IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:13-cv-10444
`HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
`Mag. Judge Randon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC, a Michigan domestic limited
`Liability company, d/b/a NARTRON,
`
`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
`
`

`

`September 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attachment E
`
`Attachment E
`
`
`
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1033
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`Claim 1. Apparatus for controlling motion of a
`motor driven element in a vehicle over a range
`of motion and for altering said motion when
`undesirable resistance to said motion is
`encountered, said apparatus comprising:
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`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”):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`The Brose products control the motion of a motor driven element in a vehicle (a
`window in the case of the Brose products) over a range of motion and alter the motion
`when undesirable resistance to the motion is encountered. Testing shows that the Brose
`products reverse in response to the motor driven element encountering an obstruction.
`Each of the Brose products includes a controller that controls the operation of the
`motor. The controllers of the Brose products are pictured below:
`
`a) a sensor for measuring a parameter of a
`motor coupled to the motor driven element that
`varies in response to a resistance to motion
`during all or part of a range of motion of the
`motor driven element;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As indicated, each of the controllers includes a sensor shown in the pictures above.
`From the markings on the sensors (shown in the pictures below), the sensors are Hall-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`effect sensors part nos. VF526DT and SGGD4. With reference to the pictures below, the
`sensors measure a parameter of the motor coupled to the motor driven element that
`varies in response to a resistance to motion during all or part of a range of motion of
`the motor driven element. Particularly,
`the Hall-effect sensors take discrete
`measurements by detecting 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 motion of the motor driven element.
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`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 and that this wave form output varies in response to a resistance
`to the motion during all or part of the range of motion of the motor driven element.
`The controller of the Brose products also include at least a processor as indicated in the
`pictures below:
`
`b) a memory for storing a number of
`measurement values from the sensor based on
`immediate past measurements of said parameter
`over at least a portion of a present traversal of
`said motor driven element through said range of
`motion;
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each processor has memory for storing a number of measurement values from the
`sensor based on immediate past measurements of the parameter over at least a portion
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`of a present traversal of the motor driven element through the range of motion. The
`product datasheet for each processor indicates that the processor has RAM memory. As
`shown in the pictures above, each processor is electrically connected to the sensor by
`multiple conductive traces. Accordingly, number of measurement values may be
`communicated from the sensor and to the processor where they are stored as the motor
`driven element moves through its range of motion. This analysis is made on
`information and belief because UUSI has not been given access to Brose’s source code.
` The processor of the Brose products is also a controller. Because the memory and the
`controller are both within the processor, the controller is coupled to the memory. On
`information and belief, the controller de-activates the motor based on a most recent
`sensor measurement of the parameter and the immediate past measurement values
`stored in the memory obtained during a present run through the motor driven element’s
`range of motion. As shown in the pictures below, the processor has multiple inputs and
`outputs that are used to deactivate the motor based on parameter inputs.
`
`c) a controller coupled to the memory for
`determining to de-activate the motor based on a
`most recent sensor measurement of the
`parameter and the immediate past measurement
`values stored in the memory obtained during a
`present run through the motor driven element
`range of motion; and
`
`d) a controller interface coupled to the motor for
`altering motion of said motor driven element
`during the present run in response to a
`determination made by the controller.
`
`
`
`This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been given
`access to Brose’s source code.
`Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products also have a controller interface that
`is coupled to the motor.
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The controller interface of the Brose products is a motor relay that alters motion of the
`motor driven element during the present run in response to a determination made by the
`controller. Specifically, the controller interface (i.e. the motor relay) selectively
`provides electricity to the motor to activate, deactivate, and/or reverse the motor based
`on a determination made by the controller.
`
`
`
`Brose makes, sells, or offers for sale the anti-pinch window lifter products shown in the
`pictures below (hereafter “the Brose products”):
`
`
`
`Claim 2. A method for controlling motion of a
`motor driven element in a vehicle over a range
`of motion and for altering said motion when
`undesirable resistance to said motion is
`encountered, said method comprising:
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Brose products practice the method of Claim 2 in that the Brose products perform
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`a) measuring a parameter of a motor coupled to
`the motor driven element that varies in response
`to a resistance to motion during all or part of a
`range of motion of the motor driven element by
`taking a multiplicity of measurements as the
`motor moves the motor driven element over its
`range of motion;
`
`the claimed steps for the purpose of controlling the motion of a motor driven element in
`a vehicle over a range of motion and for altering the motion when undesirable
`resistance to the motion is encountered. Testing shows that the Brose products reverse
`in response to undesirable resistance to the motion of the motor driven element.
