IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC, a Michigan domestic limited
`Liability company, d/b/a NARTRON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:13-cv-10444
`HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
`Mag. Judge Randon
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC, a Michigan
`Corporation, and BROSE NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., a Michigan corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________/
`Monte L. Falcoff (P48015)
`George D. Moustakas (P41631)
`Timothy D. MacIntyre (P53100)
`J. Bradley Luchsinger (P76115)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`gdmoustakas@hdp.com
`tdmacintyre@hdp.com
`bluchsinger@hdp.com
`______________________________________/
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF UUSI, LLC, d/b/a NARTRON’S
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO UUSI, LLC (NOS. 1-7)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff UUSI, LLC’s d/b/a Nartron (“UUSI,” “Nartron,” or “Plaintiff”) initially
`
`
`
`
`
`responded to Defendant Brose North America, Inc.’s (hereafter “Brose” or “Defendant”) First
`
`Set of Interrogatories to UUSI, LLC (“the Interrogatories”) on September 4, 2013. In a letter
`
`dated September 9, 2013 (“the Brose Letter,” see Attachment A), counsel for Brose objected to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`the adequacy of UUSI’s September 4th Response to the Interrogatories. In accordance with
`
`agreement between counsel, UUSI, by its attorneys, hereby supplements its answers to
`
`Defendant Brose North America, Inc.’s (hereafter “Brose” or “Defendant”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories to UUSI, LLC (“the Interrogatories”) in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, as
`
`follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO ALL INTERROGATORIES
`
`Each answer and response is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance,
`
`materiality, propriety and admissibility, and to any and all other objections on any grounds that
`
`would require the exclusion of any statements contained herein if such interrogatories were
`
`asked of, or statements contained herein were made by, a witness presented and testifying in
`
`Court, all of which objections and grounds are expressly reserved and may be interposed at the
`
`time of trial.
`
`The following General Objections are made with respect to each and every Interrogatory,
`
`regardless of whether the General Objections are repeated or referenced in any of the answers
`
`contained herein. These General Objections are grouped collectively to avoid unnecessarily
`
`duplicative and repetitious responses to each of the Interrogatories. These General Objections
`
`are incorporated into each of the responses set forth below. Nothing in UUSI’s responses to the
`
`Interrogatories shall be construed as a waiver of these General Objections, as stated below:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories, Definitions and Instructions to the extent that
`
`they purport to impose upon UUSI any obligation beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court, including, but not limited to, any discovery
`
`request that exceed the scope, number and/or timing imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26 and 33, and this Court’s Scheduling Order dated August 14, 2013.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories, Definitions and Instructions to the extent they
`
`seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
`
`immunity, information protected by any other lawfully recognized privilege or immunity,
`
`information prepared in anticipation of litigation or prosecution of this action, or information
`
`containing the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of any attorney or
`
`other legal representative of UUSI.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories, Definitions and Instructions to the extent that
`
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By providing
`
`any of the information requested, UUSI does not concede the relevance thereof to the claims or
`
`defenses in this litigation.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is a
`
`matter of public record or that is otherwise as equally accessible to Brose as it is to UUSI and/or
`
`that is obtainable from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome and/or less
`
`expensive.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories as including all multiple discrete parts and
`
`subparts, which have not been sequentially numbered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and Notes of
`
`Advisory Committee on 1993 amendments. For example, incorporating the definitions and
`
`instructions into the interrogatory requests would far exceed the discovery limitations. UUSI has
`
`therefore renumbered the Interrogatories through the use of brackets “[]” as required under Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 33(a) in which each discrete subpart shall be counted as a separate interrogatory, with
`
`renumbering indicated in brackets. On this basis, UUSI reserves the right to object to future
`
`interrogatories to the extent that they violate the “25 in number, including all discrete subparts”
`
`provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`6.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are compound, phrased
`
`disjunctively or conjunctively, or includes subparts in such a manner that is unduly burdensome,
`
`confusing, or cannot be reasonably answered.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek the bases of
`
`contentions that are dependent upon discoverable information in the custody and control of
`
`others, including Brose. UUSI has not completed preparation for trial. The answers, responses,
`
`and objections herein are made without prejudice to the right of UUSI to produce evidence of
`
`any additional facts and to rely on additional bases for any contention.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek confidential
`
`information or proprietary information pertaining to UUSI’s business, trade secrets and/or
`
`economic relationships absent entry of a suitable Protective Order to govern the production and
`
`disclosure of such information. UUSI makes its answers to the Interrogatories on the good faith
`
`basis that outside counsel for Brose will hold UUSI’s answers as “Highly Confidential – Outside
`
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only” until a Protective Order is in place.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, unreasonably oppressive, or designed solely to harass, embarrass, or annoy.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they require UUSI to examine
`
`every document or piece of information possibly within UUSI’s possession, including documents
`
`and information far beyond the scope and spirit of the law governing this discovery.
