Stragent, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

On January 3, 2023, Stragent, LLC (“Stragent” or “Plaintiff”), represented by George Pazuniak and Sean T. O'Kelly of O'Kelly & O'Rourke, LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW AG” or “Defendant”), seeking damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 10,031,790 (“the ‘790 Patent”), 10,002,036 (“the ‘036 Patent”), and 9,705,765 (“the ‘765 Patent”) entitled “System, Method and Computer Program Product for Sharing Information in a Distributed Framework” owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “AUTOSAR (AUTomotive Open System ARchitecture) is an enabling technology, and, particularly, a layered system for sharing information in an automobile vehicle, which has been standardized by a worldwide development partnership of vehicle manufacturers, suppliers and other companies from the electronics, semiconductor and software industry. AUTOSAR comprises, among other things, a set of specifications describing software architecture components and defining their interfaces.”

The plaintiff further stated, “The BMW Group is a Core Partner in the AUTOSAR consortium. The first BMW automobiles incorporating the Autosar technology were the 2009 model year BMW Series 7. Since then, Autosar has become the standard in all BMW automobiles. Simon Furst, General Manager Software Development and Software Infrastructure for BMW AG, confirmed that AUTOSAR has been implemented as the core common requirement of all electronic control units of all BMW automobiles, or, in Mr. Furst’s words: ‘ONE ARCHITECTURE. ONE STANDARD. AUTOSAR’.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “BMW AG has directly infringed independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 6, 8 and 9 of the ‘790 Patent, by importing or causing to be imported into this country, and causing BMW NA to offer for sale and sell the Accused Instrumentalities and BMW Autos with Accused Instrumentalities, without license or authority. Infringement is confirmed by the claim charts served by Plaintiff on BMW NA and which have been available to BMW AG. BMW AG’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to Plaintiff.”

Plaintiff alsoalleged, “BMW AG has directly infringed independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 9, 19, 34, 38, 72, 79, 82 and 98, and independent claim 102 and its dependent claims 103, 106 through 114, 117, 121 and 122, of the ‘036 Patent, by importing or causing to be imported into this country, and causing BMW NA to offer for sale and sell the Accused Instrumentalities and BMW Autos with Accused Instrumentalities, without license or authority.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “BMW AG has directly infringed independent claim 12 and independent claim 24 and its dependent claims 26, 27, 28 and 31, of the ‘765 Patent, by importing or causing to be imported into this country, and causing BMW NA to offer for sale and sell the Accused Instrumentalities and BMW Autos with Accused Instrumentalities, without license or authority. Infringement is confirmed by the claim charts served by Plaintiff on BMW NA and which have been available to BMW AG. BMW AG’s acts of infringement have caused and continue to cause damage to Plaintiff.”

Plaintiff stated three claims for relief, including alleged infringement of the asserted patents.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award of damages costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and post-judgment royalties.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. all statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of unicourt. additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. to view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a unicourt account.