DCT
3:08-cv-00456
Wacoh Co v. Chrysler LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wacoh Company (Japan)
- Defendant: Chrysler LLC; Ford Motor Company; America Honda Motor Co. Inc.; Mazda Motor of America, Inc.; GM Corporation; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; BMW of North America, LLC.; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; American Suzuki Motor Corporation; Analog Devices, Inc.; Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (U.S., German, and Japanese Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg, LLP; Boardman Law Firm LLP
- Case Identification: 3:08-cv-00456, W.D. Wis., 11/24/2008
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the Defendants are doing business in the Western District of Wisconsin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ vehicles containing certain safety and control systems, and the semiconductor sensors within them, infringe a patent related to a method for self-testing sensors.
- Technical Context: The technology involves methods for internally testing semiconductor-based sensors, such as accelerometers used in automotive airbag and stability control systems, without requiring external test equipment.
- Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint was filed after the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor, Kazuhiro Okada, to Plaintiff Wacoh Company on July 16, 2008.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1989-12-28 | '364 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-01-28 | '364 Patent Issue Date |
| 2003 | Earliest model year of accused vehicles listed |
| 2008-07-16 | '364 Patent assigned to Wacoh |
| 2008-11-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,512,364 - Testing Sensor
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and expense of testing sensors like accelerometers during mass production. Conventional testing requires external equipment, such as a vibration generator, to physically stimulate the sensor, which makes the testing device large and the process complex ('364 Patent, col. 2:16-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for a sensor to test itself internally. It achieves this by forming electrode layers within the sensor structure. By applying a voltage across these electrodes, an electrostatic force (a "Coulomb force") is generated, which causes a mechanical deformation of the sensor's working components. This deformation mimics the effect of an external force (e.g., acceleration), and the sensor's output can then be checked electronically to confirm it is functioning correctly without any external mechanical stimulus ('364 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:23-35).
- Technical Importance: The ability to perform a reliable, internal self-test is particularly valuable for safety-critical automotive systems like airbags, as it allows the system to verify sensor functionality each time the vehicle is started ('364 Patent, col. 2:32-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 ('364 Patent, col. 33:40-41; Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method of testing a sensor with the following essential steps:
- Providing a capacitance element with a deviation electrode and a fixed electrode, where the distance between them changes when the sensor's working body moves in an X-axis direction.
- Applying a voltage between the electrodes to produce a Coulomb force that causes spatial deviation of the working body in the X-axis direction.
- Detecting the resulting electric signal from the sensor's transducer.
- Testing the sensor's operation for the X-axis based on the relationship between the applied voltage and the detected signal.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-6, which add limitations related to testing in the Z-axis and Y-axis directions ('364 Patent, col. 35:9 - col. 38:28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities fall into two categories:
- A wide array of automotive vehicles from model years 2003-2009 manufactured by the automaker Defendants (Compl. ¶¶19-27).
- Specific semiconductor sensor chips, such as the Analog Devices ADXL202 JQC and Freescale MMA3201D, manufactured by the semiconductor Defendants (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused vehicles contain an "air bag restraint system, anti-lock braking system, and/or electronic stability control system" that performs the patented sensor testing method "each time an infringing... vehicle is started" (Compl. ¶19). The accused semiconductor chips are alleged to be the sensors used in these systems and to be "capable of or use the same or similar self-test feature" (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
- The complaint identifies a broad range of vehicle models from nearly every major automaker selling in the U.S. market, suggesting the ubiquity of the accused functionality in modern vehicles (Compl. ¶¶19-27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not include a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as articulated in the complaint's narrative allegations.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of testing a sensor, said sensor comprising: a substrate... a working body... a flexible member... a fixing member... and a transducer... | The accused vehicles are alleged to contain sensors with these structural components, such as those within airbag, ABS, or electronic stability control systems (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 13:13-24 |
| providing a capacitance element including a deviation electrode and a fixed electrode... arranged so that an electrode distance... changes when said working body is deviated in an X-axis direction... | The complaint alleges the sensors in the accused systems perform the claimed method but does not specify the structure of the internal capacitance element (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 21:1-29 |
| applying a voltage between said deviation electrode and said fixed electrode so that Coulomb force is produced which causes spatial deviation of said working body in said X-axis direction; | The complaint alleges this step is performed "each time an infringing... vehicle is started," as part of the vehicle's startup self-test routine (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 21:46 - 22:3 |
| detecting an electric signal transformed by said transducer while said spatial deviation is caused by applying said voltage; and | The vehicle's control system allegedly detects the electrical output from the sensor during the startup self-test to verify its operation (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 14:29-41 |
| testing an operation of said sensor with respect to said X-axis direction based on a relationship between said applied voltage and said detected electric signal. | The vehicle's control system allegedly performs this test to confirm the functionality of the sensor as part of the startup sequence (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 22:18-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint provides no direct evidence that the accused systems use the specific "Coulomb force" mechanism. A central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: What evidence demonstrates that the startup self-check routines in the accused vehicles perform the specific steps of the claimed method, particularly applying a voltage to a specific internal capacitance element to physically displace the sensor's working body, as opposed to performing a different, purely electronic system check?
- Scope Question: The complaint's theory relies on the vehicle's startup routine constituting "testing an operation." This raises the question of whether a general system diagnostic check meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific test that verifies the sensor's response to a known, simulated force generated by the applied voltage.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "testing an operation... based on a relationship between said applied voltage and said detected electric signal"
- Context and Importance: This final step defines the nature and purpose of the claimed method. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the general self-check procedures alleged in the complaint fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could distinguish between a simple "go/no-go" check and a more quantitative verification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify a quantitative test. Language in the background section states an object is to "check a detected output," which could support the argument that any check of the output suffices ('364 Patent, col. 2:21-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "based on a relationship" suggests that the test involves more than merely detecting the presence of a signal. It may imply a comparison of the signal's characteristics (e.g., magnitude) to an expected value derived from the known applied voltage. The patent's disclosure of using corrective matrices to ensure accuracy, while related to different claims, may provide context that the invention is directed toward sophisticated and precise measurements ('364 Patent, col. 17:1-15).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the automaker Defendants induce infringement by "providing a vehicle" that performs the claimed method and that the semiconductor Defendants induce and contribute to infringement by "making, offering to sell, selling, and/or using sensors provided in infringing vehicles" (Compl. ¶¶19, 28-29). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical mechanism: what proof exists that the accused vehicles' startup self-test procedures utilize the specific "Coulomb force" mechanism claimed in the '364 Patent—by applying a voltage across dedicated internal electrodes to physically displace a sensor's working body—as opposed to employing a different, purely electronic diagnostic check?
- A key legal question will concern definitional scope: does the claim limitation "testing an operation... based on a relationship" require a quantitative comparison between the applied voltage and the resulting signal, or does it also read on a more general "go/no-go" system check that merely confirms a signal is present upon startup?