Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 33 Page ID #:202
`
`
`Randall J. Sunshine (SBN 137363)
`rsunshine@linerlaw.com
`Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577)
`rhatch@linerlaw.com
`Jason L. Haas (SBN 217290)
`jhaas@linerlaw.com
`LINER LLP
`1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90024.3503
`Telephone: (310) 500-3500
`Facsimile:
`(310) 500-3501
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`SIGNAL IP, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC., d/b/a. AUDI OF
`AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
`corporation; BENTLEY MOTORS,
`INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP” or “Plaintiff”) brings this First Amended
`Complaint against Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., d/b/a Audi of
`America, Inc. and Bentley Motors, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), as permitted by
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), alleging as follows:
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Signal IP is a California corporation with its principal place of
`1.
`business at 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 380, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
`On information and belief, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America,
`2.
`Inc., d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`
` FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 2 of 33 Page ID #:203
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
`On information and belief, Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. is a
`3.
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche
`Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
`On information and belief, Defendants are part of an integrated
`4.
`automotive group that manufactures and distributes cars under brand names
`including “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and “Bentley.”
`JURISDICTION, VENUE AND JOINDER
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`5.
`the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants have
`6.
`conducted extensive commercial activities and continue to conduct extensive
`commercial activities within the State of California. Defendants are registered to do
`business in California. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants, directly
`and/or through intermediaries (including Defendants’ entities, subsidiaries,
`distributors, sales agents, partners and others), distribute, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`advertise their products (including but not limited to the products and services that
`are accused of infringement in this lawsuit) in the United States, in the State of
`California, and in this judicial district, under the “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and
`“Bentley” brand names. Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed one
`or more of their infringing products and services into the stream of commerce with
`the expectation that the products and services will be purchased or used by
`customers in California and within this judicial district. Accordingly, Defendants
`have infringed Signal IP’s patents within the State of California and in this judicial
`district as alleged in more detail below.
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`2
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 3 of 33 Page ID #:204
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`Signal IP, Inc. is a California corporation with a principal place of
`8.
`business at 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 380, Los Angeles, CA 90025. It is the
`owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,927;
`5,732,375; 5,954,775; 6,012,007; 6,434,486; and 6,775,601 (the “Patents-in-Suit”),
`including the right to recover for past, present and future infringement.
`On information and belief, Defendants are direct or indirect
`9.
`subsidiaries of global car manufacturer and distributor Volkswagen AG, which is
`headquartered in Germany. Volkswagen AG manufactures and distributes cars
`under brand names including “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and “Bentley.”
`10. Defendants have knowledge of each of the Patents-in-Suit, and have
`had the specific knowledge that their products and services described below infringe
`the Patents-in-Suit, since at least the filing of the complaint in this action on April
`23, 2014, which was served on Defendants on April 30, 2014. Signal IP gives and
`has given Defendants notice of its infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`11. Signal IP has also already served Defendants with its Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions pursuant to Standing Patent Rule §§ 2.1 and 2.2 (the
`“Infringement Contentions”), on July 8, 2014. The Infringement Contentions
`provide Defendants with notice of each claim of each patent in suit that is
`infringing, and separately for each asserted claim, identify each accused
`instrumantality in a manner that is as specific as is reasonably possible. The
`Infringement Contentions also identify specifically where each limititation of each
`asserted claim is found within each accused instrumentality, and identify the basis
`for Signal IP’s allegations of willful infringement. The Infringement Contentions
`set forth Signal IP’s allegations of infringement in this matter.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of the ‘927 Patent)
`12. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint as if set
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`3
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 4 of 33 Page ID #:205
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`forth in full herein.
`13. Signal IP is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (the ‘927 Patent), entitled “Method of Improving Zone of
`Coverage Response of Automotive Radar.” The ‘927 Patent was duly and legally
`issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on February 3, 1998. A true and
`correct copy of the ‘927 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`14. On information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly
`infringing, inducing others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringing, literally,
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or jointly, one or more claims of the ‘927
`Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 1, 2 and 6 (“the ‘927 Patent Asserted
`Claims”), in the State of California, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the
`United States by, among other things, importing, making, using, offering for sale,
`and/or selling in the United States certain methods or systems disclosed and claimed
`in the ‘927 Patent, including, but not limited to, the Active Blind Spot Assist
`system, used in products including, but not limited to, to the Audi A3, A4, A4
`Allroad, A4 Sedan/Avant, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q3, Q5, Q7, Q5 Hybrid, S4, S5, S5
`Cabriolet, S6, S7, S8, SQ5, RS5, and RS7, and the Volkswagen CC, Touareg,
`Phaeton, and Touareg Hybrid (collectively, the accused products and features are
`referred to herein as “the ‘927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities,” although the
`accused instrumentalities and asserted claims have been formally identified in
`Signal IP’s Infringement Contentions).
