Ford Motor Co v. Carrum Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00055
• Patent #: 7,512,475
• Filed: October 23, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Ford Motor Company
• Patent Owner(s): Carrum Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Automatic Lateral Acceleration Limiting and Non Threat Target Rejection
• Brief Description: The ’475 patent discloses methods and systems for controlling a vehicle’s adaptive cruise control (ACC) system. The system determines that the vehicle is in a turn based on a detected change in its lateral acceleration and preemptively reduces the vehicle's speed to maintain control and reject non-threatening targets outside the vehicle's projected path.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Brochure, Schmitt, and AAPA - Claims 1, 4, and 5 are obvious over the BMW Brochure in view of Schmitt and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure (a printed publication describing BMW’s ACC system), Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) from the ’475 patent’s specification.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the BMW Brochure disclosed an ACC system capable of projecting a vehicle’s path around a curve using data from a lateral acceleration sensor. However, the Brochure did not explicitly teach reducing vehicle speed because the vehicle is in a turn. Schmitt allegedly supplied this missing element by teaching a traction control system that determines when a vehicle enters a curve by monitoring changes in lateral acceleration and reduces output (engine power or braking) to improve stability. The AAPA, taken from the ’475 patent’s own background section, described the known problem of ACC systems maintaining unsafe speeds in turns, leading to excessive lateral acceleration and potential loss of control.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the Brochure’s ACC system with Schmitt’s safety feature to solve the well-known problem explicitly identified in the AAPA. Applying Schmitt's method of using lateral acceleration changes to trigger a speed reduction would have been a direct and intuitive solution to prevent the loss of control described in the ’475 patent’s background.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known safety principle (reducing speed in turns for stability) to a known vehicle control system (ACC) to address a known deficiency.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Brochure and Schmitt - Claims 6, 8, and 9 are obvious over the BMW Brochure in view of Schmitt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure and Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted independent claim 6, a method claim. Petitioner asserted the BMW Brochure taught the majority of the claim’s limitations, including operating a vehicle in ACC mode, measuring lateral acceleration, determining the vehicle path based on this measurement, monitoring for objects using radar, and determining if an object is within the path. As in Ground 1, Petitioner contended the Brochure did not teach reducing speed upon the determination that the vehicle is in a turn. Schmitt was again relied upon to teach this final step, disclosing a system that decreases vehicle speed based on detecting a curve via changes in lateral acceleration.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to Ground 1: to improve the safety of the ACC system described in the Brochure by incorporating the stability control logic from Schmitt. A POSITA would integrate Schmitt’s speed reduction functionality to prevent the vehicle from entering a turn at an unsafe speed while under ACC control, a known issue in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of known technologies. Combining Schmitt's turn-detection and speed-reduction logic with the Brochure's ACC and object-detection system would have yielded the predictable result of a safer, more robust cruise control system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Brochure, Schmitt, AAPA, and Ishizu - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over the BMW Brochure in view of Schmitt, AAPA, and Ishizu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: BMW Brochure, Schmitt (Patent 6,456,924), AAPA, and Ishizu (Application # 2001/0044691).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination asserted for claim 1 to address dependent claims 2 and 3, which added the steps of measuring vehicle speed, yaw rate, and the rate of change of yaw rate as part of determining when the vehicle is in a turn. Petitioner argued that Ishizu explicitly taught a vehicle speed control system that uses these exact inputs—vehicle speed and yaw rate—to calculate lateral acceleration for the purpose of adjusting speed on a curved road.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ishizu with the primary references (Brochure and Schmitt) to create a more accurate and reliable system. Using yaw rate and vehicle speed as taught by Ishizu provides an alternative or supplementary method for calculating lateral acceleration and detecting a turn, thereby improving the robustness of the safety system. Petitioner noted that the Brochure's system already used a Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) unit that could detect yaw rate, making the integration of Ishizu’s teachings straightforward.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Ishizu provided a known and established method for using sensor data (speed, yaw rate) that was already available in modern vehicles (like those described in the Brochure) to perform the exact function required by the claims.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including for claim 7 over the Brochure, Schmitt, and Ishizu, and for claims 10-12 over the Brochure, Schmitt, and Khodabhai, which taught a collision avoidance system for determining if an obstacle is in a vehicle's path during a turn.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be unwarranted. The petition was filed contemporaneously with a motion to join an existing IPR filed by another party (BMW, IPR2019-00903) that was based on substantively identical grounds. Petitioner contended that joinder is an efficient mechanism that lessens the burden on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It was further argued that none of the General Plastic factors weighed in favor of denial, as this was Ford's first petition challenging the ’475 patent, and therefore joinder or, alternatively, institution would serve the interests of efficiency and justice.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’475 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.