`
`11.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are ambiguous and too
`
`vague to adequately apprise UUSI of what information is being sought or to permit UUSI to
`
`furnish such information with reasonable diligence.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`12.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they request information not
`
`limited by a proper time frame and therefore seek information which is not relevant to this
`
`action, which would be unduly burdensome to produce, and which is not reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`13.
`
`UUSI objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they request information not
`
`within Defendants’ knowledge, possession, custody or control.
`
`RESERVATION
`
`14.
`
`The following answers, responses, and objections are based upon information and
`
`writings presently available to and located by UUSI and its attorneys. UUSI’s study, internal
`
`investigation and preparation for trial in this matter is not complete as of the date of these
`
`Answers. UUSI does not purport to state anything more than information presently known or
`
`discovered. It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, research and analysis may
`
`supply information, evidence, documents and/or facts and add meaning to known facts, as well
`
`as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to
`
`substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the responses set forth herein. UUSI
`
`reserves the right to continue discovery in this matter and to continue its investigation for facts,
`
`witnesses, and supporting data that may reveal information which, if it had presently been within
`
`UUSI’s possession and knowledge, would have been included in these responses to the extent
`
`that said information is not objectionable and/or available. The answers, responses, and
`
`objections herein are made without prejudice to the right of UUSI to produce evidence of any
`
`additional facts. UUSI may supplement its answers and responses based on the foregoing as
`
`necessary or required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court,
`
`and/or Court order.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`OBJECTIONS TO APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
`
`15.
`
`UUSI objects to Definition A for the term “UUSI” as overly broad to the extent it
`
`encompasses individuals and entities that are not under UUSI’s direction, supervision, or control
`
`and who are not Parties to this lawsuit.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO APPENDIX B – INSTRUCTIONS
`
`16.
`
`UUSI objects to Instruction A to the extent it requires UUSI to identify particular
`
`documents by production number in this Response to Brose’s First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`UUSI’s efforts to collect documents relevant to this lawsuit are on-going. Where UUSI avails
`
`itself of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), UUSI will identify the documents that are
`
`relevant to a particular Interrogatory at the time the documents are produced in the form of a
`
`cover letter accompanying the documents.
`
`17.
`
`UUSI objects to Instruction F to the extent it requires UUSI to submit a privilege
`
`log at the time of UUSI’s Response to the Interrogatories. A privilege log at this time is
`
`premature as document production is on-going.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`18.
`
`“Unduly burdensome” means that the discovery request requires an unduly
`
`burdensome search for information that is of little or no value to this lawsuit so that the value of
`
`their production is far outweighed by the burden of producing it.
`
`19.
`
`“Overly broad” means that the specific discovery request requires information
`
`that is not relevant to any present or potential issues of this litigation.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`20.
`
`“Vague” means that the specific discovery request is drafted in such a way that it
`
`does not convey with reasonable clarity what is requested of UUSI with the effect that UUSI is
`
`required to guess the intended meaning.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`Subject to the General Objections above, and the specific objections set forth below and,
`
`without waiver thereof, UUSI provides the following supplemental answers, responses, and
`
`objections to the Interrogatories:
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`
`
`[1] Describe in detail the factual and legal bases for all ways in which You believe that
`
`Brose NA infringes any claim(s) of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE [1]:
`
`
`
`UUSI objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as premature to the extent it requires UUSI to provide
`
`infringement contentions before the February 3, 2014 date set by the Court in its Scheduling Order
`
`(Dkt. No. 37) of August 14, 2013. At this time, UUSI has not had the benefit of meaningful
`
`discovery. Accordingly, UUSI’s answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is preliminary and UUSI expressly
`
`reserves the right to supplement its answers at a later date, including when infringement contentions
`
`are due of February 3, 2014. Nothing in UUSI’s answer should be construed as a waiver of certain
`
`infringement contentions or a limitation on the number of claims being asserted in this action. UUSI
`
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as calling for a legal conclusion and for seeking information that
`
`is protected from disclosure by attorney-client and work product privilege. Interrogatory No. 1 asks
`
`for UUSI to “[d]escribe in detail the factual and legal bases…” for its infringement contentions. The
`
`scope of this request thus encompasses the thoughts, mental impressions, and work product of
`
`UUSI’s outside litigation counsel. UUSI’s answer does not include such privileged information.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`UUSI objects to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks the bases of contentions that are
`
`dependent upon discoverable information in the custody and control of others, including Brose.
