DCT
8:18-cv-00492
Location Based Services LLC v. Thinkware Systems USA Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Location Based Services, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Thinkware Systems USA Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Feinberg Day Alberti Lim & Belloli LLP; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00492, C.D. Cal., 03/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a California corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s DashCam Viewer software for PC and Mac infringes a patent related to a system for organizing and displaying geo-tagged images on a map interactively linked to a timeline.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the organization and retrieval of location-aware media, such as dashcam video or GPS-tagged photos, by synchronizing the media with its corresponding position on a map and point in time.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patented invention, filed in 2005, was "unconventional" because hardware with the necessary GPS-tagging capability, such as the Nikon Coolpix P6000 camera, was not commercially available until August 2008.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-02-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,311,733 Priority Date |
| 2012-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8,311,733 Issued |
| 2018-03-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,311,733, “Interactive Key Frame Image Mapping System and Method,” issued November 13, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in its background section, but the summary describes a need for a system to organize and display images (e.g., photographs or video frames) that are associated with specific geographic locations and times ('733 Patent, col. 1:10-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer system that uses a "mapping module" to solve this organizational problem. This module contains a "data store" for organizing images by their location on a map and a "table" that links metadata for those images (including time, location, and image history) to an interactive timeline. This structure allows a user to move a cursor along the timeline and have the system display the corresponding image for that time at its correct location on the map ('733 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:4-24; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that combining location, time, and image data in this manner was an "unconventional and innovative practice" at the time of filing ('Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶11, 13, 17).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A computer system comprising a processor and a memory.
- A "mapping module" coupled to the memory.
- The mapping module must include a "data store" to organize multiple images by map locations.
- The mapping module must also include a "table coupled to the data store" that associates metadata for the images with a timeline, image history, and location.
- This association must enable the "instantiation of time-related images" from the map locations "in response to an instantiation of a curser positioned at different locations along an instantiation of the time line."
- The complaint notes that the accused products infringe "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert dependent claims may be reserved ('Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "DashCam Viewer for PC and Mac" software ('Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are computer programs that operate on Windows PCs or Macs ('Compl. ¶13). The software is alleged to "correlate video information with map data in the form of GPS information" ('Compl. ¶13). Functionally, it is alleged to organize video frames based on this map data and associate metadata from those frames with a timeline. When a user interacts with the timeline, the software displays the corresponding video frame and map data ('Compl. ¶13). The complaint uses a diagram from the patent's Exhibit A to illustrate this alleged functionality, describing a system where data stores and tables for specific locations are linked to a timeline (Compl. ¶13, referencing Patent Ex. A-1, Fig. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a computer system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor; and | The Accused Instrumentalities are computer programs that operate on a Windows PC or Mac, which include processors and memory. | ¶13 | col. 2:56-61 |
| a mapping module coupled to the memory, the mapping module including: | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to function as a mapping module that correlates video information with map data. | ¶13 | col. 6:26-29 |
| a data store configurable to organize multiple images according to one or more locations on a map, and | The accused mapping module includes a data store where "video frames are organized based on the correlated map data." | ¶13 | col. 6:45-48 |
| a table coupled to the data store, the table configurable to associate metadata for the multiple images with a time line, an image history and a location, | A table is alleged to exist where "meta data from multiple video frames is associated with a time line, image history, and a location." | ¶13 | col. 6:48-52 |
| the association to enable an instantiation of time-related images from the multiple images at the one or more locations on the map in response to an instantiation of a curser positioned at different locations along an instantiation of the time line. | This function is allegedly met when "a user clicks on a location on the time line, the corresponding video frame along with map data is displayed." | ¶13 | col. 1:57-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether "multiple images," as claimed, can be construed to read on the "video frames" of the accused product ('Compl. ¶13). The interpretation of "images" as encompassing individual frames of a video stream may be a point of contention.
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the entire "DashCam Viewer" software constitutes the "mapping module." A question for the court may be whether the term "mapping module" requires a discrete software component, as depicted in the patent's system diagrams ('733 Patent, Fig. 1, item 36), or if it can refer to the functionality of an entire software application.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a "table coupled to the data store." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused software's method of storing metadata (e.g., within the video file itself or in a separate index file) meets the structural requirements of a "table" that is "coupled to" a "data store."
- Technical Questions: The claim recites an image instantiation "in response to an instantiation of a curser positioned" on the timeline. The complaint alleges infringement occurs when a user "clicks on a location on the time line" ('Compl. ¶13). A question is raised as to whether a "click" action is technically the same as the cursor being "positioned," which could imply a hover or passive placement action is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "table coupled to the data store"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core data structure of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the accused product's data architecture, which the complaint alleges involves metadata from video frames, falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating that data can be organized in the "form of tables, files, fields, columns and other method of organizing data" ('733 Patent, col. 6:1-3). This could support an argument that any data structure associating metadata with images, not just a formal database table, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patent depicts the "TABLE" (314) and the "DATA STORE" (312) as two distinct, separate blocks. This visual representation may support an argument that the claim requires two structurally separate components that are linked, rather than a single data file where metadata is embedded with image data.
The Term: "mapping module"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the overall infringing component. Its construction will determine the boundaries of the accused system and what features of the "DashCam Viewer" software are relevant to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims describe the module functionally, as a component that "includes a data store... and a table..." ('733 Patent, col. 10:13-16). This functional language could support construing the term broadly to encompass any software application that performs the claimed functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 1 show the "MODULES INCL KEY FRAME MODULE" (36) as a specific program module within a larger set of "APPLICATION PROGRAMS" (35) and "OPERATING SYSTEM" (34). This may support a narrower construction where the "mapping module" must be a distinct, identifiable software component rather than the entirety of an application.
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 customers to use the accused software in an infringing manner ('Compl. ¶20, ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the '733 Patent "since at least the filing of this complaint" ('Compl. ¶21). The complaint also makes a general allegation of acting with "knowledge or willful blindness" to the infringement ('Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "table coupled to the data store", which the patent specification depicts as two separate components, be construed to cover the integrated data file structures potentially used by the accused dashcam software to store video and associated GPS metadata?
- Another key question will be one of technical specificity: does the accused product's function, which allegedly displays a video frame when a user clicks on the timeline, meet the claim limitation requiring image instantiation "in response to an instantiation of a curser positioned" on that timeline? The distinction between an active click and passive positioning may be a critical, dispositive issue.
- A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the "DashCam Viewer" software contains the specific structural elements of a "data store" and a "table" as required by the claims, or if its architecture is functionally similar but structurally different in a way that avoids infringement.