`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ETHANOL BOOSTING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`and MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. _____________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`This is an action for willful patent infringement in which Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC
`
`(“EBS”) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make
`
`the following allegations against Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”):
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff EBS is a limited liability company duly existing and organized under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`2.
`
`EBS was co-founded by three MIT researchers who work in the field of internal
`
`combustion engines: Dr. Leslie Bromberg, Dr. Daniel R. Cohn, and Professor John B. Heywood.
`
`3.
`
`During the more than four decades that Dr. Bromberg, Dr. Cohn, and Professor
`
`Heywood have been at MIT, they have been widely recognized as leaders in their field, and have
`
`published hundreds of articles in academic journals and conference proceedings.
`
`4.
`
`For example, Dr. Bromberg is internationally known for his work, including his
`
`work in the fields of vehicle engine and pollution reduction technologies, alternative fuels, and
`
`plasma-based energy technologies. Dr. Bromberg also has received a number of awards for the
`
`1
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 1
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`innovative technologies he has invented, and his inventions have resulted in more than 90
`
`granted United States patents.
`
`5.
`
`Dr. Cohn also is internationally known for his work on improved engine
`
`technologies, alternative transportation fuels, and plasma-based energy and environmental
`
`technologies and has received awards for innovation in transportation and environmental
`
`technologies. He also is a fellow of the American Physical Society, and his inventions have
`
`resulted in more than 80 granted United States patents.
`
`6.
`
`Professor Heywood was the Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at MIT
`
`and has done research and taught classes at MIT on internal combustion engines for decades. He
`
`also literally wrote the book on internal combustion engines. Since first being published in 1988,
`
`his textbook—Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals—has sold more than 130,000 copies
`
`and is widely considered a field-defining publication. A revised and updated second edition was
`
`published in 2018.
`
`7.
`
`Building on its founders’ expertise and inventions, EBS has sought to develop
`
`innovative internal combustion engines and fuel-management systems that result in cleaner and
`
`more efficiently operating internal combustion engines. One of EBS’s approaches for
`
`accomplishing this improvement is through the use of gasoline internal combustion engines and
`
`fuel-management systems that incorporate the MIT/EBS dual port and direct injection
`
`technology at issue in this case.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff MIT is a non-profit private research and educational institution duly
`
`incorporated and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its
`
`principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT’s mission is to advance
`
`knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will
`
`2
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 2
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century. MIT commits itself to generating,
`
`disseminating, and preserving knowledge, and to working with others to bring this knowledge to
`
`bear on the world’s great challenges.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Ford is a corporation duly existing and organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware that makes, sells, and offers for sale in the United States, or imports into the
`
`United States, motor vehicles and related motor vehicles components and accessories, including
`
`those products accused of infringement in this matter.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a) as this action arises under Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ford because Ford is incorporated in the
`
`State of Delaware. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Ford because Ford regularly
`
`transacts business with entities and individuals in the State of Delaware, including one or more
`
`of at least four Ford dealerships located in the State of Delaware, and because Ford manufactures
`
`and distributes infringing motor vehicles and other infringing products that it purposefully directs
`
`into the State of Delaware, including this District, or at least places into the stream of commerce
`
`via established distribution channels with the knowledge and expectation that they will be sold in
`
`the State of Delaware, including in this District.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Ford is
`
`incorporated in the State of Delaware.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`13.
`
`This lawsuit concerns Ford’s infringement of United States Patent No. 8,069,839
`
`(the “’839 Patent”); United States Patent No. 9,255,519 (the “’519 Patent”); United States Patent
`
`3
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 3
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`No. 9,810,166 (the “’166 Patent”); and United States Patent No. 10,138,826 (the “’826 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`14.
`
`Each of the above patents continues from and claims priority to the application
`
`that resulted in United States Patent No. 7,314,033, which was filed on November 18, 2004.
`
`15.
`
`Each of the Asserted Patents was invented by Dr. Bromberg, Dr. Cohn, and
`
`Professor Heywood, who assigned their inventions to MIT before each patent was issued by the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. Since such assignment, MIT has owned and continues to own each
`
`of the Asserted Patents. Further, EBS currently is the exclusive licensee of each Asserted Patent
`
`with the right to sue for any infringement of the Asserted Patents and the exclusive right to
`
`sublicense any alleged infringer of such patents.