`The Brose products include a Hall-effect sensor. With reference to the pictures below,
`the sensor performs the method step of measuring a parameter of a motor coupled to
`the motor driven element that varies in response to a resistance to motion during all or
`part of a range of motion of the motor driven element by taking a multiplicity of
`measurements as the motor moves the motor driven element over its range of motion.
`The motor armature shown below is coupled to the motor driven element via a worm
`gear. The Hall-effect sensor measures a parameter of the motor by detecting the
`rotation of the black magnetic ring that is mounted on the motor armature shown in the
`pictures below.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`b) storing a number of measurement values
`based on measurements of said parameter over
`an immediate past portion of a present run
`through said range of motion;
`
`
`Testing has shown that the sensor generates a wave form output comprising a
`multiplicity of measurements as the motor moves the motor driven element over its
`range of motion.
`The controller of the Brose products include at least a processor as indicated in the
`pictures below:
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On information and belief, the processor of the Brose products has memory that
`performs the method step of storing a number of measurement values based on
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`measurements of the parameter over an immediate past portion of a present run through
`the range of motion. The product datasheet for each processor indicates that the
`processor has RAM memory. As shown in the pictures above, each processor is
`electrically connected to the sensor by multiple conductive traces. Accordingly,
`measurement values may be communicated from the sensor and to the processor where
`they are stored. 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 processor of the Brose products (as shown in the
`pictures above) also performs the method step of determining that the parameter is
`outside a parameter range based on stored measurement values obtained during the
`immediate past portion as the motor driven element moves over its range of motion.
`Again, the processor has RAM memory that can store measurement values obtained
`during the immediate past portion as the motor driven element moves over its range of
`motion. This analysis is made on information and belief because UUSI has not been
`given access to Brose’s source code.
`Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products also have a controller interface also
`known as a motor relay.
`
`c) determining that the parameter is outside a
`parameter range based on stored measurement
`values obtained during the immediate past
`portion as the motor driven element moves over
`its range of motion; and
`
`d) altering motion of said motor driven element
`during the present run in response to a
`determination that the parameter is outside the
`parameter range.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`The controller interface of the Brose products performs the method step of altering the
`motion of the motor driven element during the present run in response to a
`determination that the parameter is outside the parameter range. Specifically, the
`controller interface (i.e. the motor relay) selectively provides electricity to the motor to
`activate, deactivate, and/or reverse the motor based on whether the parameter is outside
`the parameter range.
`
`
`Brose makes, sells, or offers for sale the anti-pinch window lifter products shown in the
`pictures below (hereafter “the Brose products”):
`
`
`Claim 7. Apparatus for controlling activation of
`a motor for moving an object along a travel path
`and de-activating the motor if an obstacle is
`encountered by the object comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`a) a movement sensor for monitoring movement
`of the object as the motor moves said object
`along a travel path;
`
`
`The Brose products control activation of a motor for moving an object along a travel
`path and de-activating the motor if an obstacle is encountered by the object. Testing
`shows that the Brose products reverse in response to the window encountering an
`obstacle.
`Each of the Brose products includes a controller that controls the operation of the
`motor. The controllers of the Brose products are pictured below:
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As indicated, each of the controllers includes a movement sensor shown in the pictures
`above. From the markings on the movement sensors (shown in the pictures below), the
`movement sensors can be identified as Hall-effect sensors part nos. VF526DT and
`SGGD4. With reference to the pictures below, the movement sensors monitor movement
`of the object as the motor moves the object along a travel path. Particularly, the Hall-
`effect sensors monitor movement of the window by detecting rotation of the black
`magnetic ring that is mounted on the motor armature shown in the pictures below.
`Rotation of the motor armature drives the window so movement of the object is
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`monitored by detecting rotation of the motor armature.
`
`
`
`b) a switch for controlling energization of the
`
`
`Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products also have a switch.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`
`motor with an energization signal; and
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,579,802
`
`
`BROSE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The switch controls energization of the motor with an energization signal.
`Referring to the pictures below, the Brose products have a controller.
`
`
`
`c) a controller includ