Land Rover's Patented "Terrain Response Technology" Found Patent Eligible
By Joseph Herndon --
In 2016, Bentley Motors Ltd. and Bentley Motors, Inc. launched their first SUV, the Bentayga, which is a direct competitor to Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.'s (JLR) Range Rover model. JLR's patented Terrain Response technology is included on certain vehicles, and the Bentayga has a Drive Dynamics system, which can be equipped with an "All Terrain Specification" that provides four off-road settings: Snow, Ice & Wet Grass, Dirt & Gravel, Mud & Trail, and Sand.
JLR filed a complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Bentley knowingly copied the Terrain Response system installed on JLR's Range Rover, and which is covered by U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776 that was later reissued as U.S. Patent No. RE46,828. Specifically, JLR asserted that Bentley infringed at least claims 21, 41, and 46 of the '828 patent.
Defendants Bentley Motors Ltd. and Bentley Motors, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, instead finding that the technology embodied in the '828 patent claims improves computer functionality and is directed to "a particular way of performing that function," rather than merely being directed to performing a function in a computerized manner.
The Patent
U.S. Patent No. RE46,828, titled "Vehicle Control" is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776. The '828 patent generally relates to coordinated control of a number of subsystems of a vehicle in different configuration modes so as to suit different conditions. The '828 patent operates as follows: "the control of a number of the vehicle subsystems is coordinated by a central vehicle controller, which can be switched between a number of modes thereby controlling all of the subsystems in a coordinated way which is simple for the driver to control." Other systems, however, do not provide the driver with the ability to provide direct input regarding the surface terrain in an attempt to better select the appropriate subsystem configuration modes. The invention of the '828 patent offers a Terrain Response technology that electronically controls various vehicle subsystems, including the engine, the transmission, the brakes, the traction control, the suspension and the steering, to operate in a manner that is suitable for driving on a particular off-road surface (see Figure 4 block diagram below). The driver of the vehicle uses an input panel to select from several off-road driving surfaces including Grass/Gravel/Snow, Mud and Ruts, Sand, and Rocks.
The technology also allows the driver to further adjust the operation of the subsystems. The claimed elements in combination are alleged to be implemented in an unconventional and non-trivial manner, and are not generic vehicle components, but a control system that is not standard and cannot be purchased off-the-shelf.
Representative claim 21 recites:
A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface, the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface, and further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on respective off-road driving surfaces, and an on-road mode in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on-road and still further wherein one of the off-road modes is a sand mode in which the vehicle subsystems are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on sand.
That is, claim 21 and its dependents are directed to a vehicle control system that optimizes control of the vehicle on a sand surface. The '828 patent describes that when a vehicle is driven on sand, the build up of matter in front of the wheels under braking can improve braking performance. Low wheel spin at low speeds prevents the wheel from digging into the sand but high wheel spin at high speeds is less of a problem and can even improve traction.
Claim 41 recites:
A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface, the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface, and further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on respective off-road driving surfaces, and an on-road mode in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on-road and still further wherein one of the subsystems is a suspension subsystem and, in a second off-road mode, the suspension system is arranged to provide a higher ride height than in a first off-road mode.
That is, claim 41 is directed to a vehicle control system that optimizes control through adjustment of the suspension system based on the particular driving surface. The '828 patent describes that when traveling at high speeds on flat surfaces with good levels of friction, a suspension ride height that is set at low for low wind resistance and good stability is optimal.
Claim 46 recites:
A vehicle control system having a driver input device for selecting a driving surface, the vehicle control system arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle control system is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of which it is arranged to select the subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for a respective driving surface, and further wherein the plurality of driving modes includes at least two off-road modes in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on respective off-road driving surfaces, and an on-road mode in which the subsystem configurations are controlled in a manner suitable for driving on-road, and still further wherein one of the subsystems is a speed control system arranged to control the speed of the vehicle when descending a hill, and wherein the peed control system is arranged to be switched on in at least one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on-road mode.
