Location Based Services LLC v. JVCKENWOOD USA Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Location Based Services, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Feinberg Day Alberti Lim & Belloli LLP; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00493, C.D. Cal., 03/26/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the defendant is a California corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Kenwood Driver Reviewer software infringes a patent related to systems and methods for interactively mapping images along a timeline.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves organizing geo-tagged and time-stamped visual data (such as images or video frames) in a way that allows a user to navigate the data by interacting with both a map and a timeline.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patented invention was "unconventional and innovative," noting that GPS-enabled consumer cameras were not commercially available until years after the patent's filing date, suggesting the technology was not obvious at the time of invention. No other procedural history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,311,733 - "Interactive Key Frame Image Mapping System and Method"

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in a dedicated background section. The summary suggests a need for a method to organize and display images of a geographic area not just by location, but also as a function of time and/or image history, such as images taken during a trip (’733 Patent, col. 1:10-14, 5:51-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer system that links images to both their location on a map and their position on a timeline (’733 Patent, Abstract). The system uses a specific architecture: a "data store" organizes images by map location, and a "table" associates metadata (time, history, location) for those images with a timeline. This structure allows a user to interact with the timeline (e.g., by moving a cursor over it) to call up and display the corresponding time-related images and their associated positions on the map (’733 Patent, col. 1:49-58; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach provides an integrated user interface for reviewing a journey or event by correlating spatial and temporal data, allowing a user to see what was at a certain place at a certain time (’733 Patent, col. 5:51-57).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Claim 1 recites the essential elements of a computer system comprising:
    • A processor and a memory.
    • A "mapping module" coupled to the memory.
    • The mapping module includes a "data store" to organize images by map locations.
    • The mapping module also includes a "table" coupled to the data store.
    • This table associates image metadata with a timeline, image history, and location.
    • The association enables the display of time-related images in response to a user positioning a "curser" along the timeline.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Kenwood Driver Reviewer for PC and Mac" software applications (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Kenwood Driver Reviewer is a computer program that operates on a Windows PC or Mac (Compl. ¶13). Its function is to "correlate video information with map data in the form of GPS information" (Compl. ¶13). The software allegedly allows a user who "clicks on a location on the time line" to see the "corresponding video frame along with map data" displayed (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market positioning beyond its sale and use in the United States (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that when the Kenwood Driver Reviewer software is used, it directly infringes claim 1 of the ’733 patent (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes a screenshot exhibit to support its infringement allegations, which it describes as showing that when a user interacts with the timeline, a corresponding video frame and map location are displayed (Compl. ¶13, referencing Ex. A-1, Figs. 1-5).

’733 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Structural Questions: A central question may be whether the Kenwood Driver Reviewer software, designed for dashcam video playback, contains the specific architecture recited in claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely examine whether the software truly implements a distinct "data store" for organizing images by location and a separate "table" for associating metadata, or if it uses a more integrated file structure that does not map onto the claim's discrete components.
• Scope Questions: The claim recites "multiple images," which the complaint alleges are met by "video frames" (Compl. ¶13). The court may need to determine if a sequence of video frames constitutes "multiple images" as contemplated by the patent, which also discusses discrete photo catalogs (’733 Patent, col. 5:45-48).
• Functional Questions: Claim 1 requires the system to enable image instantiation "in response to an instantiation of a curser positioned at different locations along an instantiation of the time line." The complaint alleges this is met when a user "clicks on a location on the time line" (Compl. ¶13). The analysis may focus on whether the accused functionality is equivalent to the claimed "positioning" of a "curser" (cursor), which could imply functionality such as hovering or scrolling in addition to clicking.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "mapping module"

Context and Importance:

This term appears to be the central component of the invention, containing the "data store" and "table" that form the core of the claimed architecture. The defendant may argue that its software is a monolithic video player, while the plaintiff will likely contend that different software functions within the accused product constitute the claimed "mapping module".

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the module in functional terms, stating it is "configurable to organize one or more images" and "associate metadata" (’733 Patent, col. 10:16-23). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers any software component that performs these actions, regardless of its specific implementation.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the module as containing two distinct sub-components: "a data store" and "a table" (’733 Patent, col. 10:17-20; Fig. 3). This may support a narrower construction requiring proof of two separate, identifiable software structures within the accused product.

The Term: "table"

Context and Importance:

The infringement hinge may turn on whether the accused software contains a "table" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused software simply reads a video file with an embedded or associated GPS data stream without creating a distinct "table" structure to associate metadata with a timeline, there may be no infringement.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "table" and uses it in a general sense, describing it as "configurable to associate metadata" with a timeline, history, and location (’733 Patent, col. 10:20-22). This could be interpreted broadly to read on any data structure that performs this associative function.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts the "TABLE INCLUDING METADATA" (314, 324) as a discrete block, separate from the "DATA STORE INCLUDING IMAGE CATALOG" (312, 322). This visual separation may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct data structure that is identifiably a "table" and not merely an undifferentiated part of a larger data file.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement:

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "instruction manuals, advertisement of the infringing features, and support" that encourage and instruct end-users to operate the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that directly infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22). The complaint provides a URL to what it alleges are such manuals and support materials (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement:

• The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’733 patent "since at least the filing of this complaint" and that its continued inducement constitutes knowledge or willful blindness, which could form the basis for a future willfulness claim based on post-filing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the accused "Kenwood Driver Reviewer" software, a video playback tool, embody the specific two-part "data store" and "table" structure required by claim 1, or does its functionality arise from a different architecture that falls outside the claim's scope?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of demonstrable function: Can the plaintiff provide evidence beyond conclusory allegations that the accused software's method of linking video frames to a timeline and map meets the specific functional requirements of the claim, particularly the association of metadata for "an image history" and the response to a "curser positioned" on the timeline?
• A central question of claim construction will be whether the term "table" requires a distinct data structure, as suggested by the patent's figures, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any software routine that associates metadata with a timeline, regardless of its implementation.