Sunset Licensing LLC v. Lilee Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sunset Licensing, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Lilee Technology, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BUDO LAW P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:20-cv-02968, N.D. Cal., 04/30/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant is a California corporation with an established place of business in San Jose, has minimum contacts with the state, and has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Lilee Saferide System solution infringes a patent related to a vehicle speed monitor that uses an accelerometer to record vehicle motion.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for monitoring vehicle speed over a continuous distance, such as on a toll road, as an alternative to point-in-time radar or laser measurements.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff, Sunset Licensing, is the assignee of the patent-in-suit, possessing all rights to enforce it and collect damages. No other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,483,941 - Vehicle Speed Monitor

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,483,941, titled “Vehicle Speed Monitor,” issued July 9, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies speeding as a leading cause of traffic accidents and notes that conventional speed enforcement methods, like police radar, are limited to checking speed at a single point in time (’941 Patent, col. 1:4-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle speed monitor, described as an integrated circuit (IC) card containing a three-axis accelerometer, memory, and a processor. This card is provided to a vehicle at a road entrance, where it records the vehicle's instantaneous accelerations over time. At the road exit, the card is returned, its data is downloaded, and the acceleration data is used to determine the vehicle's speed throughout its journey to identify any violations. The system can also be used for electronic tolling based on entry and exit points (’941 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54). Figure 1 illustrates this system, showing a vehicle receiving the monitor at an entrance booth and returning it at an exit booth.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for continuous speed monitoring over a defined segment of a road, rather than spot-checking, which could provide a more comprehensive basis for speed enforcement (’941 Patent, col. 1:5-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • An integrated circuit (IC) card comprising:
    • an accelerometer configured to measure instantaneous accelerations of the vehicle along three axes;
    • a nonvolatile memory;
    • a contact or contactless interface; and
    • a processor programmed to record the measured accelerations in memory and to transmit, via the interface, at least one of (1) the recorded accelerations or (2) scalar instantaneous speeds determined from the accelerations.
• The complaint’s general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is preserved (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Lilee Saferide System solution" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "makes, uses, offers for sale and sells" the accused product in the U.S. (Compl. ¶17). However, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the Lilee Saferide System's specific technical functionality, architecture, or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary claim chart detailing representative infringement of Claim 1" as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶24). In the absence of the chart, the infringement theory must be drawn from the complaint's narrative allegations. The complaint alleges that the accused "Lilee Saferide System solution" infringes the ’941 Patent, asserting that the invention is rooted in monitoring a vehicle's speed using an integrated circuit with a three-axis accelerometer (Compl. ¶¶14, 17). The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations that map features of the accused product to the individual limitations of Claim 1.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent repeatedly describes the invention as a physical "IC card" that is provided to a driver at an entrance and returned at an exit (’941 Patent, col. 3:5-29). A primary issue will be whether this term can be construed to read on the components of the accused "Lilee Saferide System solution," which may be an integrated, permanently installed telematics system rather than a portable, exchangeable card.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any specific allegation of how the accused system operates. A central evidentiary question will be whether the Lilee Saferide System actually performs the functions recited in Claim 1, specifically: (1) containing an accelerometer that measures acceleration on three axes; and (2) transmitting either the raw acceleration data or scalar speeds derived from that data, as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "integrated circuit (IC) card"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of Claim 1 and defines the physical embodiment of the invention. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this term is construed narrowly as a physical, removable card, or broadly to encompass any self-contained electronic module. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the patent's toll-booth-based embodiment and modern vehicle telematics systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the form factor beyond being an "IC card," which a party could argue is a generic term for a device containing an integrated circuit.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides substantial support for a narrow construction. The Abstract states the monitor is "provided to the vehicle at an entrance to a road" and "returned at an exit." The detailed description and Figure 1 consistently depict a system where a physical object is exchanged at entrance and exit booths (’941 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54; col. 3:5-14). This context suggests the term refers to a specific type of portable, transponder-like device.

• The Term: "transmit... at least one of (1) the recorded instantaneous accelerations and (2) scalar instantaneous speeds"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the data output from the claimed device. The dispute may turn on whether the data transmitted by the accused system falls within one of these two specific categories.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The disjunctive "at least one of" structure provides flexibility, covering the transmission of either raw acceleration data or processed speed data. A party might argue this covers any data from which speed could be inferred.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a clear purpose for the transmission: to allow a back-end system to "determine if any speed limit has been violated" (’941 Patent, col. 4:11-19). A party could argue that the transmitted data must be the actual acceleration vectors or calculated speed values themselves, not a derivative piece of information like a simple "speeding/not speeding" alert bit.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect infringement or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "integrated circuit (IC) card," as described in the patent's context of a physical token exchanged at toll booths, be construed broadly enough to read on the architecture of the accused "Lilee Saferide System solution"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: given the lack of detail in the pleading, what evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused system actually performs the specific functions recited in Claim 1, particularly the transmission of either raw acceleration data or calculated scalar speeds for the purpose of speed analysis?