`15. The ‘927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities are described or have been
`described at least in part online at:
`http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?&id=2757&allImage=1&teaser=drive
`r-assistance-systems∣ and
`http://en.volkswagen.com/en/innovation-and-technology/technical-
`glossary/spurwechselassistentsideassist.html.
`16. As described below in and in the Infringement Contentions,
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`4
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 5 of 33 Page ID #:206
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Volkswagen includes a radar system where a host vehicle uses radar to detect a
`target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver which improves the perceived
`zone of coverage response of automotive radar. Volkswagen determines the relative
`speed of the host and target vehicles and selects a variable sustain time as a function
`of relative vehicle speed. Volkswagen detects target vehicle presence and produces
`an alert command. Volkswagen activates an alert signal in response to the alert
`command. At the end of the alert command, Volkswagen determines whether the
`alert signal was active for a threshold time and if the alert signal was active for the
`threshold time, Volkswagen sustains the alert signal for the variable sustain time;
`where the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain
`time.
`
`17. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, Defendants’ Side
`Assist system “monitors traffic behind the vehicle and warns the driver of critical
`lane changes as necessary” through the use of “[t]wo radar systems at the rear
`[which] scan the areas up to around 50 metres behind the vehicle and in the blind
`spots to the sides.”
`18. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he Side
`Assist] system begins to operate at a speed of about 30 km/h (18.64 mph).” At that
`speed, a computer evaluates the data from the rear radar sensors. If the sensors
`“detect another vehicle that is in the critical zone – that is, traveling in the blind spot
`or quickly approaching from behind – the information stage is activated.”
`19. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “Side Assist
`signals any vehicle which is in the critical zone for a lane change, regardless of
`whether a lane change is in progress or not. (¶ ) The system draws the driver’s
`attention to the potential danger with a light that comes on in the exterior mirror on
`the side in question. (¶ ) If the driver nevertheless signals to change lane, the same
`LED light starts to flash more brightly and draws attention to the danger.”
`20. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[i]nstead of
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`5
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 6 of 33 Page ID #:207
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`distracting the driver with unnecessary warnings, allowance is always made for the
`relative difference in vehicle speeds. Side Assist only gives a warning for vehicles
`that could actually be a risk if the driver were to make a lane change.”
`In addition to their own direct infringement, Defendants have also been
`21.
`and are inducing and/or contributing to the direct infringement of the ‘927 Patent by
`at least, but not limited to, customers of Defendants, partners of Defendants, and/or
`end-users of Defendants’ products, including, but not limited to, the ‘927 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities (“the ‘927 Patent Third Party Infringers”), who directly
`implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ‘927 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities, which have no substantial non-infringing uses, by at least the
`following affirmative acts: (1) advertising in public and marketing the features,
`benefits and availability of the ‘927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities; (2) promoting
`the adoption and use of the ‘927 Accused Instrumentalities; and (3) providing
`instructions on how to use the ‘927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities.
`22. Defendants indirectly infringe by actively, knowingly, and/or
`intentionally inducing or contributing to infringement of one or more of the claims
`of the ‘927 Patent, including, but not limited to, the ‘927 Patent Asserted Claims, by
`a third party, including, but not limited to, the ‘927 Patent Third Party Infringers,
`who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ‘927 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, Defendants actively,
`knowingly, and/or intentionally induce the use of the ‘927 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities by the ‘927 Patent Third Party Infringers, and provide or otherwise
`implement material components of one or more claims of the ‘927 Patent, including,
`but not limited to, the ‘927 Patent Asserted Claims, which were especially made or
`adapted for use in the infringement of the ‘927 Patent claims, including, but not
`limited to, the ‘927 Patent Asserted Claims, and are not a staple article or
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses. Defendants
`know and have known that the combination for which their infringing components,
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`6
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 7 of 33 Page ID #:208
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`including, but not limited to, the ‘927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities, were
`especially made or adapted are both patented and infringing.