`
`UUSI has not completed preparation for trial. The answers, responses, and objections herein are
`
`made without prejudice to the right of UUSI to produce evidence of any additional facts and to rely
`
`on additional bases for any contention. UUSI objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome by requiring UUSI to “[d]escribe in detail the factual and legal bases for all
`
`ways in which You believe that Brose NA infringes...” By asking UUSI to detail all of the ways it
`
`believes Brose infringes, the request is laborious, time-consuming, and unreasonable. UUSI
`
`interprets Interrogatory No. 1 as a request for UUSI’s current infringement position at this early
`
`stage in discovery. UUSI further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as compound because it contains
`
`multiple, discrete subparts in a single interrogatory. While UUSI has not enumerated each subpart
`
`of this Interrogatory, the request is compound because it asks for UUSI’s infringement positions for
`
`each claim of the five patents asserted by UUSI in this lawsuit. In total, UUSI has been asked to
`
`present its infringement positions for 98 claims. At this early stage in the proceedings, such a
`
`request is unduly burdensome. UUSI responds by providing its infringement positions for some of
`
`the independent claims of each Patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections above, UUSI states the
`
`following upon current information and belief based on its investigation to date, which remains on-
`
`going:
`
`
`
`It is UUSI’s current belief that Brose directly or indirectly infringes one or more claims of
`
`each of the Patents-in-suit (U.S. Pat. No. 6,064,165, U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,117, U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,548,037, U.S. Pat. No. 7,579,802, and U.S. Pat. No. 8,217,612). The legal bases for UUSI’s
`
`beliefs rest on well settled law concerning direct infringement and indirect infringement.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Whoever without authorization makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
`
`within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of
`
`the patent is liable for direct infringement. Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`
`Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2000)). When a defendant
`
`participates in or encourages infringement but does not directly infringe a patent, the normal
`
`recourse under the law is for the court to apply the standards for liability under indirect
`
`infringement. BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
`
`Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`
`
`Both direct and indirect infringement may be shown by literal infringement or by the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement requires that each and every limitation set forth in a
`
`claim appear in an accused product. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l,
`
`Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922
`
`F.2d 792, 796 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). An accused device that does not literally infringe a patent claim
`
`can, nevertheless, infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis
`
`Chemical Co., 117 S.Ct. 1040, 1054 (1997). The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to
`
`claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim, but
`
`which could be created through trivial changes. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki
`
`Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733 (U.S. 2002). The doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual
`
`elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 29. The
`
`question under the doctrine of equivalents is whether an accused element is equivalent to a claimed
`
`element. The proper time for evaluating equivalency, and thus the knowledge of interchangeability
`
`between elements, is at the time of infringement. Id. at 37.
`
`
`
`
`
`With these legal underpinnings in mind and in view of UUSI’s testing and physical review
`
`9
`
`

`
`of Brose products, it is UUSI’s current belief that Brose infringes at least the following independent
`
`claims: Claims 1, 16, 25, and 31 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,064,165 (“the ‘165 Patent”), Claim 2 of U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,078,117 (“the ‘117 Patent”), Claims 1, 2, 7, 14, and 15 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,579,802 (“the ‘802
`
`Patent”), Claims 1, 7, and 19 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,548,037 (“the ‘037 Patent”), and Claims 1 and 6 of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,217,612 (“the ‘612 Patent”). UUSI outlines Brose’s infringement of these claims in
`
`the attached claim charts (Attachments B-F). With respect to Attachments B-F, the parts of both
`
`Ford window regulators (Ford Part Nos. 7T4Z-7823201A and 7A1Z-5423395-A, identified by
`
`white motor/gear housing) and a General Motors window regulator (GM Part No. 20971729,
`
`identified by black motor/gear housing) are pictured. The Ford window regulator has several Brose
`
`markings identifying its origins with Brose. The General Motors window regulator does not have
`
`Brose markings, but on information and belief, at least some of the components of this window
`
`regulator were made or sold by Brose.
`
`
`
`It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, research and analysis will supply
`
`information, evidence, documents and/or facts, all of which will lead to substantial additions to,
`
`changes in, and variations from this response. UUSI expressly reserves the right to further
`
`supplement its objections and answers to Interrogatory No. 1 as necessary.
