DCT
2:18-cv-00690
Hailo Tech LLC v. Roav Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hailo Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Roav Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of J. Curtis Edmondson
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00690, C.D. Cal., 01/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in California and conducts business in the district, including making, using, selling, and importing the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart car charger and associated software application infringe a patent related to automatically recording a vehicle's parked location and providing directions back to it.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of GPS-based vehicle locators, a common feature in consumer electronics and automotive accessories designed to solve the problem of finding one's car in a large area.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-06-04 | ’698 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-18 | ’698 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-01-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
A. U.S. Patent No. 6,407,698 - "Parked Vehicle Locator"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to overcome the limitations of prior art vehicle locators. Visual aids like flags are ineffective over long distances or in bad weather, and existing electronic systems required users to manually determine and input the vehicle's coordinates every time they parked, which was inconvenient and prone to error (’698 Patent, col. 1:11-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automatically stores a vehicle's location. A sensor in the vehicle detects a "trigger event" that signifies parking (e.g., turning off the engine). This sensor then wirelessly signals a separate, portable locator device carried by the user. Upon receiving this signal, the portable device automatically obtains its current position via GPS and stores it in memory. Later, the user can activate the portable device to determine their new location and receive bearing and distance information back to the stored parking spot (’698 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:63-68; col. 3:12-16).
- Technical Importance: The invention's primary contribution was automating the process of recording a vehicle's location, eliminating the need for user intervention at the time of parking and thereby making the system more "unobtrusive yet convenient" (’698 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim, with its infringement analysis focusing exclusively on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶10, 16; Ex. C).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A method for facilitating returning to a parked vehicle using a single global positioning system.
- Sensing an occurrence indicating the vehicle is parked, selected from a specific list (e.g., turning engine off, opening a door).
- Upon sensing, a "signaller" wirelessly sends an "activation signal."
- A "portable locator device" receives the signal and responsively obtains its own "first position information" via GPS.
- Storing that first position information in memory on the portable locator device.
- Upon a user request, the portable locator device:
- obtains its "second position information."
- obtains its "bearing information."
- compares the second position and bearing with the stored first position.
- determines and provides the bearing and distance to the first position.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
A. Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "Roav SmartCharge Car Kit F2" ("Roav Device") used in conjunction with the "Roav App" running on a mobile device (Compl. ¶¶12, 17; Ex. C, p. 28).
B. Functionality and Market Context
The Roav Device is a car charger that plugs into a vehicle's cigarette lighter. According to the complaint's allegations, when a user turns off their car's engine, the Roav Device detects a voltage change and sends a wireless signal to the user's smartphone. The Roav App on the phone then automatically obtains and saves the phone's GPS location (Compl., Ex. C, p. 30). The complaint alleges that the user can later open the Roav App, which then provides a compass and distance indicator to guide the user back to the saved location (Compl., Ex. C, p. 35). The product is marketed with a "BUILT-IN CAR LOCATOR" feature, promoted as making "forgetting where you parked a problem of a bygone era" (Compl. ¶13; Ex. C, p. 28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
A. '698 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| sensing an occurrence that indicates that a vehicle has gone to a parked state, ... said occurrence selected from the group consisting of turning a vehicle interior light on or off, turning an engine on or off... | The Roav Device allegedly "senses a voltage change through the cigarette lighter indicative of being in a parked state" when the engine is turned off. | Ex. C, p. 30 | col. 5:27-30 |
| and upon said sensing a signaller wirelessly sending an activation signal... | The Roav Device (the alleged "signaller") then "sends a wireless activation signal to the mobile device running the Roav App." | Ex. C, p. 30 | col. 3:5-7 |
| responsive to receiving the wireless activation signal at a portable locator device, obtaining first position information for the portable locator device... by accessing a global positioning system... | Upon receiving the signal, the Roav App (on the alleged "portable locator device") "obtains the GPS location of the mobile device." A product screenshot states the app "will lock onto your F2's GPS location automatically." | Ex. C, p. 31 | col. 4:33-41 |
