• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Audi patent ‘data communication’ granted

15. December 2020

The patent application for the Audi patent ‘Data communication’ was rejected by the DPMA, but Audi appealed against this before the BPatG – successfully. The focus was on the question of whether the exact sequence of steps for data communication was inventively different from the known prior art.

Datenkommunikation - Audi PatentBasically, this Audi patent revolves around linking the cockpit and infotainment system in vehicles with navigation, Internet, mobile  phone and audio/video. These service functions of all modern vehicles require an exchange of all data, i.e. data communication in vehicles. This is achieved by virtualization with multiple operating systems through a hypervisor. In such a data transfer method, Ethernet data packets are transferred between a partition and a network interface; in practice, however, this can lead to an undesirable increased CPU load.

Data communication between virtual machines with network interface

This is where the patent of Audi AG (patent 10 2018 200 555.9) comes in: the patent application presents a vehicle electronics unit with at least two virtual machines (patent claim 1) and a data communication method (patent claim 7). On the one hand, the special interaction of various hardware and software components of a vehicle electronics unit is described, and on the other hand, the method for data communication with special features is described, according to which the received data packet is part of a data message which, in addition to the header, also has a message signaling interrupt. This, in turn, is provided to a message signaling interrupt control function (an ‘ MSI handler ‘) which provides a virtual interrupt to the virtual machine.

This Audi patent ‘data communication’ is fully entitled “Vehicle electronics unit having a physical network interface and a plurality of virtual machines having virtual network interfaces, and data communication method between the virtual machines and the network interface to a local vehicle network of a vehicle”.

Examination of inventive step – which publications are known?

DPMA had rejected the patent application on the grounds that it was not based on an inventive step. This is a frequent point of dispute for the rejection of a patent application and also for the maintenance of a patent. For the examination of inventive step (§ 4 German Patent Act), the known prior art is used and the question is clarified whether the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Publication P1: Network Access for Virtual Machine Motors

In the case of the Audi patent ‘ Data Communication ‘, publication P1 was important (William, P. et al.: Concurrent Direct Network Access for Virtual Machine Monitors. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 13th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture. Scottsdale, AZ, USA (2007)).

This is because the P1 publication describes hardware and software mechanisms that allow multiple isolated virtual machines managed by a “virtual machine monitor” – i.e., a hypervisor – to have simultaneous direct network access.

However, at least the instructions of features M2.1, M4.2, M4.3, M5.1 and M5.2 are not to be taken from P1, the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) explained. These features relate in particular to the mode of operation of the claimed filter and routing unit (in particular according to feature M2.1) and also do not result for the skilled person in an obvious way from the P1 publication.

The BpatG conceded that it could generally be inferred from P1 that the data packets are transferred by DMA accesses via an Ethernet network and that a PCI-based system is used for this purpose. However, P1 does not provide any reason for the special approach of the patent applied for to transmit an input message to an Ethernet driver simultaneously with the writing of a data packet into an RX buffer of the network card, which in turn sends a trigger signal to a filter and routing unit, which by means of another trigger signal causes a PCIe driver to copy the data packet via its own DMA outputs.

Publication P2: Exchanging data packets between virtual machines

Publication P2 (US 7 620 955 B1) also does not suggest the Audi invention, the court added. Publication P2 describes the exchange of data packets between virtual machines in kernel-based virtualized systems in which both real physical and virtual buffers are provided for data exchange.

It is true that P2 discloses a specific sequence of steps performed between the receipt of a data packet and the copying of that packet into a “guest receive packet data buffer”. However, the BPatG ruled that a person skilled in the art could not derive any suggestion from this to carry out the exact and specific sequence of the individual data processing units according to patent claim 1 in the Audi patent. In addition, the transfer of the data packet in P2 also does not use a filtering and routing unit that was provided by a “virtual machine monitor” according to filtering and routing rules (feature M2.1). The fact that the filter and routing unit evaluates a header of a data packet and transmits a data packet via its own DMA outputs is also not evident from the publication P2.

Appeal was successful

The DPMA’s rejection decision was therefore overturned by the court and the patent – filed on January 15, 2018 – was granted in full.

This case shows once again that an appeal against a patent rejection by the Examining Office can be quite successful. The more specialized the expertise is for assessing the invention, the more possibilities there are for a successful appeal.

Feel free to contact us, our team of patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law has years of expertise and well-founded knowledge.

 

 

Sources: 

Judgement of BPatG Audi Patent ‘data communication’, 17 W (pat) 14/20

Image:

Pexels | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconAudi,  Audi Patent,  Audi patent data communication,  cockpit and infotainment system,  complaint,  data communication,  vehicles,  virtual machines

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.