`
`16.
`
`Generally speaking, each of the Asserted Patents is directed to engines and/or fuel
`
`management systems that improve over prior art engines and fuel management systems through
`
`their incorporation of MIT/EBS’s dual injection technology, which involves the use of both port
`
`and direct fuel injection. For example, each of the Asserted Patents recites ways in which an
`
`engine or fuel management system employs both port and direct injection such that, at certain
`
`torque values, the engines are fueled by both simultaneously. Further, in some embodiments, the
`
`fraction of fueling provided by direct injection decreases with decreasing torque. Further, in
`
`other embodiments, port fueling alone is utilized when torque is below a certain value.
`
`17.
`
`Such inventions improve over the prior art by, for example, permitting an increase
`
`in engine efficiency and reducing emissions as described in their common specification—
`
`providing the advantages of port fuel injection, which allows for better fuel/air mixing and
`
`combustion stability than direct injection, while also providing the engine knock suppression
`
`advantage associated with direct injection.
`
`4
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 4
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`The inventions disclosed in the Asserted Patents have been revolutionary
`
`throughout the industry. In fact, the patent family to which each of the Asserted Patents belongs
`
`has been cited by over 115 other patents, including dozens of patents filed by Ford and its related
`
`entities such as Ford Global Technologies, LLC.
`
`THE PARTIES’ PAST RELATIONSHIP
`AND FORD’S USE OF PLAINTIFFS’ TECHNOLOGY
`
`19.
`
`Ford incorporated MIT/EBS’s patented dual injection technology into its highly
`
`profitable vehicles even though (a) EBS told Ford that such technology was patented and (b)
`
`Ford indicated to EBS that Ford would not be incorporating the MIT/EBS dual injection
`
`technology into its vehicles and thus did not need a license.
`
`20.
`
`As described below, Ford’s representations were false when made, and Ford has
`
`willfully infringed and continues to willfully infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`21.
`
`Ford has had notice since at least October 2014 of a number of MIT and EBS
`
`patents and pending applications covering the use of dual port and direct injection.
`
`22.
`
`For example, on October 30, 2014, Professor Heywood emailed Dr. Ken
`
`Washington (Ford’s Vice President of Research and Advanced Engineering) and Mr. Bill
`
`Coughlin (Ford’s Global Technologies CEO and chief intellectual-property officer) on behalf of
`
`EBS—attaching a document titled “Optimized Port + Direct Injection for Cleaner and More
`
`Efficient Gasoline Engines.”
`
`23.
`
`In his email, Professor Heywood explained to Ford that EBS “would like to
`
`discuss possible licensing of another important technology to Ford” and that “[t]his technology
`
`involves optimized combinations of port and direct injection for gasoline engines,” which he
`
`explained “could provide a relatively simple and low cost way to reduce particulate emissions in
`
`5
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 5
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`direct-injection gasoline engines without the need for a particulate filter” and “could also be
`
`employed to increase engine efficiency.”
`
`24.
`
`Professor Heywood also wrote that “[t]his technology along with the intellectual
`
`property is further described in the attachment” and that, given their past dealing, EBS “would
`
`like to give Ford the first opportunity to discuss a possible license for this intellectual property
`
`portfolio.” In the referenced attachment, EBS further explained that “EBS has developed a patent
`
`portfolio that includes a variety of options related to minimization of direct injection and
`
`reduction of particulate emissions in gasoline engines,” including “US patents 8,857,410;
`
`8,733,321; 8,302,580; 8,146,568; and 8,069,839.”
`
`25.
`
`Professor Heywood concluded his email by asking Ford to “[p]lease let us know
`
`by December 8, 2014, whether Ford would like to pursue this licensing discussion.” He also
`
`explained that, “while we are excited about the prospect of entering into a licensing agreement
`
`with Ford for the technology, we may approach other potential licensees including the possibility
`
`of entering into an exclusive license with such licensees,” but that “Ford is the first, and only,
`
`company we have approached at this time.”
