Bunker Hill Tech LLC v. Volvo Car Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Volvo Car Corporation (Sweden); Volvo Car USA LLC (Delaware); Polestar Performance AB (Sweden)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00742, E.D. Tex., 08/24/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for Volvo Car USA LLC due to its regular and established place of business in the district. For Volvo Car Corporation and Polestar Performance AB, both foreign corporations, Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' electric and hybrid-electric vehicles infringe three U.S. patents related to intelligent energy management, power system control, and multi-device charging systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for optimizing energy consumption and charging in electric vehicles, a critical domain for improving range, battery life, and efficiency in the growing electric vehicle market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's licensing agent provided Defendants with notice of infringement prior to filing suit. This includes a letter to Volvo regarding a potential license as early as October 2025, subsequent correspondence including claim charts in April 2026, a telephonic conference in July 2026, and a separate notice letter to Polestar. This history is cited to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-03-09	U.S. Patent No. 8,086,364 Priority Date
2010-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 9,821,668 Priority Date
2011-09-06	U.S. Patent No. 8,326,467 Priority Date
2011-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 8,086,364 Issue Date
2012-12-04	U.S. Patent No. 8,326,467 Issue Date
2017-11-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,821,668 Issue Date
2025-10-14	Alleged pre-suit notice to Volvo begins
2026-04-07	Plaintiff's agent allegedly sends claim charts to Volvo
2026-07-09	Alleged telephonic conference between Plaintiff and Volvo
2026-08-24	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,364 - "System and method for operation of electric and hybrid vehicles"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,086,364, "System and method for operation of electric and hybrid vehicles," issued December 27, 2011 Compl. ¶66

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty in optimizing the energy usage of a hybrid or electric vehicle's battery without knowledge of future power demands related to the planned travel route (e.g., hills, traffic) '364 Patent, col. 1:17-48 Conventional control systems are reactive and cannot proactively manage the battery's state of charge for maximum efficiency '364 Patent, col. 1:43-48
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that builds and uses a historical power-use database tied to specific road segments ("links") on a map '364 Patent, abstract By identifying a vehicle's current and future location on a route, the system can query the database for historical power consumption data for upcoming road links and predict future energy needs '364 Patent, Fig. 6 This predictive capability allows the vehicle's controller to optimize the battery's state of charge in advance, improving overall efficiency '364 Patent, col. 2:37-45
• Technical Importance: This data-driven, predictive approach to energy management represented a method to enhance vehicle efficiency beyond the capabilities of purely reactive control systems prevalent at the time '364 Patent, col. 2:37-45

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 Compl. ¶83
• The essential elements of independent claim 9 are:
  • A method of energy management comprising: identifying a current location of a vehicle;
  • applying a pre-screening algorithm with respect to a link within a map and the current location, the pre-screening algorithm based on a maximum link length of a historical power-use database;
  • determining if one or more links are within a given bounds;
  • if so, matching the current location of the vehicle to the link within the map via a subsequential matching algorithm; and
  • uploading power information used by the vehicle along the link and at the current location into the historical power-use database.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others Compl. ¶82

U.S. Patent No. 8,326,467 - "Controller and method of controlling a power system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,326,467, "Controller and method of controlling a power system," issued December 4, 2012 Compl. ¶67

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of managing power systems that contain a plurality of components, such as different power sources (grid, solar), energy storage (batteries), and various loads '467 Patent, col. 1:19-24 Coordinating these elements efficiently, especially under changing conditions like high demand or fluctuating energy costs, is a significant technical challenge '467 Patent, col. 1:24-32
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and a central controller that monitors the operating conditions of various power system components '467 Patent, abstract Based on this monitoring and predetermined conditions (such as a set time for charging to be complete), the controller transmits commands to other controllers to electrically couple or decouple components from each other, thereby intelligently managing the flow of power throughout the system '467 Patent, abstract '467 Patent, col. 2:1-17
• Technical Importance: This architecture enables sophisticated, automated control strategies for complex power systems, facilitating functions like scheduled charging and load management to improve efficiency and respond to external factors like energy pricing or grid demand '467 Patent, col. 2:1-17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 16 Compl. ¶101
• The essential elements of independent claim 16 are:
  • A method of controlling a power system, comprising: determining, by a first controller, an operating condition of a first power system component and a second power system component (which includes a switchable power storage device);
  • identifying a predetermined time for completing a charging operation of the power storage device;
  • determining whether switching the power storage device from a storage mode to a supply mode will prevent the charging operation from completing within that predetermined time;
  • determining, by the first controller, if a predetermined condition is met based on an operating condition; and
  • transmitting, by the first controller, a command to a second controller to electrically couple or decouple the first and second power system components based on whether the condition is met.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, preserving the right to assert others Compl. ¶100

