DCT

2:15-cv-01358

Laufer Group Intl Ltd v. Eclipse IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:15-cv-01358, C.D. Cal., 02/25/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Laufer alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Eclipse has previously filed approximately 36 patent infringement cases in the district, thereby availing itself of the jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that twenty-two patents owned by Defendant concerning systems for tracking mobile entities and providing notifications are invalid and not infringed.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to systems that track the location or status of "mobile things" (e.g., vehicles, packages) and automatically send notifications to interested parties.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint heavily references a prior case in the same district, Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corp, in which claims from several of the same patents-in-suit were found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to unpatentable abstract ideas. The complaint notes that Eclipse appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit but then voluntarily dismissed its appeal, resulting in a final, unappealable judgment of invalidity which Plaintiff argues gives rise to collateral estoppel.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-05-28 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-06-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,064,681 Issues
2006-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,113,110 Issues
2006-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 Issues
2008-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414 Issues
2009-01-20 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,479,899, 7,479,900, & 7,479,901 Issue
2009-01-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,482,952 Issues
2009-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,504,966 Issues
2009-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,528,742 Issues
2009-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,538,691 Issues
2009-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,561,069 Issues
2011-01-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,876,239 Issues
2011-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,068,037 Issues
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,232,899 Issues
2012-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,242,935 Issues
2012-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,284,076 Issues
2013-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,362,927 Issues
2013-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,368,562 Issues
2013-09-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,531,317 Issues
2013-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,564,459 Issues
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,711,010 Issues
2014-09-04 Final Judgment entered in Eclipse v. McKinley, invalidating claims of the '681, '110, and '716 patents
2014-10-22 Eclipse's appeal of the McKinley decision is dismissed by the Federal Circuit
2014-12-11 Eclipse sends demand letter to Laufer alleging infringement
2015-02-25 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 - "Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems for Modifying Future Notifications," issued October 10, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the uncertainty and inefficiency associated with the arrival or departure of "mobile things" (MTs) like buses, delivery vehicles, or airplanes, which can lead to inconvenient waiting periods for customers or service personnel (Compl. ¶13; ’716 Patent, col. 1:49-2:25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-based system that sends a notification to a party's personal communications device (PCD) and receives a response. The system is designed to use that response to modify how future notifications are implemented, creating an interactive and adaptive notification process (’716 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-64). For example, a user's response could change the timing or method of a subsequent alert.
  • Technical Importance: The technology sought to improve logistical efficiency by enabling two-way, dynamic communication regarding the status of mobile entities, moving beyond simple one-way alerts.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 18, and 41 as having been previously invalidated (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • Initiating a first notification communication to a personal communications device.
    • Receiving a response indicating the party has received the notification and is now occupied with an associated task.
    • Refraining from sending further notifications until the detection of one or more events indicating the party is no longer occupied.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration that all claims of the patent are invalid (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 7,064,681 - "Response Systems and Methods for Notification Systems," issued June 20, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’681 Patent addresses the need for better scheduling and preparation related to the movement of MTs, such as knowing when a delivery vehicle will arrive or when to meet a bus (’681 Patent, col. 1:21-2:40).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a notification system initiates communication with a user's device regarding a task, receives a response indicating willingness to perform the task, and then refrains from sending further notifications to other devices. The system then monitors for events to determine if another communication is needed, for example, to find a substitute party to perform the task (’681 Patent, col. 92:29-93:8). The system architecture, as shown in Figure 1, includes a Mobile Thing Control Unit (MTCU) that communicates with a Base Station Control Unit (BSCU), which in turn communicates with a user's Personal Communications Device (PCD).
  • Technical Importance: This patent focuses on using response-based feedback to manage not just notifications but also the allocation of tasks associated with a mobile entity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as having been previously invalidated (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • Initiating a first notification communication to a personal communications device about a task.
    • Receiving a response indicating whether the party is willing to perform the task.
    • Refraining from sending further notifications to other devices after receiving the response.
    • Monitoring for events to determine if another notification is needed to request assistance from another party to perform the task.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration that all claims of the patent are invalid (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,113,110

