS that exposes such standardized interfaces, as distinguished from the integrated software of an embedded controller.
Key Term: "firmware"
Context and Importance
The claims require "firmware" to be the agent that triggers the OS and performs recovery. The distinction between "firmware" and the "operating system" it triggers is essential. The dispute may involve whether the accused code within the Infineon microcontrollers exhibits the distinct characteristics of "firmware" as described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a broad definition of firmware as low-level code that controls a device's hardware, often stored in read-only memory.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of firmware in the context of the IPF architecture, such as the Processor Abstraction Layer (PAL) and System Abstraction Layer (SAL) ('958 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:23-30). This could support a narrower construction where "firmware" must be a distinct software layer that mediates between the hardware and a separate, higher-level OS, rather than being an integrated part of a single embedded software program.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's products do not "contribute to or induce its customers to infringe" (Compl. ¶35). The basis for a potential indirect infringement claim by Foras would stem from HLK supplying the accused radar products to customers like Kia with the knowledge (at least post-suit) that they would be incorporated into automobiles and used in an allegedly infringing manner. The lawsuits against HLK's customers and the subpoena served on HLK would be factual predicates for establishing knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 33).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any willfulness allegations that may exist in the underlying litigation against Plaintiff's customers.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "firmware" and "operating system," which the patent describes in the context of general-purpose server architectures featuring distinct software layers and ACPI interfaces, be construed to read on the highly integrated, real-time software environment of a specialized automotive radar microcontroller?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused safety-related functionality in HLK's radar products actually perform the specific, multi-step command-and-control process recited in the claims—namely, a "firmware" layer triggering a separate "operating system" layer to manage processor states—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's described method and the accused products' internal architecture?