U.S. Patent No. 9,821,668 - "Method and apparatus for charging multiple energy storage devices"

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,821,668, "Method and apparatus for charging multiple energy storage devices," issued November 21, 2017 Compl. ¶68
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the management of power flow between multiple, distinct energy storage devices in an electric vehicle, such as a high-voltage (HV) propulsion battery and a low-voltage (LV) 12V auxiliary battery '668 Patent, col. 1:17-21 The invention is an energy storage and management system (ESMS) that uses a plurality of DC/DC converters and switching devices to control the charging of these batteries from both external sources (e.g., a wall plug) and internal sources (e.g., regenerative braking), and to manage the power transfer between the different voltage systems '668 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 16 Compl. ¶120
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the electrical architecture of the accused vehicles infringes this patent, specifically their systems for managing and converting power between the 12-Volt battery, the high-voltage traction battery, and charging sources Compl. ¶¶123-132

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the Accused Products as "each Volvo-branded and Polestar-branded vehicle having electric or hybrid-electric powertrain systems" Compl. ¶4, fn. 1 The 2025 Volvo EX90 and Polestar 3 are cited as specific, non-limiting examples Compl. ¶¶6 Compl. ¶83

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain sophisticated energy management systems. These systems are alleged to use GPS to identify the vehicle's location and provide navigation features that plan charging stops along a route Compl. ¶¶86-87 A screenshot from a user manual for the 2025 Volvo EX90 states the vehicle "knows its location through GPS" Compl. p. 32 The vehicles allegedly calculate expected range based on both "current and historical" driving patterns Compl. ¶90 They also provide features for scheduled charging, allowing a user to specify when the car should charge Compl. ¶¶105-106 A screenshot from the EX90 manual shows options to "specify when you want the car to charge" Compl. p. 49 The complaint further alleges that Volvo and Polestar share common vehicle platforms, hardware, and software for their electric vehicles Compl. ¶29

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,086,364 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
identifying a current location of a vehicle	The Accused Products identify the vehicle's location using GPS.	¶86	col. 11:20-22
applying a pre-screening algorithm with respect to a link within a map and the current location, the pre-screening algorithm based on a maximum link length of a historical power-use database	The navigation system gathers data like EV range and energy consumption for map links to determine if a charging stop is needed, allegedly based on a historical power-use database.	¶87	col. 14:31-43
determining if one or more links are within a given bounds	The system determines if a road segment leading to a charging station is within the bounds of a planned navigation route.	¶88	col. 14:35-37
if one or more links are within a given bounds, then matching the current location of the vehicle to the link within the map via a subsequential matching algorithm	The system matches the vehicle's location to the map to retrieve relevant data such as vehicle range and power consumption to determine the need for charging.	¶89	col. 14:38-43
uploading power information used by the vehicle along the link and at the current location into the historical power-use database	The system uploads power information, such as state of charge, into a historical database, which is used to calculate range based on "current and historical" driving patterns.	¶90	col. 14:43-48

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's use of "historical" driving patterns Compl. ¶90 constitutes the claimed "historical power-use database." The defense could argue its system uses a general driver behavior profile, whereas the patent specification suggests a more granular database organized by specific geographical map "links" '364 Patent, col. 6:3-7
  • Technical Questions: The court may need to evaluate whether the accused system's route planning functionality performs the distinct steps of a "pre-screening algorithm" and a "subsequential matching algorithm" as required by the claim. The complaint describes a general navigation function, and it may be a point of contention whether this single process can be mapped to the discrete algorithmic steps recited in the claim.

