Foras Technologies v. Toyota & Denso: Lockstep Processor Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
Foras Technologies asserted three patents covering lockstep processor fault-tolerance and firmware recovery systems against Toyota Motor Corp. and Denso Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. After 394 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, all claims were dismissed without prejudice — leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Automotive safety-processor patents meet a no-merits exit in E.D. Texas
Foras Technologies, Ltd. filed suit on April 5, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00150) against Toyota Motor Corp. and Denso Corporation, asserting three U.S. patents — US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 — directed at lockstep processor architectures used for fault-tolerance and firmware recovery in embedded automotive systems. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the district’s chief patent jurist.
On May 3, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss, representing that they had ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief.’ The Court granted the motion the same day, dismissing all claims without prejudice and ordering each side to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. The without-prejudice designation means no final merits adjudication occurred; Foras retains the legal ability to reassert the patents subject to applicable limitations periods.
The 394-day duration suggests substantive pre-trial activity — potentially including claim construction briefing or licensing negotiations — before the parties reached resolution. The public record does not disclose the financial or licensing terms of any agreement, making it unclear whether a royalty-bearing licence, a covenant not to sue, or another commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal. The each-party-bears-own-costs order is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 394 days
394 days — slightly above median for E.D. Texas patent dismissals without trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint exit means for both parties
Without prejudice: no merits ruling, future claims preserved
A dismissal without prejudice under the Federal Rules means the Court made no ruling on the validity, enforceability, or infringement of the three asserted patents. Foras Technologies retains the right to reassert US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 against Toyota, Denso, or other parties in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreement reached between the parties.
No merits adjudicationForas exits with patents intact and claims unlitigated
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the patents have not been found invalid or not infringed. Foras may have secured a licensing arrangement or other commercial terms from Toyota and Denso that the public record does not disclose. Critically, the patents remain available as enforcement tools against other automotive or embedded-systems companies whose products incorporate lockstep processor architectures.
Patents remain enforceableToyota and Denso avoid a merits ruling — but risk lingers
Toyota and Denso obtained dismissal without a finding of infringement, preserving their litigation record. However, without a declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement, neither company has court-confirmed freedom to operate. Each party bearing its own costs suggests the resolution was consensual rather than a clear defendant win. The without-prejudice nature means the patents could resurface in future enforcement actions against either company.
No invalidity ruling securedLockstep processor IP remains a live risk for automotive suppliers
The unlitigated exit leaves the three lockstep patents in play across the automotive ECU and safety-critical embedded systems sector. Tier-1 suppliers and OEMs developing ASIL-compliant architectures that rely on lockstep CPU designs — common in powertrain, ADAS, and chassis-control modules — should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The absence of IPR petitions or invalidity findings means no public prior-art record has narrowed their claim scope.
Active enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Foras Technologies, Ltd. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 covering lockstep processor systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Toyota Motor, Corp. | Company | Toyota Motor Corp. and Denso Corporation — global automotive OEM and Tier-1 supplier of embedded vehicle control systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Denso Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Drew Bennett Hollander | Attorney | Counsel for Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Raymond Hasenour | Attorney | Counsel for Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Foras Technologies, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Routh | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order adopts the joint motion language verbatim, confirming that the parties themselves represented a private resolution of claims — the Court did not assess merits. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it forecloses no future action on these patents. The denial-as-moot language for all other pending relief suggests the case had accumulated substantive motions, consistent with a dispute that progressed beyond initial pleadings before settlement terms were reached.
US7502958B2, US7627781B2 & US7624302B2 — Lockstep Processor Fault-Tolerance Systems
The three asserted patents — US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 — share a common application cluster (application numbers 10/973076, 10/973077, and 10/972588) and cover interrelated aspects of lockstep processor architectures. Lockstep designs run two or more processor cores in parallel, comparing outputs to detect faults — a foundational technique in ISO 26262 functional-safety implementations. The patents specifically address spare-processor recovery when the boot processor loses lockstep synchronisation, and firmware-level mechanisms for re-establishing lockstep protection without hardware replacement.
These patents sit at the intersection of automotive functional safety and embedded firmware engineering — a domain under intense commercial pressure as OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers scale ADAS and electrification platforms requiring ASIL-B and ASIL-D certification. Lockstep CPU architectures are embedded in virtually every safety-critical ECU sold today, from powertrain controllers to electronic stability control and ADAS processing units. The clustered application dates suggest a coordinated filing strategy, and the absence of any IPR or CBM challenge on the public record means no third party has yet tested the patents’ validity through inter partes review.
Should your team run an FTO against US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2?
Any company developing, supplying, or integrating lockstep processor architectures into automotive ECUs, ADAS platforms, or functional-safety embedded systems should treat these three patents as active FTO targets. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves claim scope untested and the patents fully enforceable. R&D teams working on ISO 26262-compliant dual-core lockstep designs — particularly spare-processor failover logic and firmware-based lockstep recovery routines — should assess whether their implementation falls within the asserted claim boundaries before production release.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s lockstep processor architecture against the independent claims of US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface relevant prior art that could support design-around or IPR petition strategies. Given the shared application cluster, claim overlap analysis across all three patents simultaneously is advisable. Eureka can also monitor for continuation applications that may extend the patent family’s coverage into next-generation ADAS and domain-controller architectures.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7502958B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar lockstep processor and automotive ECU patent cases in E.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement cases involving automotive embedded-systems and functional-safety processor IP litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the automotive embedded-systems IP landscape
Three lockstep processor patents survived a 394-day E.D. Texas campaign without a merits ruling — a pattern worth tracking for any supplier in the automotive safety-systems space.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve plaintiff optionality across the supplier chain
Foras’s exit without prejudice means the lockstep patents remain live weapons. Any Tier-1 or Tier-2 automotive supplier deploying dual-core lockstep processors in ASIL-rated ECUs should assess exposure to US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 before assuming this case closed the risk landscape.
Judge Gilstrap’s docket signals high settlement pressure for automotive patent defendants
The Eastern District of Texas under Judge Gilstrap consistently produces early resolution pressure. The 394-day arc — from filing to joint dismissal — is consistent with parties reaching terms during or shortly after claim construction proceedings, suggesting that Markman-stage risk assessment drove the commercial resolution here.
Foras v Toyota — key questions answered
Foras Technologies asserted three patents: US7502958B2 (spare processor recovery from lockstep failure), US7627781B2 (firmware-recoverable lockstep protection), and US7624302B2 (lockstep processor system and method). All three share a common application cluster filed under application numbers 10/973076, 10/973077, and 10/972588.
A dismissal without prejudice means the Court made no ruling on whether Toyota or Denso infringed the patents, or whether the patents are valid. Foras Technologies retains the legal right to reassert the same patents in a future lawsuit against these or other defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreement between the parties.
Foras Technologies was represented by BC Law Group, PC and Truelove Law Firm, with attorneys including Brett E. Cooper, Drew Bennett Hollander, Jonathan Randy Yim, Justin Kurt Truelove, and Seth Raymond Hasenour. Toyota and Denso were represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, with Steven Routh as lead counsel.
No. The Court’s dismissal order expressly stated that ‘each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.’ No cost-shifting or fee award was made to either side. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution where the parties mutually agreed to end the litigation.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, US7502958B2, US7627781B2, and US7624302B2 remain legally enforceable. No IPR petition against these patents appears on the public record, meaning their claim scope has not been narrowed by any post-grant proceeding. Companies deploying lockstep CPU architectures in automotive safety systems should treat these patents as active enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.