That is, claim 46 is directed to a vehicle control system that optimizes control through adjustment of the speed control system. The '828 patent describes that to provide maximum control on hills, a vehicle has the standard default target speed of 6 kph. Claim 46 recites limitations that would capture this benefit through a specific implementation that requires a speed control system "arranged to control the speed of the vehicle when descending a hill" and "arranged to be switched on in at least one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on-road mode."
Motion to Dismiss
Defendants argued that Plaintiff's patent infringement claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff's patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Abstract Idea
First, the Court addressed Alice Step 1 — whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims directed towards merely performing a function and claims directed to "a particular way of performing that function." The former generally fall into the abstract-idea category, while the latter generally do not. Claims that improve the functioning of a computer provide a particular means to perform a function, and therefore, fall in the latter category and are not directed towards an abstract idea.
Plaintiff argued that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality because the technology permits the manipulation of multiple vehicle subsystems at once. In particular, Plaintiff alleged that the Terrain Response technology is a technological improvement to vehicle control systems. Prior to the '828 patent, drivers had to know the appropriate configurations of various subsystems when driving off-road on particular driving surfaces, the subsystems had to be manually changed one at a time, and a limited number of subsystems could be manipulated at one time. The '828 patent allegedly improves vehicle control technology by permitting a driver to control multiple subsystems at once and provides preset configurations of various subsystems for particular surfaces.
On the other hand, Defendants characterized the claims as mere computerization of what drivers already do in their mind — for instance, by slowing down while going downhill. Courts have found that merely using computers to perform what people can otherwise do is patent-ineligible.
Here, the Court found that the claims of the '828 patent are "directed to" manipulating multiple vehicle subsystems to allow a vehicle to better adapt to driving on various types of on-road and off-road surfaces. The claims asserted (claims 21, 41, 46) recite different components of the overall technology. For instance, claim 41 controls the suspension subsystem and claim 46 controls the vehicle's speed.
Applying these principles and construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court found that the claims are not directed to an abstract concept. The Court found that the most analogous technology to that embodied by the '828 patent is cruise control technology, which commonly exists in vehicles. Courts have found that such systems, which allow a driver to set and maintain a steady speed, are patentable and not directed at an abstract idea.
Plaintiff alleged that the technology embodied in the '828 patent claims improves computer functionality by allowing a driver to select one configuration on an input panel and then control multiple subsystems, which is an improvement to existing vehicle control technology. However, more fundamentally than that, the technology physically changes the subsystems of the vehicle. For instance, claim 21 and its dependents "allow lower levels of wheel spin when the vehicle is travelling at lower speeds than when the vehicle is travelling at higher speeds," (claim 23), and "allow a relatively high degree of wheel slip under braking," (claim 24).
Claim 41 adjusts the suspension subsystem, and changes the actual height of the vehicle. Claim 46 controls the speed of the vehicle in certain conditions, for instance, when the vehicle is going downhill, which is nearly identical to the claims made by cruise control systems. These claims do more than just perform a function, which Defendants characterized as driving differently in different conditions, but rather provide "a particular way of performing that function."
Similarly, in this case, drivers may engage in various mental processes while driving, for instance, driving slower while going downhill, avoiding sharp accelerations or braking while driving on certain surfaces. The Court found that the technology embodied in the '828 patent, however, physically changes the vehicle's subsystems — wheel spin changes while driving on certain surfaces (claim 21), the suspension changes the height of the vehicle (claim 41), and speed controls are engaged while going downhill (claim 46). It does not computerize what humans would otherwise do by replacing the mental process entirely.
Drivers may continue to engage in the same mental processes, but the vehicle itself has adapted to optimize and make driving on different surfaces more efficient.
Finally, the Court noted that it is not clear that people could do what the '828 patent claims to do. Although Defendants provided the example of driving slower downhill or applying the brakes in a different manner, drivers are generally not able to change the wheel spin of their vehicles or change the suspension while the vehicle is moving. Therefore, unlike tabulating a vote or performing basic economic principles, the technology here is more than mere computerization of functions that people can already do.
Because the claims of the patent are directed at both improvements in computer functionality and providing concrete, physical means of implementing the functionality, the Court concluded that the '828 patent is not directed at an abstract idea.
Thus, for these reasons, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Opinion and Order by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis