Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`LeROY G. HAGENBUCH,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-6713
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff, LeRoy G. Hagenbuch
`
`(“Hagenbuch”), complains against the Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota”),
`
`as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Hagenbuch is an Illinois resident with an address at 1425 East Glen Avenue,
`
`Peoria Heights, Illinois 61616.
`
`Hagenbuch is the named inventor on, and owner of, a substantial number of patents,
`
`including patents disclosing and claiming certain types of methods and apparatuses for
`
`monitoring and storing data related to vehicle performance and collision detection.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Toyota is a California corporation and a citizen of
`
`California, with its principal place of business at 19001 S. Western Avenue in Torrance,
`
`California.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Toyota is engaged in the business, inter alia, of serving as
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation’s United States sales and marketing arm, overseeing sales,
`
`including the sales of Toyota and Scion vehicles and other operations.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Toyota has a registered agent for service of process located at
`
`208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and a place of business
`
`located at 2350 Sequoia Drive, Aurora, Illinois 60506.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Toyota operates a regional office and parts distribution center
`
`in Aurora, Illinois to coordinate vehicle sales, parts and service for Toyota, Scion and
`
`Lexus dealers.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and specific
`
`personal jurisdiction, pursuant to due process and the Illinois Long Arm Statute,
`
`respectively.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant
`
`is subject to the Court’s general personal
`
`jurisdiction because, inter alia, it has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and
`
`protections of Illinois law by regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and
`
`services provided to persons or entities in Illinois and in this Judicial District, and all of
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
`
`Defendant’s contacts with the State of Illinois are systematic, continuous and
`
`substantial.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant
`
`is subject to the Court’s specific personal
`
`jurisdiction because Defendant has committed tortious acts, including committing acts
`
`of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 that it knew or should have
`
`known would cause injury to Hagenbuch in the State of Illinois.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and because Defendant has
`
`committed one or more acts of patent infringement at issue in this case within this
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Judicial District.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,014,917 B2
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-12 as if fully incorporated herein.
`
`Hagenbuch is the inventor and owner of United States Patent No. 8,014,917 B2 (“the
`
`‘917 Patent”) entitled “Apparatus for Tracking and Recording Vital Signs and Task-
`
`Related Information of a Vehicle to Identify Operating Patterns.” The ‘917 Patent was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office on September 6,
`
`2011. A true and correct copy is attached hereto at Exhibit 1.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has been infringing the ‘917 Patent in the State of
`
`Illinois, in this Judicial District, and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant’s infringements include, without limitation, making, using, distributing,
`
`importing, leasing, selling and/or offering to sell vehicles equipped with an event data
`
`recorder (“EDR”) and automatic collision notification (“ACN”) system.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
`
`17.
`
`For purposes of illustration, and not limitation, an example of Defendant’s infringing
`
`vehicles is the 2012 Toyota Camry HV, the manual for which states that “[t]his vehicle
`
`is equipped with an event data recorder (EDR),” which is designed to record “in certain
`
`crash or near crash-like situations,” inter alia, “[w]hether or not the driver and passenger
`
`safety belts were buckled,” “[h]ow far (if at all) the driver was depressing the accelerator
`
`and/or brake pedal,” and “[h]ow fast the vehicle was traveling.”
`
`18.
`
`In addition, the 2012 Toyota Camry HV is marketed by Defendant as having the option
`
`of the “Safety Connect” system, which “is designed to send an emergency call to the
`
`response center, notifying them of the vehicle’s location” in the event that “the SRS
`
`airbags deploy or in the event of a severe rear-end collision….”
`
`19.
`
`Under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 563.1 et seq., “specifies
`
`uniform, national requirements for vehicles equipped with event data recorders (EDRs)
`
`concerning the collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash
`
`event data” (hereinafter, “EDR Regulations”). 49 C.F.R. § 563.1.
`
`20.
`
`The EDR Regulations apply “to the following vehicles manufactured on or after
`
`September 1, 2012, if they are equipped with an event data recorder: passenger cars,
`
`multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500
`
`pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less,
`
`except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the
`
`U.S. Postal Service.” 49 C.F.R. § 563.3.
`
`21.
`
`Pursuant to the EDR Regulations, vehicles subject to those regulations must “record” for
`
`a period of time preceding detection of a crash, inter alia, vehicle speed, throttle
`
`position, on/off service brake status and safety belt status. 49 C.F.R. § 563.7(a).
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to the EDR Regulations, vehicles subject to those regulations must “record” for
`
`a period of time following detection of a crash, inter alia, “Delta-V, longitudinal.” 49
`
`C.F.R. § 563.7(a). The term “Delta-V, longitudinal means the cumulative change in
`
`velocity, as recorded by the EDR of the vehicle, along the longitudinal axis….” Id. at §
`
`563.5.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to the EDR Regulations, the term “[r]ecord means the process of saving
`
`captured EDR data into a non-volatile device for subsequent retrieval,” while the term
`
`“[c]apture means the process of buffering EDR data in a temporary, volatile storage
`
`medium where it is continuously updated at regular time intervals.”
`
`49 C.F.R. §
`
`563.5(b).
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, all of Defendant’s passenger vehicles imported into, or sold
`
`in, the United States are compliant with the EDR Regulations.
`
`25.
`
`In view of the foregoing, and based on other information and belief, all of Defendant’s
`
`passenger vehicles that are equipped with an EDR and ACN system, and that were
`
`manufactured after September 1, 2012, are covered by at least claim 26 of the ‘917
`
`patent.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, all of Defendant’s passenger vehicles that record how far (if
`
`at all) the driver was depressing brake pedal also are covered by at least claim 9 of the
`
`‘917 patent.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ‘917 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringing conduct, Defendant should be
`
`held liable to Hagenbuch in an amount that adequately compensates Hagenbuch for its
`
`infringement, which, by law, can be no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge that Hagenbuch owns patents
`
`relevant to compliance with the EDR Regulations since on or around August 17, 2010.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the application for the ‘917
`
`Patent (application serial no. 12/727,537, published Nov. 11, 2010) since on or around
`
`March 10, 2011.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the allowed claims for the
`
`‘917 Patent since on or around July 25, 2011.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the ‘917 Patent since on or
`
`around its date of issuance on September 6, 2011.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, on or around July 31, 2013, Defendant’s parent company,
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”) filed with the United States Patent & Trademark
`
`Office a document entitled “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,014,917 under 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104” (“TMC’s Petition”). TMC’s
`
`Petition does not allege invalidity of claims 9 or 26 of the ‘917 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘917 Patent has been and
`
`continues to be willful, because, inter alia, its infringement is clear and, at a minimum,
`
`such continued infringement would necessarily be an objectively reckless act.
`
`COUNT II
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,532,867 B1
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-34 as if fully incorporated herein.
`
`Hagenbuch is the inventor and owner of United States Patent No. 8,532,867 (“the ‘867
`
`Patent”) entitled “Apparatus for Tracking and Recording Vital Signs and Task-Related
`
`Information of a Vehicle to Identify Operating Patterns.” The ‘867 Patent was duly and
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
`
`legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office on September 10, 2013.
`
`A true and correct copy is attached hereto at Exhibit 2.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has been and now is infringing the ‘867 Patent in
`
`the State of Illinois, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s infringements include, without limitation, making, using, distributing,
`
`importing, leasing, selling and/or offering to sell vehicles equipped with an EDR and
`
`ACN system.
`
`39.
`
`In view of the foregoing, including allegations set forth in Count I, and based on other
`
`information and belief, all of Defendant’s passenger vehicles that are equipped with an
`
`EDR and ACN system, and that were manufactured after September 1, 2012, are
`
`covered by at least claim 15 of the ‘867 patent.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant is thus liable for infringement of the ‘867 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringing conduct, Defendant should be
`
`held liable to Hagenbuch in an amount that adequately compensates Hagenbuch for its
`
`infringement, which, by law, can be no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the application for the ‘867
`
`Patent (application serial no. 13/864,090) since on or around June 4, 2013.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had knowledge of the ‘867 Patent since on or
`
`around its date of issuance on September 10, 2013.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘867 Patent has been and
`
`continues to be willful, because, inter alia, its infringement is clear and, at a minimum,
`
`such continued infringement would necessarily be an objectively reckless act.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Hagenbuch respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`A judgment in favor of Hagenbuch declaring Defendant has infringed the ‘917
`
`and ‘867 Patents;
`
`A judgment that the Defendant’s infringement of the ‘917 and ‘867 Patents is and
`
`has been willful;
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all
`
`others acting in active concert therewith from direct and/or indirect infringement
`
`of the ‘917 and ‘867 Patents;
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Hagenbuch his damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and prejudgment and post-judgment
`
`interest
`
`for Defendant’s
`
`infringement of the ‘917 and ‘867 Patents as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`An award to Hagenbuch for enhanced damages as provided under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`284;
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Hagenbuch his reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`and
`
`g.
`
`Any and all other relief to which Hagenbuch may show himself to be entitled.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`

`
`Case: 1:13-cv-06713 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/18/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 18, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jacob D. Koering
`By:
`One of His Attorneys
`
`Michael D. Freeborn
`Joseph L. Fogel
`Jonathan Hill
`Jacob D. Koering
`Freeborn & Peters LLP
`311 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312/360-6000
`Facsimile: 312/360-6250
`Email: jhill@freebornpeters.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LeRoy G. Hagenbuch
`
`(cid:50)(cid:58)(cid:49)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:28)