Backertop Licensing LLC v. Fantasia Trading LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Backertop Licensing, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Fantasia Trading LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Murthy Patent Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 5:22-cv-02081, C.D. Cal., 11/23/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides in, maintains its principal place of business in, and has a regular and established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Eufy-branded security camera and associated mobile application infringe two patents related to using wireless beacons to manage mobile application behavior and network access based on a user's physical location.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using location-based triggers, such as Bluetooth beacons, to control which applications may run on a mobile device in order to manage network resources and user experience within a defined physical area.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint includes extensive pre-emptive arguments regarding patent validity, quoting from the prosecution history of the parent '385' patent to assert that the claims were allowed over prior art because they require authorizing network access in response to an application being disabled. This suggests Plaintiff anticipates and is preparing to defend against an invalidity challenge on similar grounds. The '617' patent is a continuation of the application leading to the '385 patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-02-13	Priority Date for '385 and '617 Patents
2016-05-03	U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 Issues
2017-05-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617 Issues
2022-11-23	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 - "Selectively providing content to users located within a virtual perimeter," issued May 3, 2016

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that mobile applications typically provide a superior user experience compared to web browsers, which can suffer from lag time because they must retrieve all data from a remote server ('385 Patent, col. 1:12-28).

The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to manage network access in a specific physical location. It uses wireless beacons to identify a mobile device's presence ('385 Patent, Fig. 1). In response, a system sends a message to the mobile device instructing it to disable a specific application. Only after receiving a confirmation that the application has been disabled is the mobile device authorized to "establish presence on a network maintained for the physical location" ('385 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:30-44). The specification suggests this facilitates more efficient network access by controlling application behavior based on proximity ('385 Patent, col. 3:57-4:12).

Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide location-aware network and application management, allowing a location owner (e.g., a coffee shop, an airline) to curate the user's digital experience and control network resource usage ('385 Patent, col. 9:10-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).

Essential elements of claim 1 include:

• Identifying a mobile device's present physical location based on wireless communication with a beacon.
• Communicating a "first message" to the mobile device that specifies "at least one application to be disabled" while the device is at that location.
• Responsive to receiving a response from the mobile device indicating the application "is disabled," authorizing the mobile device to establish presence on a local network.

The complaint also recites system claim 8, which mirrors the steps of method claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617 - "Selectively providing content to users located within a virtual perimeter," issued May 16, 2017

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent, which is a continuation of the application that resulted in the '385 Patent, addresses the same problem: the technical inferiority and lag time of web browsers on mobile devices compared to native applications ('617 Patent, col. 1:12-28).

The Patented Solution: The invention claimed is a computer program product stored on a non-transitory medium. The program code, when executed, performs the same core method as the '385 Patent: identifying location via a beacon, sending a message to disable an application, and authorizing network access upon receiving confirmation of the disablement ('617 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:18-41).

Technical Importance: As with the parent '385 Patent, the technology provides a framework for location-based control over mobile device applications and network access to improve efficiency and manage the user experience ('617 Patent, col. 4:14-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1, which is a computer program product claim (Compl. ¶33).

Essential elements of claim 1's method include:

• Identifying a mobile device's physical location based on communication with a beacon.
• Communicating a message specifying "at least one application to be disabled."
• Responsive to receiving a response that the application "is disabled," authorizing the mobile device to establish presence on a network.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Eufy Solo OutdoorCam C24 and the associated Eufy Security mobile application (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are used for "selectively providing content to users located within a virtual perimeter, utilizing wireless communication between a mobile device and at least one beacon" (Compl. ¶¶8-10). It provides URLs for the product and application download but does not describe their specific technical operation (Compl. ¶11). The product name suggests it is a security camera system, which may use location-based geofencing to alter its operational mode (e.g., arming or disarming based on the user's presence). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the Accused Products' specific functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 but does not provide a claim chart or a detailed factual basis for how the Accused Products meet each limitation (Compl. ¶14). The allegations are conclusory and rest on the general assertion that the products operate by detecting a mobile device's location to provide access or content (Compl. ¶¶8-9). The complaint does not explain, for example, what specific "application is disabled," what "response" is sent back to a server, or what "network presence" is "authorized" as a result.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A primary question is whether the Accused Products actually perform the claimed sequence of (1) sending a command to disable an application, (2) receiving a response confirming disablement, and (3) then authorizing network access. The complaint provides no evidence that this specific, three-part causal sequence occurs.
• Scope Question: Does the Eufy camera system's function of changing its own operational state (e.g., from a "Home" to "Away" mode) based on geofencing constitute "disabling" an "application" on the mobile device as required by the claim?

U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617 Infringement Allegations

Similar to the '385 Patent allegations, the complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 1 of the '617 Patent without providing specific factual support mapping the Accused Products' functionality to the claim elements (Compl. ¶33, 43). The complaint does not specify what component of the Accused Products constitutes the "computer program product" or how its code executes the claimed method steps.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The central issue remains whether the Eufy Security mobile application's software code actually executes the specific disable-confirm-authorize logic recited in the claim. A defense may argue that geofencing functions to change camera modes operate differently and do not meet these claim limitations.
• Scope Question: Does the term "beacon," as described in the patent's specification with reference to BLE technology ('617 Patent, col. 3:40-45), read on a Wi-Fi-based security camera like the accused Eufy Solo OutdoorCam C24?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "at least one application to be disabled"

Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as Plaintiff highlighted the "disablement" step to overcome prior art during prosecution (Compl. ¶22). The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Accused Products' operation can be characterized as "disabling" an application.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties could dispute whether a simple change in an application's operating mode (e.g., a security app switching from "Home" to "Away") constitutes "disabling" it.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the term "deactivate" and gives examples like disabling image capture or media playback, which suggests a cessation of a specific function rather than a mere mode change ('385 Patent, col. 9:60-10:1). This could support a narrower definition requiring that a functionality be rendered inoperable.

The Term: "authorizing... the mobile device to establish presence on a network"

Context and Importance: This is the claimed result of the disablement step. The nature of this "authorization" is critical to determining infringement, especially in the context of a home security system operating on a user's own Wi-Fi.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any software-based permission that allows the mobile app to communicate with the camera over the network satisfies this limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes this step in the context of a "handshake procedure" to gain access to a network, akin to connecting to a public or third-party Wi-Fi network ('385 Patent, col. 5:25-36). This could support an argument that the term requires a formal grant of access to a network the device was not previously authorized to use, which may not apply to a user's private home network.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 34-35). It does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as by citing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users to perform the claimed methods.

Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys' fees under § 285, which encompasses post-complaint willfulness (Compl. p. 12, ¶¶d, g). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

1. A central issue will be one of functional operation: Does the accused Eufy security system, which likely uses geofencing to change camera modes, actually perform the specific, multi-step sequence recited in the claims: (1) command an application to be disabled, (2) receive confirmation of disablement, and (3) only then authorize network presence? The complaint's lack of factual detail on this point makes it a primary evidentiary hurdle for the plaintiff.

2. The case will also likely involve a significant dispute over definitional scope: Can the claim term "application to be disabled" be construed broadly enough to cover a security application changing its operational mode? Further, can "authorizing... to establish presence on a network" be construed to cover a device that is already permitted to operate on its user's own home Wi-Fi network?

3. Finally, a key question will relate to patent validity: Plaintiff’s unusual decision to argue validity in the complaint itself, based on distinguishing prior art during prosecution, signals an expected fight over patentability. The court will have to determine if the claimed "inventive concept"—the disable-then-authorize sequence—is indeed novel and non-obvious, and whether that specific concept is what the accused products actually practice.