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`
`
`[2] For each of the Asserted Claims in the Patents-in-Suit and on a claim-by-claim basis,
`
`describe in detail the dates of, the persons involved with, and any documents corroborating (by
`
`production number) the conception [sic ,] the first actual reduction to practice of the claimed subject
`
`matter, and [3] any diligence towards any reduction to practice (constructive or actual).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As to Answers:
`
`_______________________________________
`UUSI, LLC d/b/a Nartron
`
`As to Objections:
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ George D. Moustakas /
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`Monte L. Falcoff (P48015)
`George D. Moustakas (P41631)
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`gdmoustakas@hdp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`29
`
`September 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attachment F
`
`Attachment F
`
`
`
`
`BNA/Brose Exhi
`
`21
`i
`a e 12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`Brose makes, sells, or offers for sale the anti-pinch window lifter products shown in the
`pictures below (hereafter “the Brose products”):
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`Claim 1. Apparatus for controlling activation of
`a motor coupled to a motor vehicle window or
`panel for moving said window or panel along a
`travel path and de-activating the motor if an
`obstacle is encountered by the window or panel,
`said apparatus comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`a) a sensor for sensing movement of the
`window or panel and providing a sensor output
`signal related to a speed of movement of the
`window or panel;
`
`The Brose products control the activation of a motor coupled to a motor vehicle
`window for moving the window along a travel path and de-activating the motor if an
`obstacle is encountered by the window. Testing shows that the Brose products reverse
`in response to the window encountering an obstacle.
`The Brose products have a sensor shown in the pictures below. From the markings on
`the sensors (shown in the pictures below), the sensors can be identified as Hall-effect
`sensors part nos. VF526DT and SGGD4. With reference to the pictures below, the sensor
`senses movement of the window and provides a sensor output signal related to a speed
`of movement of the window or panel. Particularly, the Hall-effect sensor detects
`rotation of the black magnetic ring that is mounted on the motor armature shown in the
`pictures below. Rotation of the motor armature is coupled to the window so rotation of
`the motor armature corresponds to a speed of movement of the window.
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`b) a switch for controllably actuating the motor
`by providing an energization signal;
`
`
`Testing has shown that the sensors generate a wave form output in response to rotation
`of the motor armature.
`Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products also have a switch.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`c) one or more switches for use by the controller
`to determine window or panel position; and
`
`
`The switch controllably actuates the motor by providing an energization signal.
`Apart from the switch pictured above, the Brose product has one or more switches as
`indicated in the pictures below:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`The Brose products use these switches to determine the position of the window based
`on counting the revolutions of the motor armature with the Hall-effect sensor and/or
`using motor current, voltage, or other input signals.
`The Brose products each have a controller as generally shown in the pictures below.
`
`
`
`d) a controller having an interface coupled to
`the sensor and the switch for controllably
`energizing the motor; said controller sensing a
`collision with an obstruction when power is
`applied to the controller by:
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`i) monitoring movement of the window or panel
`by monitoring a signal from the sensor related
`to the movement of the window or panel;
`
`ii) adjusting an obstacle detection threshold in
`real time based on immediate past
`measurements of the signal sensed by the sensor
`to adapt to varying conditions encountered
`during operation of the window or panel;
`iii) identifying a collision of the window or
`panel with an obstacle due to a change in the
`
`
`On information and belief, each controller has an interface coupled to the sensor and
`the switch for controllably energizing the motor. Specifically, the conductive traces of
`the controller couple the interface to the sensor and the switch. Further, the controller
`senses a collision with an obstruction when power is applied to the controller.
`On information and belief, the controller senses a collision by monitoring movement of
`the window by monitoring a signal from the sensor related to the movement of the
`window. The controller of the Brose products includes a sensor. Testing has shown that
`the sensor generates a wave form output based on detection of the ring shaped magnet
`that is attached to the motor armature. This signal can travel through the conductive
`traces of the controller for monitoring by the processor. The signal of the Hall-effect
`sensor is related to the movement of the window because the Hall-effect sensor detects
`rotation of the motor armature and rotation of the motor armature drives the movement
`of the window. This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not
`been given access to Brose’s source code.
`On information and belief, the controller senses a collision by adjusting an obstacle
`detection threshold in real time based on immediate past measurements of the signal
`sensed by the sensor to adapt to varying conditions encountered during operation of the
`window. This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been
`given access to Brose’s source code.
`On information and belief, the controller senses a collision by identifying a collision of
`the window with an obstacle due to a change in the signal from the sensor that is
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`related to a change in movement of the window. Testing has shown that the wave form
`signal generated by the Hall-effect sensor changes when a change occurs in the
`movement of the window. By comparing a value based on a most recent signal from
`the sensor with the obstacle detection threshold a collision is detected by the controller.
`This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been given
`access to Brose’s source code.