`23. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘927 Patent has been and continues to
`be willful, rendering this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`With knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, as described above, Defendants have
`continued their infringing actions, as described above, despite an objectively high
`likelihood (and affirmative allegations) that these actions constitute infringement of
`the Patents-in-Suit. This objectively defined risk was known to Defendants, and so
`obvious that it should have been known to Defendants.
`24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
`has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which it has no
`adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff also has been damaged and, until an injunction
`issues, will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of the ‘375 Patent)
`25. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint as if set
`forth in full herein.
`26. Signal IP is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (the ‘375 Patent), entitled “Method of Inhibiting or
`Allowing Airbag Deployment.” The ‘375 Patent was duly and legally issued by the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 24, 1998. A true and correct copy of
`the ‘375 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`27. On information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly
`infringing, inducing others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringing, literally,
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or jointly, one or more claims of the ‘375
`Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 1 and 7 (“the ‘375 Patent Asserted
`Claims”), in the State of California, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the
`United States by, among other things, importing, making, using, offering for sale,
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`7
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 8 of 33 Page ID #:209
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`and/or selling in the United States certain methods or systems disclosed and claimed
`in the ‘375 Patent, including, but not limited to, the Seat Occupancy Sensor, used in
`products including but not limited to the Audi A6 and S6 (collectively, the accused
`products and features are referred to herein as “the ‘375 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities,” although the accused instrumentalities and asserted claims have
`been formally identified in Signal IP’s Infringement Contentions).
`28. The ‘375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities are described or have been
`described at least in part online at:
`http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_361.pdf; and
`http://parts.audiusa.com/parts/2011/Audi/A6%20Quattro/Avant?siteid=16&vehiclei
`d=314382&diagram=1352455&diagramCallOut=25.
`29. As described below and in the Infringement Contentions, the Audi Seat
`Occupancy Sensor (“SOS”) provides airbag control in a vehicle having an array of
`force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for determining whether
`to allow airbag deployment based on sensed force. SOS measures the force detected
`by each sensor and calculates the total force of the sensor array. SOS allows
`deployment if the total force is above a total threshold force. SOS defines a plurality
`of seat areas, and has at least one sensor located in each seat area. SOS determines
`the existence of a local pressure area when the calculated total force is concentrated
`in one of said seat areas. SOS calculates a local force as the sum of forces sensed by
`each sensor located in the seat area in which the total force is concentrated. SOS
`allows deployment if the local force is greater than a predefined seat area threshold
`force.
`
`30. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he front
`passenger side seat occupied sensor consists of a plastic film incorporating several
`individual pressure sensors. The front passenger side seat occupied sensor is located
`in the front passenger seat, between the seat cover and padding. The seat occupied
`sensor extends across the rear part of the front passenger seat and is positioned such
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`8
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 9 of 33 Page ID #:210
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`that the relevant area of the seat surface is monitored.”
`31. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he seat
`occupied recognition control unit J706 evaluates the signals from the pressure
`sensor for seat occupied recognition G452. …Based on the signal from the pressure
`sensor for seat occupied recognition, the seat occupied recognition control unit
`determines the load on the front passenger seat.”
`32. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[d]epending on
`the load, the resistance value of the front passenger side seat occupied sensor is
`modified. When the front passenger seat is not occupied, the resistance value of the
`front passenger side seat occupied sensor G128 is high. As the load increases, the
`resistance value falls. Above a load of approx. 5 kg, the airbag control unit detects
`‘seat occupied’."
`33. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, for the “[f]ront
`passenger side seat occupied sensor”, “[i]f the airbag control unit J234 receives the
`information that the front passenger seat is not occupied or that a child seat is
`installed, the airbag control unit switches off the front passenger airbag.”
`In addition to their own direct infringement, Defendants have also been
`34.
`and are inducing and/or contributing to the direct infringement of the ‘375 Patent by
`at least, but not limited to, customers of Defendants, partners of Defendants, and/or
`end-users of Defendants’ products, including, but not limited to, the ‘375 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities (“the ‘375 Patent Third Party Infringers”), who directly
`implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ‘375 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities, which have no substantial non-infringing uses, by at least the
`following affirmative acts: (1) advertising in public and marketing the features,
`benefits and availability of the ‘375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities; (2) promoting
`the adoption and use of the ‘375 Accused Instrumentalities; and (3) providing
`instructions on how to use the ‘375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities.