`
`26.
`
`The next day, Dr. Washington responded on behalf of Ford—stating: “Thank you
`
`for your note with the offer for Ford to be the first to discuss a possible license for this
`
`intellectual property portfolio. I suspect that these technologies have a complex business case. I
`
`will consult with our technical, legal and business teams and get back with you.”
`
`27.
`
`After more than a month passed without EBS hearing back from Ford, Professor
`
`Heywood emailed Dr. Washington again on December 16, 2014—stating: “We have not yet
`
`heard from you and would appreciate knowing where you are in your deliberations and when
`
`you could let let [sic] us know if you would like to discuss the possibility of licensing. We
`
`6
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 6
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`believe the technology [i]s important to address the pressing environmental issue of particulate
`
`emissions in an affordable way and want to move forward in establishing the path for its
`
`utilization. Please let us know if you need any additional information.”
`
`28.
`
`Dr. Washington replied the following day—telling EBS: “We have not forgotten,”
`
`and “[s]omeone will get back with you later in the month of January or early February with our
`
`thoughts.”
`
`29.
`
`After another month passed without EBS hearing back from Ford, Professor
`
`Heywood emailed Dr. Washington on January 23, 2015. In that email, Professor Heywood told
`
`Dr. Washington that EBS had “significantly enhanced our technology and intellectual property
`
`portfolio since I contacted you in October and thought it would be useful to pass on an updated
`
`description (attached).” In the attachment Professor Heywood provided, EBS again identified
`
`several of the patents it was offering to license to Ford, including the ’839 Patent. Professor
`
`Heywood then concluded his email by stating: “We look forward to hearing Ford’s thoughts
`
`about exploration of licensing possibilities of mutual benefit to Ford, MIT and EBS.”
`
`30.
`
`EBS again was met with silence. On February 13, 2015, Professor Heywood thus
`
`wrote Dr. Washington again—telling him “[w]e have not received a response as to whether Ford
`
`will meet with us about possible licensing of the MIT spinoff technology on optimized port
`
`+direct injection,” which Professor Heywood described as “an important part of the solution for
`
`the best available technology for direct injection particulate reduction and can also provide other
`
`benefits.”
`
`31.
`
`Professor Heywood concluded his email by telling Ford: “It has been three and
`
`half months since I first contacted you and we had expected a response from Ford by now based
`
`on your last e-mail. Our only request has been an answer as to whether Ford would meet with us.
`
`7
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 7
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`We have held off in contacting other organizations while awaiting Ford’s response. At this point
`
`we need to know if Ford will meet with us. If not, we will pursue other pathways for moving
`
`forward.” He also added: “We believe there are potential arrangements that are fair and mutually
`
`beneficial to Ford, MIT and EBS. Please let us know whether or not Ford will meet with us to
`
`explore them.”
`
`32.
`
`Two days later on February 15, 2015, Ford’s chief intellectual property officer,
`
`Bill Coughlin, responded. Mr. Coughlin told EBS that he was “cause of the delay” and that
`
`“[u]nless advised otherwise by Ken, Ford will meet with you.” Mr. Coughlin also added that
`
`Ford “should be in a position to advise when we can meet soon.” EBS responded—telling Ford:
`
`“Thanks for your reply. We would like to set up a meeting date as soon as possible. Would a
`
`time in the March 17 to 27th period be feasible?”
`
`33.
`
`After further back and forth, Mr. Coughlin agreed to meet with EBS in person at
`
`MIT on April 17, 2015. Dr. Cohn and Dr. Bromberg attended that meeting in person; Professor
`
`Heywood was traveling but participated via phone.
`
`34.
`
`During that meeting, EBS again underscored the existence and importance of the
`
`patent family at issue in this case. In response, Mr. Coughlin proposed that—in exchange for
`
`EBS agreeing not to assert the patents against Ford—Ford would work with EBS to market other
`
`MIT/EBS technology. Mr. Coughlin also told EBS that Ford did not like to work on technology
`
`that it was infringing and that, as a result, Ford typically would license such technology,
`
`invalidate the patents at issue, or not pursue the technology. Mr. Coughlin also asked Dr.
