Toyota, Nissan, VW et al hit with suits over camera tech
Spate of litigation against several automakers concerns a dispute over vehicles’ surround camera monitoring system | Plaintiff invokes legal rule of the ‘doctrine of equivalents’.
A number of car manufacturers are facing allegations that they infringed a patent relating to camera technology used in their vehicles’ monitoring systems, which enhance a driver’s view of their surroundings.
Oregon-based VDPP filed the complaints against Toyota, Nissan, and General Motors at the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, yesterday, August 14.
In the preceding days, the firm also filed similar complaints against Volkswagen, Honda and Kia Motors at other federal courts in Texas.
All of these automakers stand accused of directly and indirectly infringing the patent—US number 9,426,452—entitled “Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials”.
The ‘452 patent relates to “an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame,” said VDPP.
Doctrine of equivalents
It accuses the car manufacturers of infringing under a legal rule known as the doctrine of equivalents, which allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement, even if the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim.
Essentially, this allows a patent owner to raise a claim of infringement despite each and every element of the patented invention not being identically present in the allegedly infringing product.
VDPP argues that it “maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures “that infringes one or more of claims of the ‘452 patent, including one or more of claims 1-4, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents”.
Injunctive relief
It goes on to insist that the car manufacturers would never have been able to implement the technology in their products without prior knowledge of the invention covered by the patent-in-suit.
“Defendant put the inventions claimed by the ‘452 patent into service (ie, used them); but for Defendant’s actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments involving defendant’s products and services would never have been put into service,” said the complaint.
VDPP adds that: “Defendant’s acts complained of herein caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform, and defendant’s procurement of monetary and commercial benefit from it.”
The plaintiff is seeking a jury trial, as well as damages and an injunction against the car manufacturers.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