`35. Defendants indirectly infringe by actively, knowingly, and/or
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`9
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 10 of 33 Page ID #:211
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`intentionally inducing or contributing to infringement of one or more of the claims
`of the ‘375 Patent, including, but not limited to, the ‘375 Patent Asserted Claims, by
`a third party, including, but not limited to, the ‘375 Patent Third Party Infringers,
`who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ‘375 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, Defendants actively,
`knowingly, and/or intentionally induce the use of the ‘375 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities by the ‘375 Patent Third Party Infringers, and provide or otherwise
`implement material components of one or more claims of the ‘375 Patent, including,
`but not limited to, the ‘375 Patent Asserted Claims, which were especially made or
`adapted for use in the infringement of the ‘375 Patent claims, including, but not
`limited to, the ‘375 Patent Asserted Claims, and are not a staple article or
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses. Defendants
`know and have known that the combination for which their infringing components,
`including, but not limited to, the ‘375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities, were
`especially made or adapted are both patented and infringing.
`36. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘375 Patent has been and continues to
`be willful, rendering this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`With knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, as described above, Defendants have
`continued their infringing actions, as described above, despite an objectively high
`likelihood (and affirmative allegations) that these actions constitute infringement of
`the Patents-in-Suit. This objectively defined risk was known to Defendants, and so
`obvious that it should have been known to Defendants.
`37. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the
`‘375 Patent.
`38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
`has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which it has no
`adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff also has been damaged and, until an injunction
`issues, will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`10
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 11 of 33 Page ID #:212
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of the ‘486 Patent)
`39. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint as if set
`forth in full herein.
`40. Signal IP is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486 (the ‘486 Patent), entitled “Technique for Limiting the
`Range of an Object Sensing System in a Vehicle.” The ‘486 Patent duly and legally
`issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 13, 2002. A true and
`correct copy of the ‘486 Patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`41. On information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly
`infringing, inducing others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringing, literally,
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or jointly, one or more claims of the ‘486
`Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 21, 26, and 28 (“the ‘486 Patent
`Asserted Claims”), in the State of California, in this judicial district, and elsewhere
`in the United States by, among other things, importing, making, using, offering for
`sale, and/or selling in the United States certain methods or systems disclosed and
`claimed in the ‘486 Patent, including, but not limited to the (1) Adaptive Cruise
`Control system, used in products including but not limited to the Audi A3, A4, A4
`Allroad, A4 Sedan/Avant, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q3, Q5, Q7, Q5 Hybrid, S4, S5, S5
`Cabriolet, S6, S7, S8, and SQ5; and (2) the Front Assist system, used in products
`including but not limited to the Volkswagen CC, Eos, Golf, Golf GTI, Golf R, Jetta,
`Jetta Sedan, Jetta SportWagen, Passat Sedan, Passat Wagon, Touareg, Jetta Hybrid,
`Phaeton, and Touareg Hybrid (collectively, the accused products and features are
`referred to herein as “the ‘486 Patent Accused Instrumentalities,” although the
`accused instrumentalities and asserted claims have been formally identified in
`Signal IP’s Infringement Contentions).
`42. The ‘486 Patent Accused Instrumentalities are described or have been
`described at least in part online at:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`11
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 12 of 33 Page ID #:213
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`http://www.audi.co.uk/new-cars/a6/a6-saloon/driver-assistants/adaptive-cruise-
`control.html;
`http://www.audi.cn/cn/brand/en/tools/advice/glossary/adaptive_cruise_control.brow
`ser.filter_i_a.html;
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUMhyo9vLJs;
`http://www.audi.com/cn/brand/en/models/a7/a7_sportback/configure/safety.html#so
`urce=http://www.audi.com/cn/brand/en/models/a7/a7_sportback/configure/safety.de
`tailview.Level1_0002_Level2_0004.html&container=layerModal;
`http://forum.a8parts.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=4812&d=1348136382;
`http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/technology/proximity-sensing/front-assist;
`http://en.volkswagen.com/en/innovation-and-technology/technical-
`glossary/umfeldbeobachtungssystem_front_assist.html;
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfNEy8H0qEA;
`http://training.avme.net/admin/Upload/SSP/4888_374%20%20Concern%20Traction
`%20Control.pdf;
`http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/71/28/78/PDF/mtnsxausa2012.pdf; and
`http://www.volkswagen.co.th/en/technology/assistance-systems/front-assist.html.