`
`Bromberg, Dr. Cohn, and Professor Heywood whether they were “greedy inventors” and was
`
`told that the inventors were not greedy but that they did want to be treated fairly.
`
`8
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 8
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`35.
`
`In response, EBS suggested that a better way to proceed was for Ford to analyze
`
`the patents EBS had disclosed and identify any that Ford believed had weaknesses or were
`
`otherwise inapplicable to Ford’s products. EBS explained that, once Ford did so, EBS would be
`
`happy to discuss with Ford the results of such analysis. In response, Mr. Coughlin asked for
`
`more information about Plaintiffs’ pending patent applications and told EBS that Ford expected
`
`to get back to EBS within around two months.
`
`36.
`
`The April 17, 2015 meeting concluded with Dr. Cohn stating that it would be
`
`good if Ford and MIT/EBS could find a resolution that was a win-win for all parties involved.
`
`37.
`
`After not hearing further from Ford, Professor Heywood and Dr. Cohn reached
`
`out to Mr. Coughlin again via email on June 5, 2015. In that email, Professor Heywood reiterated
`
`that EBS wanted to license to Ford but also told Ford “that the value of the MIT/EBS patent
`
`portfolio is much higher than the value represented by Ford’s proposal”—i.e., Ford’s offer to
`
`work with EBS to market other MIT/EBS technology in exchange for EBS agreeing not to assert
`
`the patents for the MIT/EBS dual injection technology at issue in this matter. Professor Heywood
`
`suggested that “a good next step to make further progress is to have an in-person meeting to
`
`discuss the structure of a possible transaction and appropriate valuation / fees” and also
`
`suggested “setting-up a meeting around the end of June, consistent with the timeframe you
`
`suggested for reconnecting during our meeting on April 17t[h].” Professor Heywood also
`
`proposed that—during that meeting—the parties could have “a more detailed discussion of the
`
`patent portfolio and related inventions, and how they may be helpful to Ford.”
`
`38.
`
`Ford did not respond to Professor Heywood’s June 5, 2015 email. On July 6,
`
`2015, Professor Heywood thus reached out to Mr. Coughlin again—stating: “We have not
`
`received a response to our June 5 e-mail and would like to keep moving forward in discussions
`
`9
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 9
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`with Ford.” He also expressed that EBS “would appreciate a reply as to whether you would like
`
`to have a meeting in Dearborn and, if so, a sense of the time frame in which you think it could
`
`occur.” EBS also attempted to reach Mr. Coughlin by phone on July 20, 2015.
`
`39.
`
`Having heard nothing back from Mr. Coughlin, Professor Heywood emailed Dr.
`
`Washington on July 29, 2015—noting that Mr. Coughlin had not replied to EBS’s June 5 email,
`
`July 6 email, or attempted July 20 phone call. Professor Heywood requested a “meeting in
`
`Dearborn to discuss the MIT/EBS technology and how we might thoroughly explore possible
`
`solutions that would be fair and beneficial to all parties”—explaining, “[t]his meeting could
`
`include anyone at Ford that you would like to include, including technical staff and others at
`
`Ford as well as the IP professionals.” Professor Heywood concluded his email by asking Ford to
`
`“[k]indly acknowledge receipt of this e-mail promptly and let us know by August 31 if Ford
`
`wishes to meet with us; and if so, please propose dates that work for Ford. If we have not heard
`
`from you by then, we will assume that Ford is no longer interested in continuing discussions
`
`regarding use of our optimized port + direct injection gasoline engine technology.”
`
`40. Mr. Greg Brown, who at the time was Global Engine Intellectual Property
`
`Counsel at Ford Global Technologies, LLC, replied the following week—writing in an August 3,
`
`2015 email that “Bill Coughlin has asked [him] to step in for him on this matter” and that he
`
`stood “ready to discuss” Ford’s pitch to help EBS license other MIT/EBS technology to third
`
`parties in exchange for a “covenant not to sue” on the MIT/EBS dual injection technology at
`
`issue in this matter.