U.S. Patent No. 8,326,467 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
determining, by a first controller, an operating condition of at least one first power system component and at least one second power system component...	The Engine Control Module (ECM) allegedly acts as the "first controller" to determine the operating conditions of the vehicle's charging system and its high-voltage battery.	¶105	col. 15:46-56
identifying a predetermined time for completing a charging operation of the power storage device	The system allows a user to set "start and stop times" or a "departure time" for a charging session, which allegedly identifies a predetermined time for completion.	¶¶106-107	col. 16:9-12
determining whether a switching of the power storage device from the power storage mode of operation to the power supply mode of operation will prevent the charging operation from completing within the predetermined time	The system allegedly determines whether switching from charging to driving mode at the set departure time will prevent the charging operation from finishing.	¶107	col. 16:13-18
determining, by the first controller, whether a predetermined condition is met based on at least one operating condition	The ECM allegedly determines if a condition, such as the battery reaching a full charge, is met based on the battery's charging state.	¶108	col. 16:19-21
transmitting, by the first controller, a command to at least one second controller to...electrically couple...and electrically decouple...based on whether the predetermined condition is met	The ECM allegedly transmits a command to a separate "power delivery module" (the "second controller") to decouple the charging system from the battery once a full charge is reached.	¶109	col. 16:22-30

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may arise over whether the accused system employs two distinct controllers as claimed. The complaint identifies an "ECM" as the "first controller" and a "power delivery module" as the "second controller" Compl. ¶109 The defense may argue these are logically or physically integrated into a single unit, and that no "command" is "transmitted" between them in the manner required by the claim.
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires "identifying a predetermined time for completing a charging operation." The accused functionality involves setting a "departure time" or "stop time" Compl. p. 51 A question for claim construction will be whether setting a time to stop charging is the same as setting a time by which charging must be completed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ('364 Patent): "historical power-use database"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of claim 9. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused system's method of using past driving data falls within the scope of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states the database may include a wide variety of information, such as "power, speed, accessory load, power range, single vehicle statistics, fleet statistics, and the like" '364 Patent, col. 5:32-35, which could support a view that any collection of historical energy-related data qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the database as being organized by geographical "links" corresponding to road segments, with data stored for each link '364 Patent, col. 6:3-7 Table 2 explicitly shows a database structure linking node IDs to link IDs and associated data, suggesting the "database" must be geographically structured, not just a general log of past driving behavior.

• Term ('467 Patent): "first controller" and "second controller"

• Context and Importance: Claim 16 requires a "first controller" to transmit a command to a "second controller." If the accused system's functions are performed by a single, monolithic controller, it may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between one and two controllers is often a critical issue in systems-based claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines controllers broadly as any "suitable programmable circuit" and notes they can be implemented in various ways, including as part of other components '467 Patent, col. 8:64-67 This could support an interpretation where logically distinct software modules within a single physical processor are treated as separate controllers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts several distinct controllers, such as a "central charge controller (132)," a "vehicle controller (130)," and a "load center controller (126)," that communicate with each other. This architectural diagram suggests the claims envision physically or at least architecturally distinct components, not just different software routines in one unit.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement of all three asserted patents. The basis for these allegations is that Defendants provide user manuals, marketing materials, and online instructional content (e.g., on their websites and YouTube channels) that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused features, such as the navigation-based energy management and scheduled charging functionalities Compl. ¶¶91-92 Compl. ¶¶110-111 Compl. ¶¶133-134
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents and their infringement prior to the lawsuit. The complaint details specific communications with Volvo beginning in October 2025 and with Polestar at a later date, including the provision of claim charts demonstrating the alleged infringement Compl. ¶¶70-75 The complaint alleges that Defendants' continued infringement despite this notice constitutes willful, wanton, and deliberate disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights Compl. ¶95 Compl. ¶114 Compl. ¶137

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused vehicles' use of general "historical" driving data to estimate range fall within the scope of the "historical power-use database" claimed in the '364 patent, which the specification appears to describe as a granular database organized by specific geographic road "links"?

2. A key question will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused vehicles' control system feature a "first controller" that transmits a command to a distinct "second controller" as required by claim 16 of the '467 patent, or are the allegedly infringing functions performed by an integrated control unit in a way that falls outside the claim's multi-controller architecture?

3. A central evidentiary question impacting potential damages will be willfulness: did the pre-suit correspondence, including the alleged provision of detailed claim charts to Defendants, provide actual notice sufficient to make any subsequent infringement willful, thereby exposing Defendants to the possibility of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?