Continental Automotive Systems Inc v. Horizon Global Americas Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00320
• Patent #: 8,789,896
• Filed: December 15, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Horizon Global Americas Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Vehicular Braking Systems
• Brief Description: The ’896 patent discloses a method and brake control unit for controlling the brakes of a towed vehicle. The system generates a brake output signal based on received speed and brake pressure signals, and it applies a function to modify that output signal when the towing vehicle’s speed is below a predetermined threshold to prevent aggressive braking at low speeds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Davis and Angerfors - Claims 1 and 3-5 are obvious over Davis in view of Angerfors.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,966,613) and Angerfors (Patent 6,375,281).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Davis discloses a trailer brake controller that meets most limitations of independent claim 1, including receiving speed and brake pressure signals and generating a brake output signal based on them. Davis, however, did not expressly teach modifying the brake output based on a speed threshold. Petitioner asserted that Angerfors remedies this deficiency by teaching a system that addresses problems with low-speed braking by limiting brake pressure as a function of vehicle speed using speed thresholds. Specifically, Angerfors discloses applying a function to limit brake pressure when vehicle speed is below a high-speed threshold (v2) and allowing maximum pressure when above it, directly mapping to the core limitations added during prosecution to secure the ’896 patent.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Angerfors’ speed threshold teachings with Davis’s brake controller to solve the known problem of undesirable high deceleration and severe jolts during low-speed emergency braking. Angerfors explicitly addresses these issues. Applying this known solution to the braking system in Davis would improve safety, reduce mechanical stress, and prevent inadvertent ABS activation, yielding predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as Davis’s controller already receives the necessary vehicle speed input. Implementing Angerfors’ speed-based control logic would be a straightforward modification for a POSITA to achieve the combined system's predictable benefits.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Davis, Angerfors, Eccleston, and FHWA - Claims 6-12 are obvious over Davis and Angerfors in view of Eccleston and FHWA.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,966,613), Angerfors (Patent 6,375,281), Eccleston (Patent 6,615,125), and FHWA (Technician Guidelines for Antilock Braking Systems, Report No. FHWA-MC-98-008).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Davis and Angerfors combination by adding teachings from Eccleston and FHWA to meet the limitations of claims 6-12. Petitioner argued that Eccleston discloses the key limitations of claim 6, namely, determining an actual deceleration of the towed vehicle, using that deceleration to determine a vehicle characteristic (e.g., load, brake pad wear), and adjusting the brake output signal (via gain or boost levels) to achieve a desired deceleration. Petitioner further argued that FHWA teaches determining deceleration from wheel speed sensor data, which complements Eccleston’s accelerometer-based approach.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Eccleston’s teachings to provide adaptive braking control to the Davis/Angerfors system. Determining towed vehicle characteristics (like trailer load) from deceleration allows the controller to optimize braking force, improving performance and safety under varying conditions. This was a known objective in the art. Combining FHWA was motivated by the desire for redundancy and reliability, as using both an accelerometer (from Eccleston) and wheel speed sensor data (from FHWA) to determine deceleration provides a more robust system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Davis’s system already contemplates receiving deceleration signals. Eccleston provides a detailed methodology for using such signals to adjust gain and boost for optimal braking, a common feedback control strategy familiar to a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Davis, Angerfors, and Balz - Claim 14 is obvious over Davis and Angerfors in view of Balz.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,966,613), Angerfors (Patent 6,375,281), and Balz (Patent 6,702,405).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets claim 14, which requires the speed signal to be present on a communication bus. While the base combination of Davis and Angerfors teaches generating a speed signal, Petitioner asserted that Balz explicitly discloses connecting wheel speed sensors to a brake controller via a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus to determine vehicle speed.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Balz’s use of a CAN bus with the Davis/Angerfors system for well-known reasons of efficiency, reliability, and standardization in vehicle electronics. The CAN bus was an international standard designed for in-vehicle communications, providing benefits like real-time processing, cost-effectiveness, and reliable operation in harsh EMI environments. Using a CAN bus to transmit the wheel speed signal to the brake controller is a logical and obvious implementation choice for a POSITA.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the CAN bus was a standardized and widely adopted technology for in-vehicle communication. Implementing it within the Davis system to transmit existing sensor data would be a straightforward engineering task.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including for claim 2 over Davis, Angerfors, and FHWA, and for claim 13 over Davis, Angerfors, and Eccleston, which relied on similar prior art teachings and motivations.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because the petition presented a new primary reference, Angerfors, that was not considered during prosecution and is not cumulative of the cited art.
• Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the related district court case was in its infancy with no case schedule, claim construction hearing, or trial date set. Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors, including the early stage of the parallel litigation and the strong merits of the petition, weighed heavily against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’896 patent as unpatentable.