`
`41.
`
`EBS subsequently had a number of phone calls with Mr. Brown. As part of these
`
`discussions, Dr. Cohn emailed Mr. Brown a “list of MIT/EBS patents and patent applications”
`
`10
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 10
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`on October 12, 2015. That list disclosed several patents that EBS already had discussed with
`
`Ford, including the ’839 Patent (inadvertently described in that list as the “8,069,939” patent).
`
`42. Mr. Brown responded the same day—stating: “I think it is likely critical that we
`
`(Ford) are in a position to review all of the applications in the portfolio” and that “[i]t might be
`
`difficult to progress our discussion until that time.”
`
`43.
`
`EBS’s final licensing conversation with Ford occurred in November 2015. Mr.
`
`Brown told EBS that Ford was not interested in licensing the offered technology and patents. In
`
`response to a question about whether Ford might be interested in the MIT/EBS dual injection
`
`technology for future vehicles, Mr. Brown indicated that Ford had no plans that he knew of to
`
`use that technology in its vehicles. Mr. Brown also declined EBS’s request to involve Ford
`
`engineers in their discussions.
`
`44.
`
`Contrary to what Mr. Brown had indicated to EBS, however, Ford did have
`
`imminent plans to use EBS’s patented technology, incorporating infringing dual port and direct
`
`injection systems in a number of Ford’s EcoBoost engines, as well as some of its V8 engines.
`
`Indeed, not only did Ford have plans to incorporate EBS’s patented technology into its engines
`
`and fuel management systems, but Ford already was incorporating that technology into its
`
`engines and fuel management systems at the same time Ford was telling EBS that Ford had no
`
`plans to use the technology.
`
`45.
`
`For example, just six months after Ford’s last discussion with EBS, Forbes
`
`Magazine published a May 3, 2016, article detailing how several of Ford’s new engines featured
`
`“dual fuel systems with both direct and port injectors for each cylinder.” Such engines included
`
`Ford’s 3.5L EcoBoost engine, which Ford rolled out in its most popular product: the Ford F-150.
`
`11
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 11
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`46.
`
`The article states that Ford “completely redesigned [this engine] from the sump
`
`up”—with the “single most significant change to the engine” being its “new dual fuel system that
`
`now includes both port and direct injection.” The article further explained that the 3.5L EcoBoost
`
`engine previously had used only direct injection and quoted Al Cockerill (a Ford engine systems
`
`supervisor for the 3.5L EcoBoost engine) as explaining how Ford’s switch to a dual port and
`
`direct injection system was what enabled the “engine to meet Tier III emissions standards
`
`without resorting to a particulate filter of the type that is required on modern diesel engines.”
`
`47.
`
`Similar reports soon followed. On July 11, 2016, for example, Motor Trend
`
`Magazine published an article describing Ford’s “all-new, ground-up redesign” of the Ford
`
`“EcoBoost V-6 we’ve become accustomed to since 2010.” In particular, the article described
`
`how Ford had “reveal[ed]” that the 3.5L EcoBoost engine would incorporate Ford’s “first use of
`
`direct and port fuel injection” and that the use of this (infringing) technology had allowed Ford to
`
`increase the engine’s horsepower and “all-important torque.”
`
`48.
`
`Less than a year later, on June 16, 2017, Ford issued a press release explaining
`
`that it was incorporating this new (infringing) dual port and direct injection technology not just
`
`in its 3.5L EcoBoost engines, but a number of other engine options utilized in the Ford F-150,
`
`Ford Expedition, and other Ford models—stating:
`
`For 2018, F-150 introduces an even smaller, more efficient 3.3-liter
`V6 that adds dual port and direct-injection technology to deliver more
`power and torque than the previous 3.5-liter V6, plus improved projected
`EPA-estimated gas mileage – a win-win for customers.
`Aiding in light-weighting, the standard 3.3-liter V6 in the 2018 F-150
`is projected to offer a 5 percent power-to-weight ratio improvement versus
`the steel-bodied 2014 F-150 equipped with 3.7-liter V6 – with better
`anticipated fuel efficiency and performance.