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,113,110, "Stop List Generation Systems and Methods Based upon Tracked PCD’s and Responses from Notified PCD’s," issued September 26, 2006 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the '716 Patent's application, describes systems for creating and managing stop lists for a delivery vehicle. The system generates the list based on responses (or non-responses) from notified personal communication devices (PCDs) (’110 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint notes that independent claims 1 and 2 were previously found to be invalid (Compl. ¶15).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Eclipse has threatened Laufer over its "tracking and notification systems" generally (Compl. ¶42).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414, "Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia," issued January 15, 2008 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the '716 Patent's application, focuses on providing authentication information to a user's device to indicate that a notification is from an authorized source. This is intended to give the user confidence that the message is genuine (’414 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint notes claims of this patent were previously invalidated (Compl. ¶16).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Eclipse has threatened Laufer over its "tracking and notification systems" generally (Compl. ¶42).

For brevity, the remaining 18 patents-in-suit, all of which are continuations or divisionals of the '716 Patent and relate to similar notification and tracking technologies, are omitted from this section (Compl. ¶¶17-34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Plaintiff Laufer's "tracking and notification systems" and their associated "electronic messaging features" (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation or market context of Laufer's products. It frames the dispute in the context of a demand letter from Eclipse that broadly accused Laufer's systems, which suggests they are used in the logistics or transportation industry where Laufer operates.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement, does not contain specific infringement allegations or claim charts against the Plaintiff. The action was filed in response to a demand letter from Eclipse which, according to the complaint, alleged that Laufer's "tracking and notification systems infringe claims of at least several of Eclipse's patents" but does not provide further detail on the specific infringement theory (Compl. ¶42).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Patent Eligibility: The central point of contention raised by the complaint is not one of factual infringement, but of legal patentability. The primary question is whether the claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to abstract ideas, such as "data communications, information, and messaging systems" (Compl. ¶1, ¶55).
    • Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel): A threshold legal question will be the preclusive effect of the prior invalidity judgment in Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equipment Corporation. Laufer alleges that this final decision estops Eclipse from reasserting the validity of at least the claims already adjudicated in that case (Compl. ¶37, ¶55).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes, as it does not articulate a specific infringement theory. However, based on the language of the independent claims of the lead patents, certain terms may become central to both the infringement and validity analyses.

  • For U.S. Patent No. 7,119,716 (Claim 1):

    • The Term: "a task associated with the notification communication"
    • Context and Importance: The scope of this term may be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth could determine whether the claim covers a wide range of activities beyond the specific delivery/pickup embodiments described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes numerous applications, including service appointments, public transit, and package delivery, suggesting the term is not limited to a single context (’716 Patent, col. 43:10-23).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly uses the example of a "pickup or delivery" task, which could suggest a narrower construction limited to logistics (’716 Patent, col. 45:10-15).

  • For U.S. Patent No. 7,064,681 (Claim 1):

    • The Term: "monitoring for detection of one or more events"
    • Context and Importance: This term is a key step in the claimed method. Its construction will be important to determine what kind of monitoring is required—whether passive observation of data, active system queries, or physical triggers—and what qualifies as an "event" sufficient to trigger the next step.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists a wide variety of possible "events," including "cancellation of a package delivery or pickup, cancellation of an expected stop... or by reviewing data corresponding with travel" (’681 Patent, col. 49:55-67). This suggests a broad, information-based definition.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 9C shows monitoring for specific occurrences like the "detection of one or more events" which then triggers a subsequent communication, potentially linking the term to concrete, predefined system triggers rather than general data monitoring (’681 Patent, Fig. 9C).

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on dispositive legal questions rather than factual disputes over infringement. The key questions for the court will likely be:

  1. Issue Preclusion: What is the preclusive effect of the final judgment of invalidity in the prior McKinley case? A central issue is whether Eclipse is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the validity of the same claims against a new party, Laufer, which could resolve a significant portion of the dispute early in the proceedings.

  2. Patent Eligibility: For any claims not barred by issue preclusion, a core issue will be one of patentable subject matter: are the claims, which recite methods for managing notifications based on events and user responses, directed to an unpatentable abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or do they claim a specific, patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality?

  3. Scope of Judgment: If the court agrees with Laufer on the invalidity of representative claims, a key question will be the breadth of the remedy: will the court's judgment be limited to the specific claims analyzed, or will it extend to all claims across the entire 22-patent family, given their shared specification and priority claims, as requested by Laufer?