| storing the first position information for the portable locator device for later use in a memory onboard the portable locator device, and | The complaint alleges that the "location of the mobile device at the time of receiving the activation signal is stored by the Roav app." | Ex. C, p. 32 | col. 4:45-49 |
| upon the portable locator device receiving a user request for locating the vehicle, | The user allegedly makes a request by opening the Roav app, which shows a map or compass. The screenshot describes this step as: "When you can't remember where you parked, use this app to find your way back to your car." | Ex. C, p. 33 | col. 3:25-29 |
| obtaining second position information for the portable locator, | The complaint alleges "The position of the mobile phone is obtained via GPS when the Roav app is opened and the compass is shown." | Ex. C, p. 34 | col. 4:55-58 |
| obtaining the bearing information of the portable locator, | In the app's "compass mode," the phone's bearing is determined to show an arrow indicating the direction of the parked car relative to the user's current standing position. A screenshot shows this compass interface. | Ex. C, p. 35 | col. 4:63-64 |
| comparing the second position information and bearing with the stored first position information, | The complaint states that to indicate the direction, "the location of the mobile device must be compared to the location of the parked vehicle." | Ex. C, p. 36 | col. 4:68-5:2 |
| and determining bearing and distance to the first position location with respect to the second position location. | The Roav app allegedly displays the distance to the parked car and shows the bearing via a compass arrow. A screenshot from the complaint's Exhibit C, page 37, shows an interface displaying a distance ("585") and a directional arrow on a compass. | Ex. C, p. 37 | col. 5:1-2 |
B. Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of the "portable locator device." The patent's primary embodiment describes a dedicated, unitary hardware device (’698 Patent, col. 3:34-35; Fig. 2). The accused system splits functionality between a car charger ("signaller") and a general-purpose smartphone running an application (the alleged "portable locator device"). This raises the question of whether a software application on a third-party device can meet the definition of the "portable locator device" as claimed, even if the patent discloses that the locator may be "incorporated with another portable electronic device such as a cellular phone" (’698 Patent, col. 3:36-39).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the "portable locator device" to perform a series of steps, including obtaining position and bearing, storing, and comparing. The complaint alleges the Roav App on the phone performs these functions (Compl., Ex. C, pp. 31-37). The court may need to determine if the functions are performed by the "portable locator device" (the phone/app) in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings, or if the system architecture of the accused product is fundamentally different from that claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "portable locator device"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears dispositive. If a court determines that a general-purpose smartphone running a software application does not constitute a "portable locator device" as used in the patent, the infringement case may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory hinges on mapping the Roav App and smartphone combination to this specific claim element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "locator device 12 may be incorporated with another portable electronic device such as a cellular phone, personal communication device, personal data assistant, pager or portable personal computer" (’698 Patent, col. 3:36-41). Plaintiff may argue this language explicitly contemplates implementation on a device like a smartphone.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification first introduces the device as a "stand alone device such as a compact hand held unit" (’698 Patent, col. 3:34-35). Furthermore, Figure 2 depicts the "portable locator device" (12) as a unitary apparatus containing its own dedicated processor (36), GPS receiver (26), compass (28), and memory (24). A defendant may argue that the "incorporated with" language suggests a hardware integration, not a software-only component on a general-purpose device that relies on a separate, physically distinct "signaller" (the car charger).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), which governs induced infringement (Compl. ¶24-25). The complaint does not explicitly detail the factual basis for inducement, but it may be premised on allegations that Defendant provides the Roav App and instructional materials that actively encourage and instruct users to operate the Roav Device and App in an infringing manner (Compl., Ex. C, p. 30).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement "has been, and continues to be, willful" (Compl. ¶18). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’698 Patent or a prior notice of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "portable locator device," which is described in the patent's preferred embodiment as a unitary, standalone hardware unit, be construed to cover a software application running on a general-purpose smartphone that receives a signal from a separate hardware charger? The patent's disclosure that the device may be "incorporated with" a cellular phone will be a central point of this dispute.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: does the accused product—a system divided between a charger that acts as a sensor/signaller and a smartphone that performs all GPS, memory, and processing functions—map onto the elements and relationships required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and component identity?