Bentley Motors Ltd v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01539
• Patent #: RE46,828
• Filed: August 23, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Bentley Motors Limited and Bentley Motors, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Jaguar Land Rover Limited
• Challenged Claims: 21, 24, 30, 32-34, 37, 39, 41-43, 45, and 46

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Vehicle Control System
• Brief Description: The ’828 patent describes a vehicle control system that allows a driver to select a driving mode corresponding to a specific driving surface (e.g., on-road, snow, sand). In response, the system coordinates and configures multiple vehicle subsystems, such as the suspension, transmission, and braking systems, to optimize performance for that surface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 30, 32, and 45 are obvious over GB ’580 in view of the Lancer Art

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GB ’580 (a UK patent application) and the Lancer Art (a collection of publications describing the 2001 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that GB ’580 taught a general framework for a vehicle control system with a central controller and selectable driving modes (e.g., "sport," "off-road performance") that configure multiple subsystems. However, GB ’580 lacked a specific driver input for selecting a driving surface. The Lancer Art allegedly cured this deficiency by disclosing a vehicle with a driver-operated switch to select between three modes based on the driving surface: "Tarmac" (on-road), "Gravel" (off-road), and "Snow" (off-road). This switch directly configured the vehicle’s Active Center Differential (ACD) and Active Yaw Control (AYC) subsystems. The combination thus taught the limitations of independent claim 30, including having at least two off-road modes and one on-road mode. For claim 45, Petitioner asserted that GB ’580 taught a transmission subsystem with different shift profiles for different modes (e.g., "high performance" vs. "economy").
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine the specific surface-based mode selection of the Lancer Art with the broader, adaptable control system of GB ’580. The motivation was to enhance vehicle performance across various conditions—a stated goal of both references. Incorporating the Lancer Art’s proven, surface-specific control logic into GB ’580’s framework was presented as a predictable way to achieve this improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success because integrating electronic subsystems into a master controller had become routine by the early 2000s. The control systems described in both references were conceptually similar, making their combination straightforward.

Ground 2: Claims 33, 34, 41, and 42 are obvious over GB ’580, the Lancer Art, and the ’859 Patent

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GB ’580, the Lancer Art, and Rover’s ’859 patent (Patent 6,260,859).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of GB ’580 and the Lancer Art to address claims related to adjustable suspension ride height. The ’859 patent taught a user interface for a suspension subsystem that could adjust the vehicle’s ride height for different modes, including a default on-road mode and a higher off-road mode.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was explicit, as the ’859 patent specification expressly cited GB ’580 as an example of a multi-mode control system to which its adjustable ride-height technology could be applied. A POSA seeking to add functionality to the base combination would have been motivated by this teaching to incorporate adjustable ride height, a known feature for improving off-road capability.
  • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high, as adjustable-height suspensions were a well-known and conventional technology for off-road vehicles. Integrating this feature into the established electronic control framework was argued to be a minor and predictable technological adjustment.

Ground 3: Claims 37 and 39 are obvious over GB ’580, the Lancer Art, and the ’318 Patent

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GB ’580, the Lancer Art, and the ’318 patent (Patent 6,044,318).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims directed to a powertrain with different levels of responsiveness. The ’318 patent taught an electronic throttle control (“drive-by-wire”) system that used different throttle progression curves for on-road versus off-road driving. This system provided a less sensitive throttle response at low pedal depression for off-road conditions (to improve control on uneven surfaces) and a sharper response for on-road driving.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine the teachings of the ’318 patent with the base combination to enhance vehicle control and performance, a key objective in the art. The similarity between the multi-mode systems in GB ’580 and the ’318 patent, which share a common assignee and cite one another, would have further motivated the integration of this established electronic throttle control technology.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that by 2002, electronic throttle control was a widely available and virtually mandatory technology in new vehicles. A POSA would have reasonably expected to successfully integrate this common electronic subsystem to gain its known performance and safety benefits.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including for claim 46 over the base combination and Rover's '614 patent (for hill descent control), and for claims 21, 24, and 43 over the base combination and a Hummer article (for sand-specific traction control and wheel slip settings).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the term "off-road modes" must be construed to include driving on surfaces like snow, grass, and gravel. This position was based on intrinsic evidence, including the patent’s specification which lists these as examples of off-road or low-friction modes, and dependent claims that explicitly define an off-road mode as one suitable for driving on such surfaces. This construction was critical for mapping the Lancer Art’s "Gravel" and "Snow" modes to the "off-road" claim limitations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). It contended that although the Lancer Art was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during the patent's reissue prosecution, the examiner never relied on it or provided any substantive commentary on it. Petitioner asserted that its grounds, which rely heavily on the Lancer Art, do not overlap with arguments made during examination and present the prior art in a new light, weighing against denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 21, 24, 30, 32-34, 37, 39, 41-43, 45, and 46 of the ’828 patent as unpatentable.