Stellar LLC v. Thinkware Systems USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stellar, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Thinkware Systems USA Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Trotter Legal Services; DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 8:23-cv-00247, C.D. Cal., 02/09/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Irvine, California, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dashcams infringe five patents related to systems and methods for continuous loop video recording with features to write-protect and save specific segments of interest.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses memory management limitations in mobile video recorders by using a circular buffer that overwrites old data, combined with a mechanism to save important footage (including video captured before a triggering event) from being erased.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a large, interconnected family stemming from provisional applications filed in 2006. The chain of continuation and continuation-in-part applications suggests a long-term and focused effort to patent various aspects of this technology.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 - “Loop Recording With Book Marking,” Issued September 22, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a key shortcoming of mobile video recorders at the time: limited memory capacity. When memory became full, recording had to stop, and the user had to manually transfer data to free up space. This was inconvenient and ill-suited for continuous surveillance or "on the go" recording (’034 Patent, col. 2:22-34). Existing loop recorders would simply overwrite old data indiscriminately, risking the loss of important events (’034 Patent, col. 2:35-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a surveillance apparatus that continuously records video data to a circular buffer in a local memory. Upon receiving a "signal to record," a "protecting facility" designates a segment of the video stream—including a "pre-recorded subset" captured before the signal and a "post-recorded subset" captured after—as write-protected. This protected segment is indexed as a distinct file and can be transmitted wirelessly to a remote memory, which frees up the local buffer for further recording without interrupting the continuous loop (’034 Patent, col. 2:4-13, 2:48-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach solved the dilemma of continuous recording versus saving important events by allowing a device to both capture unforeseen incidents and preserve the context leading up to them without user intervention to stop the recording process (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A surveillance apparatus with a camera, a local memory, and a wireless transmitter.
  • A "recording facility" that continuously records a data stream into a circular buffer in the local memory.
  • A "protecting facility" that responds to a "signal to record" by designating a segment of the buffer (including a pre-recorded and post-recorded subset) as write-protected and indexing it as a second distinct file.
  • A "sending facility" that uses the wireless transmitter to send the second file to a remote memory.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 8,692,882 - “Loop Recording With Book Marking,” Issued April 8, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '034 patent, this patent addresses the need for continuous recording without losing important footage due to memory overwrites. It emphasizes the problem of prior art systems requiring a user to stop recording to offload data (’882 Patent, col. 2:30-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a surveillance apparatus that implements a loop recording system where a "protecting facility" responds to a signal by write-protecting and indexing a video segment as a separate file. A key aspect is that the local memory is configured to "allow access to at least one of the files," suggesting a file-based management system where protected events can be accessed, reviewed, or managed directly from the device's memory without interrupting the ongoing recording process (’882 Patent, col. 11:43-63, Claim 1). This contrasts with systems where data might be inaccessible until transferred.
• Technical Importance: This refinement provides a more functional on-device file management system, allowing users to interact with saved clips while the device continues to perform its primary surveillance function (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A surveillance apparatus with a camera and a local memory.
  • A "recording facility" that records image data into a circular buffer.
  • A "protecting facility" that responds to a signal by designating a segment as write-protected and indexing it as a "second file."
  • A configuration wherein the "local memory is configured to allow access to at least one of the files."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 - “Write-Protected Recording,” Issued November 1, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to build on the core technology of write-protected loop recording. It claims an apparatus with a sensor and memory where a "protecting facility" designates a segment for protection based on a signal, including pre-recorded and post-recorded subsets. The claims appear to focus on the fundamental architecture of the recording and protecting facilities (’471 Patent, col. 12:13-33, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Thinkware Dashcams, such as the F200 Pro, employ the claimed method of recording to a buffer and write-protecting segments corresponding to events (Compl. ¶37).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,912,914 - “Write-Protected Recording,” Issued March 6, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a recording system with a sensor interface, memory, and recording and protecting facilities. The claims focus on the system's response to a trigger signal to create a write-protected segment that includes pre- and post-trigger data, storing it as a file in a buffer. The claims cover various data types, including image and video data with specified resolutions (’914 Patent, col. 12:10-40, Claims 1, 3-5).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Thinkware Dashcams of using a system with a sensor interface, memory, and the claimed recording/protecting facilities to save event footage (Compl. ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910 - “Wearable Recording System With Memory Designation,” Issued March 30, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a recording system for saving a sequence of clips, specifically reciting a process of responding to multiple, subsequent trigger signals. The processor is configured to designate a first portion for write-protection in response to a first trigger, and a second portion in response to a subsequent second trigger, while excluding both from being overwritten. This addresses the capture of successive events (’910 Patent, col. 12:18-51, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Thinkware Dashcams, which can record and save multiple distinct events, practice the claimed method of handling subsequent trigger signals to protect multiple video segments (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "one or more Thinkware Dashcams," with the "Thinkware F200 Pro Dashcam" identified as a specific example (Compl. ¶23). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities."