`On information and belief, the controller outputs a control signal to the switch to
`deactivate the motor in response to a sensing of a collision between an obstacle and the
`window. The processor of the controller is couple to the switch by conductive traces
`that can carry the control signal from the processor to the switch. Additionally, testing
`shows that the Brose products reverse in response to the window encountering an
`obstacle. This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been
`given access to Brose’s source code.
`
`Brose makes, sells, or offers for sale the anti-pinch window lifter products shown in the
`pictures below (hereafter “the Brose products”):
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`signal from the sensor that is related to a change
`in movement of the window or panel by
`comparing a value based on a most recent signal
`from the sensor with the obstacle detection
`threshold; and
`
`iv) outputting a control signal to said switch to
`deactivate said motor in response to a sensing of
`a collision between an obstacle and said
`window or panel.
`
`
`
`Claim 6. Apparatus for controlling activation of
`a motor coupled to a motor vehicle window or
`panel for moving said window or panel along a
`travel path and de-activating the motor when
`movement of the window or panel is stopped
`prior to reaching a predetermined position, said
`apparatus comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`a) a sensor for sensing movement of the
`window or panel and providing a sensor output
`signal related to a position of the window or
`panel;
`
`
`The Brose products control the activation of a motor coupled to a motor vehicle
`window for moving the window along a travel path and de-activating the motor when
`movement of the window is stopped prior to reaching a predetermined position. Testing
`shows that the Brose products reverse in response to the window stopping prior to
`reaching a predetermined position (prior to reaching the closed position).
`The Brose products have a sensor shown in the pictures below. From the markings on
`the sensors (shown in the pictures below), the sensors can be identified as Hall-effect
`sensors part nos. VF526DT and SGGD4. With reference to the pictures below, the sensor
`senses movement of the window and provides a sensor output signal related to a speed
`of movement of the window or panel. Particularly, the Hall-effect sensor detects
`rotation of the black magnetic ring that is mounted on the motor armature shown in the
`pictures below. Rotation of the motor armature is coupled to the window so rotation of
`the motor armature corresponds to a speed of movement of the window.
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`Testing has shown that the sensors generate a wave form output in response to rotation
`of the motor armature.
`b) a switch for controllably actuating the motor Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products also have a switch.
`
`

`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`by providing an energization signal; and
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The switch controllably actuates the motor by providing an energization signal.
`The Brose products each have a controller as generally shown in the pictures below.
`
`
`
`c) a controller having an interface coupled to the
`sensor and the switch for controllably
`energizing the motor; said controller
`programmed with multiple position limits that
`define an acceptable travel range and further
`programmed for controlling movement of the
`window or panel when power is applied to the
`controller by:
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`On information and belief, each controller has an interface coupled to the sensor and
`the switch for controllably energizing the motor. On information and belief, the
`controller is programmed with multiple position limits that define an acceptable travel
`range. On information and belief, the controller is further programmed to control
`movement of the window when power is applied to the controller. This analysis is
`made on information and belief because UUSI has not been given access to Brose’s
`source code.
`On information and belief, the controller is programmed to monitoring the sensor
`output signal from the sensor related to the position of the window or panel. The
`
`i) monitoring the sensor output signal from the
`sensor related to the position of the window or
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,612
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`controller of the Brose products includes a sensor. This analysis is made on information
`and belief because UUSI has not been given access to Brose’s source code.
`On information and belief, the controller is programmed to identify the position of the
`window based on the sensor output signal. Testing has shown that the sensor generates
`a wave form output based on detection of the ring shaped magnet that is attached to the
`motor armature. This signal can travel through the conductive traces of the controller
`for monitoring by the processor. The signal of the Hall-effect sensor is related to the
`movement of the window because the Hall-effect sensor detects rotation of the motor
`armature and rotation of the motor armature drives the movement of the window. By
`counting the pulses of the Hall-effect sensor, the position of the window can be
`identified. The sensor senses a collision by adjusting an obstacle detection threshold in
`real time based on immediate past measurements of the signal sensed by the sensor to
`adapt to varying conditions encountered during operation of the window. This analysis
`is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been given access to Brose’s
`source code.
`On information and belief, the controller is programmed to output a control signal to
`the switch to deactivate the motor in response to sensing that the window has stopped
`moving prior to reaching a position limit. Testing shows that the Brose products
`reverse in response to the window contacting an obstacle. This analysis is made on
`information and belief because UUSI has not been given access to Brose’s source code.
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`panel;
`
`ii) identifying the position of the window or
`panel based on the sensor output signal from the
`sensor; and
`
`iii) outputting a control signal to said switch to
`deactivate said motor in response to a sensing
`said window or panel has stopped moving prior
`to reaching a position limit.
`
`
`
`
`18022628.1