`With advanced dual port and direct-injection technology, the all-new
`second-generation 2.7-liter EcoBoost® engine delivers a 25 lb.-ft. increase
`in torque, and at lower engine speeds compared to a traditional V8. Like
`the second-generation 3.5-liter EcoBoost that debuted last model year, the
`
`12
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 12
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`2.7-liter will be paired to a segment-exclusive 10-speed automatic
`transmission for 2018.
`The 5.0-liter V8 also is enhanced for 2018. This naturally aspirated
`engine brings significant upgrades including advanced dual port and
`direct-injection technology for 10 more horsepower and 13 ft.-lb. of
`torque.
`
`49.
`
`It also has been reported that Ford has incorporated its (infringing) second-
`
`generation 3.5L EcoBoost engine in Ford’s luxury SUV: the Lincoln Navigator. For example, a
`
`July 2018 article in Car and Driver Magazine reported that the 2018 Lincoln Navigator packs the
`
`same “port and direct fuel injection” equipped “450-hp, twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-
`
`6” as the Ford F-150 Raptor.
`
`FORD HAS TOUTED THE BENEFITS OF THE INFRINGING TECHNOLOGY
`
`50.
`
`Ford itself has touted the improvements realized by the incorporation of such
`
`innovative dual port and direct fuel injection technology. For example, in a June 16, 2017 press
`
`release, Ford stated that its new (infringing) EcoBoost engines “add[] dual port and direct-
`
`injection technology to deliver more power and torque than [Ford’s] previous 3.5-liter V6, plus
`
`improved projected EPA-estimated gas mileage—a win-win for customers.”
`
`51.
`
`Further, according to Hua Thai-Tang, Ford’s Executive Vice President of Product
`
`Development and Purchasing, incorporation of this (infringing) dual port and direct injection
`
`technology is what allows Ford to meet its customers’ “unique needs” by “deliver[ing] even
`
`more of the capability and efficiency they are looking for.” Ford also has touted how its
`
`“innovative V6 engines” allow Ford’s customers to “take care of their growing families and
`
`businesses, all with fewer stops for fuel along the way.”
`
`52.
`
`Ford similarly has touted its other dual port and direct injection engines, including
`
`its 5.0L V8 engine, which Ford said it recently “enhanced” with “significant upgrades including
`
`advanced dual port and direct-injection technology.”
`
`13
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 13
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`53.
`
`Ford’s marketing brochures for its vehicles similarly emphasize that its vehicles
`
`and engines use (infringing) dual port and direct-injection technology.
`
`54.
`
`For example, Ford’s 2017 brochure for its F-150 trucks emphasized that its “all-
`
`new, 2nd-generation 3.5L EcoBoost engine” included a “new dual injection system” that
`
`“features both direct injection and port fuel injection. Two injectors per cylinder—one mounted
`
`in the intake port where air enters and another positioned inside the cylinder—work together to
`
`improve power output and efficiency.”
`
`55. Moreover, Ford’s 2018 brochure for the Ford F-150 listed at least three additional
`
`engines incorporating and using this same “dual-injection system.” According to Ford’s
`
`marketing materials, these engines included Ford’s “All-New 3.3L Ti-VCT V6,” Ford’s
`
`“Enhanced 2.7 EcoBoost,” and Ford’s “Enhanced 5.0L Ti-VCT V8.”
`
`56.
`
`Similarly, Ford marketed a “port- and direct-fuel-injected 3.5L EcoBoost engine”
`
`in Ford’s 2018 brochure for the Ford Expedition.
`
`57.
`
`Further, Ford’s 2018 brochures for its Mustang sports car touted a “more
`
`powerful, higher-revving 5.0L V8” engine in the Mustang GT “[t]hanks to a new dual-injection
`
`system featuring low-pressure port fuel injection and high-pressure direct injection.” That
`
`brochure also promoted that this “New Dual-Injection System” would “improve power output
`
`and efficiency over a wide variety of engine loads.”
`
`58.