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are mobile video recording systems that address the same problems as the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶9).
• Key alleged functionalities include continuous loop recording, where older footage is overwritten, combined with an event-recording mode. This mode is triggered (e.g., by an impact sensor) and protects a segment of video from being overwritten, including footage from immediately before and after the trigger (Compl. ¶12). This functionality is described as a core feature that provides significant commercial value (Compl. ¶14).
• The complaint also notes the ability to capture a "succession of events over an extended period of time," which aligns with the technology claimed in the later patents (Compl. ¶5).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint's text, which incorporates the background section by reference into each count.

'034 Patent Infringement Allegations

'882 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "signal to record," as described in the patents with examples of user-initiated actions (e.g., button press, voice command), can be read to encompass the automated triggers (e.g., G-sensor impact detection) common in modern dashcams. The defense may argue that the inventive concept was centered on manual "book marking," not automated event capture.
  • Technical Questions: What specific mechanism constitutes "indexing" in the accused devices? The plaintiff alleges the creation of a distinct file meets this limitation. The court will need to determine if the patent's disclosure requires a more specific technical implementation of indexing (e.g., a hash table or clustered index as mentioned in the specification) that differs from merely saving a separate file.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '034 and '882 Patents:

• The Term: "signal to record"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. If construed narrowly to mean only a manual, user-initiated command, it might not cover the accused dashcams' primary feature of automatically saving clips upon detecting an impact. If construed broadly to include any trigger, automated or manual, it would favor the plaintiff's infringement theory. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary interface between the user/environment and the patented protection function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '034 patent specification states the signal can be "automatically triggered by a sensor that detects an image in the camera or a sound" (’034 Patent, col. 2:51-54), which may support including automated triggers like G-sensors.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The title of the patents is "Loop Recording With Book Marking," and many embodiments describe user actions like pressing a button on a ring or giving a verbal command, which may suggest the core invention was a user-directed bookmarking tool (’034 Patent, col. 8:44-50).

• The Term: "indexing"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine what level of technical sophistication is required to meet the claim limitation. The dispute will likely center on whether simply saving a video segment as a separate file on a standard file system (like FAT32 on an SD card) constitutes "indexing" as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '034 patent claims indexing the portion "as a second distinct file" (Claim 1), which suggests creating a separate file is itself the claimed indexing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses that the index "is preferably a hash table or a clustered index" (’034 Patent, col. 10:6-8) and that the scheme allows the system to "easily locate such protected segments." A defendant may argue this implies a requirement for a more structured database-like index beyond just creating a standalone file.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint exclusively pleads "direct" infringement for all five asserted patents (Compl. ¶23, ¶30, ¶37, ¶44, ¶51). No facts are alleged to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit claim for willful infringement or seek enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It does, however, request a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 12, ¶C). The complaint does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the defendant.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and evolution: Can the term "signal to record," originating in patents that describe user-initiated "book marking," be construed to cover the automated G-sensor and motion-detection triggers that are standard features in the accused modern dashcams? The outcome of this question may determine whether the core functionality of the accused products falls within the patent claims.
2. A key technical question will be one of functional implementation: Does the accused products' method of saving an event video as a standard, separate file on an SD card meet the "indexing" limitation of the claims? The court will need to decide whether the patents require a more specific, structured indexing mechanism, as discussed in the specification, or if merely creating a "distinct file" is sufficient to infringe.
3. An overarching question concerns the series of patents: With five patents from the same family asserted, the dispute may involve detailed distinctions between the claims of each patent. A key issue will be whether later-issued patents, such as the '910 patent covering subsequent triggers, successfully capture features of modern dashcams that may fall outside the scope of the earlier patents.