`43. As described below and in the Infringement Contentions, Audi limits
`the range of an object sensing system such that certain objects detected by the
`sensing system that are not in a vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to
`provide an alarm. Audi determines a desired warning distance based upon the
`current steering angle. Audi determines a current distance to a sensed object. Audi
`provides an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
`As further described below, Volkswagen limits the range of an object sensing
`system such that certain objects detected by the sensing system that are not in a
`vehicle path do not cause the sensing system to provide an alarm. Volkswagen
`determines a desired warning distance based upon the current steering angle.
`Volkswagen determines a current distance to a sensed object. Volkswagen provides
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`12
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 13 of 33 Page ID #:214
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`an alarm only if the sensed object is within the desired warning distance.
`44. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, the “Adaptive
`cruise control builds on a standard cruise control system and allows the driver to
`maintain a set distance from the vehicle in front. It uses a radar sensor to measure
`the distance from the vehicle ahead. If the distance is too small, the system reduces
`speed moderately by easing the throttle or it automatically activates the brakes.
`Once the road ahead is clear again, adaptive cruise control accelerates the car back
`up to your previous speed. Using the satellite navigation system, the Adaptive
`cruise control knows exactly where the car is, so if travelling on a motorway and the
`car in front brakes and indicates left (because the driver wants to take the next exit)
`the system can recognise this - thanks to the camera image and because it sees the
`exit on the navigation data. In this scenario a traditional radar based cruise control
`system would brake, whereas the A6 would continue uninterrupted.”
`45. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, the Adaptive
`Cruise Control system “measures the distance to the vehicle ahead by means of a
`special radar sensor and controls the speed, ensuring it does not exceed the set value.
`In addition, adaptive cruise control automatically maintains a constant distance to
`the vehicle ahead. If the driver’s intervention is required to sufficiently brake the
`vehicle, a signal is automatically given. The driver can choose between four distance
`programmes and adjust the system's dynamics to suit personal preferences: the range
`of programmes comprises Distance 1 (sporty), Distances 2 and 3 (standard) and
`Distance 4 (comfortable). Even when adaptive cruise control is activated, the driver
`is still responsible for monitoring the car’s speed and the distance from the vehicle
`in front. Adaptive cruise control does not react to stationary objects or approaching
`vehicles.”
`46. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, the “adaptive
`cruise control uses a variety of data to track the vehicle in front of you, including the
`steering angle.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`13
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 14 of 33 Page ID #:215
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`47. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “Even when the
`road isn’t straight, Adaptive Cruise Control detects the correct vehicle to which it
`must maintain a specified distance. To do this Adaptive Cruise Control interprets
`various vehicle data, including the steering angle of the vehicle.”
`48. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, the Adaptive
`Cruise Control System “maintains a preselected speed or a specified distance from
`the vehicle in front. In slow-moving traffic and congestion it governs braking,
`acceleration and driving at walking pace. Radar sensors, a video camera and the
`sensors for the parking aid monitor the area around the Audi A7 Sportback. If they
`detect an obstruction, the driver is alerted by an acoustic signal and a visual display
`in the driver information system.”
`49. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “The Front Assist
`ambient traffic monitoring system uses a radar sensor to detect situations where the
`distance to the vehicle in front is critical and helps to reduce the vehicle’s stopping
`distance. In dangerous situations the system alerts the driver by means of visual and
`acoustic signals and with a warning jolt of the brakes. Front Assist operates
`independently of the ACC automatic distance control.”
`50. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “The traffic ahead
`is monitored constantly by the radar at the front. If a vehicle is detected ahead of
`you in the lane, the distance and the speed relative to it are calculated. If the gap is
`closing too fast, Front Assist initially warns you by means of an audible as well as a
`visual signal.”
`51. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “The front assist
`system is an assist system with a warning function, and serves to prevent rear-end
`collisions. Stopping distance reduction AWV1 and stopping distance reduction
`AWV2 form part of the front assist system. When a preceding vehicle is approached
`in a hazardous manner, the front assist system has two action time points, the
`preliminary warning and the main warning.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. LA CV14-03113 JAK (JEMx)
`14
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 34 Filed 07/11/14 Page 15 of 33 Page ID #:216
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14