`
`Ford has realized substantial revenues and profits from its sale of such infringing
`
`products. For example, in June 2018 it was reported that “the F-Series pickup truck franchise
`
`[was expected] to produce $42 billion in revenues this year, to generate earnings before interest,
`
`taxes and other items of more than $10 billion, and to produce net income of about $6.5 billion.”
`
`14
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 14
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`The vast majority of those F-150s included engines and fuel management systems that
`
`incorporate EBS’s patented technology.
`
`59.
`
`It also has been reported that, “[i]n terms of profitability,” sales of the F-Series
`
`alone would place Ford “well inside the top 50 companies in the U.S.”—generating “more profit
`
`than giants such as McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), 3M Co. (MMM), and United Technologies Corp.
`
`(UTX).” For example, it has been reported that industry estimates “of Ford F-Series net profit
`
`would place the business at a rank of around #38 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list.”
`
`60.
`
`Further, in its January 3, 2019 Form 8-K report to the Securities and Exchange
`
`Commission, Ford disclosed that its F-Series “finished 2018 with a record 10 straight months
`
`above 70,000 pickups sold” and “had record transaction prices in 2018.”
`
`COUNT 1
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,069,839
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as if fully
`
`set forth herein and further state:
`
`62.
`
`The ’839 Patent was duly and legally issued on December 6, 2011. A true and
`
`correct copy is attached as Exhibit A. Collectively, Plaintiffs hold all rights and title to such
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to bring a claim for its infringement.
`
`63.
`
`As described below, Ford has directly infringed the ’839 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, without authorization, products that practice claims of the ’839
`
`Patent.
`
`64.
`
`At a minimum, such infringing products include what Ford calls its “second
`
`generation” “EcoBoost” engines and fuel management systems, including Ford’s 2.7L EcoBoost
`
`engine and fuel management system, 3.5L EcoBoost engine and fuel management system, and
`
`15
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 15
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`High Output 3.5L EcoBoost engine and fuel management system. Such infringing products also
`
`include Ford’s 3.3L Ti-VCT and 5.0L Ti-VCT V8 engines and fuel management systems, and
`
`other Ford engines that utilize dual port and direct fuel injection. Such infringing products also
`
`include those vehicles that include such dual port and direct injection engines and/or fuel
`
`management systems.
`
`65.
`
`For example, Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the claims of the ’839 Patent.
`
`Claim 1 recites “[a] spark ignition engine that is fueled both by direct injection and by port
`
`injection wherein above a selected torque value the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel
`
`that is port injected increases; and wherein the engine is operated at a substantially stoichiometric
`
`fuel/air ratio.” Claim 2 recites “[t]he spark ignition engine of claim 1 where the ratio of directly
`
`injected fuel to port injected fuel increases with increasing torque.”
`
`66.
`
`Ford’s 3.5L EcoBoost engine, including its fuel management system, meets every
`
`element of these claims.1
`
`
`1 This description of infringement is illustrative and not intended to be an exhaustive or limiting
`explanation of every manner in which Ford’s products infringe.
`
`16
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 16
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`67.
`
`As the below Ford image reflects, the engine is fueled by both port and direct fuel
`
`injection:
`
`https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/features/power/.
`
`68.
`
`Further, as demonstrated by the below figure from a July 2018 report issued by
`
`the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford’s 3.5L EcoBoost engine, including its
`
`
`
`17
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 17
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`fuel management system, utilizes such port and direct fuel injection such that, above a selected
`
`value of torque (e.g., above approximately 40% absolute engine load), the proportion of fuel that
`
`is introduced via direct injection (as compared to port injection) increases:
`
`69.
`
`Further, as also demonstrated by the above figure from the July 2018 National
`
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, Ford’s 3.5L EcoBoost engine, including its fuel
`
`
`
`18
`
`FORD Ex. 1122, page 18
` IPR2020-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`management system, utilizes such port and direct fuel injection such that the ratio of direct
`
`injected fuel to port injected fuel continues to increase with increasing torque such that up to
`
`80% of the fuel is injected via direct injection at certain torque values (e.g., approximately 60%
`
`absolute engine load).
`
`70.
`
`Further, as evidenced in part by the fact that the Ford F-150 is