Michelotti v. Robert Bosch, LLC

204 F.Supp.3d 938

Paul MICHELOTTI, Plaintiff,

v.ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-CV-14441

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed September 6, 2016

Paul Michelotti, Boca Raton, FL, pro se.

Jonathan H. Margolies, Katherine W. Schill, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI, Joseph G. Burgess, Burgess Law Office, Auburn Hills, MI, for Defendant.

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY DUE TO INDEFITENESS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Dkt. 29): (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (Dkt. 28); AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER CLAIMANT'S RESPONSIVE BRIEF (Dkt. 35)

Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a patent infringement case in which pro se Plaintiff Paul Michelotti ("Plaintiff") alleges that Defendant Robert Bosch, LLC ("Defendant") has engaged in development, testing, and manufacture of automobile systems that infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,023,221 ('221 Patent). Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Due to Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. (Dkt. 29.) In this summary judgment motion, Defendant argues that the '221 is invalid for indefiniteness because it does not disclose corresponding algorithms in the written description section of the patent for functions set forth in independent Claim 1.

Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Infringement Proceeding Pending Resolution of Counterclaims (Dkt. 28) and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Claimant's Responsive Brief Filed with the Court (Dkt. 35).

The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided upon the briefs.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Infringement Proceeding Pending Resolution of Counterclaims and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Claimant's Responsive Brief Filed with the Court. The parties are to work with the Court's Technical Adviser Christopher G. Darrow to propose a schedule for the remaining part of this case.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is the named inventor and owner of U.S. Patent 6,023,221 ('221 Patent) which discloses an automotive safety system that automatically activates an automobile's blinking hazard warning lights when the vehicle decelerates quickly such as in a hard braking situation. Abstract, '221 Patent. The hazard warning lights are also activated independently of the brakes so that even in an accident situation, where the driver does not press the brake pedal but the automobile collides with another object and decelerates quickly, the blinking hazard lights will be activated.

The "Background of the Invention" section of the patent explains why the invention is useful. The invention is designed to prevent rear end automobile collisions. A second vehicle following behind another lead vehicle cannot typically tell how quickly the lead vehicle is decelerating. Where the lead vehicle decelerates quickly, a car following the lead vehicle may not appreciate how quickly the lead automobile has decelerated and collide into the rear end of the lead vehicle. The invention disclosed in the '221 Patent solves this problem by having a system in the lead vehicle that will detect when the vehicle is decelerating quickly and, if so, turn on the blinking hazard lights. By turning on the hazard lights in the lead vehicle, a driver in an automobile following the lead vehicle will know that the lead vehicle is decelerating rapidly. '221 Pat. col. 1:17-22. The '221 Patent states: "An automatic activation system, by providing the earliest possible indication of heavy braking or collision, would great diminish the frequency and severity of such events." Id. at col. 1:39-41.

The Abstract of the patent describes the invention:

An automotive safety system that will automatically activate hazard warning lights under circumstances of hard braking or sudden stoppage. The system incorporates an accelerometer which measures the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and a microcontroller which processes the acceleration readings. When a series of deceleration values in excess of a predetermined threshold is detected, the microcontroller transmits an activation signal and the hazard warning lights are activated to warn other motorists. The hazard lights, when activated, remain active until they are either manually reset by the vehicle operator or automatically reset by the microcontroller when it detects a series of positive acceleration values consistent with normal vehicle operation. The hazard warning lights of this system are activated independently of the brake lights such that, in an accident situation, the hazard lights will activate even if the vehicle operator has not pressed the brake pedal.

Id.

The '221 Patent includes one figure, which is reproduced below:

?

The lone figure included in the '221 Patent shows a schematic diagram of the vehicle lighting control system. The vehicle lighting control system includes a digital accelerometer 20 and a microcontroller 22. The digital accelerometer 20 includes a sensing element with machined microstructures that respond to changes in acceleration with changes in capacitance. Id. at col. 3:13-16. The digital accelerometer 20 converts the changes in capacitance due to acceleration to a digital pulse output. The '221 Patent includes an exemplary digital acceleration unit, which is Model 1010 sold by Silicon Designs, Inc. Id. at col. 3:18-20.

The microcontroller 22 generates a clock signal, which is transmitted to the digital accelerometer 20. The number of pulses generated by the digital accelerometer 20 per clock cycle indicates the amount of acceleration and the direction of acceleration (e.g., acceleration or deceleration). Id. at col. 3:22-26. The microcontroller 22 compares the amount and direction of acceleration to a threshold. The microcontroller 22 transmits an "on" signal to a latching relay 18 when the microcontroller 22 recognizes a pulse count indicative of rapid deceleration resulting from hard or prolonged braking or sudden stoppage. Specific thresholds of deceleration and activation are predetermined. Id. at col. 3:32-37.

When the latching relay 18 receives the "on" signal from the microcontroller 22 (indicating rapid deceleration), the latching relay 18 closes, and the vehicle electrical system voltage is supplied to the turn signal/hazard warning relay 24, which activates the vehicle's hazard lights. Id. at col. 3:46-48. The latching relay 18, and therefore the signal/hazard warning relay 24, remain closed until the latching relay 18 receives a subsequent "off" signal from either the microcontroller 22, or the driver actuating a pushbutton switch. Id. at col. 3:43-45. The microcontroller 22 sends an "off" signal to the latching relay 18 when the pulse count received from the digital accelerometer 20 indicates normal positive acceleration. Id. at col. 3:37-40.

The '221 Patent has only one independent claim, Claim 1. Claim 1 of the '221 Patent states:

1. In a motor vehicle having hazard warning lights and a manual control switch, an improvement consisting of electronic circuitry which causes the hazard warning lights to automatically activate under circumstances of rapid decelearation [sic ] and to remain activated until manaually [sic ] reset by the vehicle operator or automatically reset by electronic recognition of a resumption of normal vehicle operation, said electronic circuitry comprising:

sensing means to detect acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle;

said sensing means including means to produce a signal indicating the rate of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle;

means to determine when the rate of deceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold level for a predetermined time interval;

means to automatically activate the hazard warning lights when said rate of deceleration exceeds said predetermined threshold level for said predetermined time interval;

means to maintain hazard warning light activity beyond the incident of deceleration which causes activation;

means to automatically deactivate the hazard warning lights when the rate of deceleration drops below the predetermined threshold level for a predetermined length of time and changes in acceleration of the vehicle indicate normal vehicle operation; and

whereby the hazard lights are automatically activated to provide a warning that a rapid deceleration of the vehicle is occurring or has taken place and automatically deactivate when normal operation of the vehicle is resumed.

'221 Pat. col. 4:ll. 16-48.

Plaintiff filed this case on November 19, 2014, alleging that Defendant infringed Claim 1 of the '221 Patent. (Compl., Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 30, 2015. (Dkt. 10.) Defendant denied infringing Claim 1, and raised affirmative defenses and counterclaims including invalidity. (Answer, Dkts. 8 and 11.)

Following an unsuccessful mediation, Defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment arguing that the '221 patent is invalid for indefiniteness because the written description section of the patent does not disclose algorithms for functions set forth in Claim 1, the only independent claim. (S.J. mot., Dkt. 29.)

Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay this case pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment presently before the Court (Dkt. 28) and a motion to strike Defendant's reply brief in support of its summary judgment motion (Dkt. 35) because Defendant's reply brief allegedly introduces new arguments not raised in Defendant's principal brief.

III. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is representing himself. In this Circuit, pleadings drafted by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers....