DCT
3:22-cv-01904
UTTO Inc v. Metrotech Corp
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: UTTO Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: METROTECH CORPORATION, aka Vivax-Metrotech (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: James W. Denison
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01904, N.D. Cal., 10/24/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant being a California corporation with a regular and established business in the district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s utility locator devices implementing the "RTK-Pro Walk Back Feature" infringe a patent related to using pre-existing geospatial data and buffer zones to guide an operator to buried assets.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for locating underground utility lines, a critical process for public safety and infrastructure protection during excavation projects.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint, which is a third amended complaint, details pre-suit communications between the parties. These communications, initiated by a letter from Plaintiff on January 31, 2022, involved allegations of infringement and Defendant’s assertion of non-infringement, primarily based on the interpretation of a key claim term. The complaint also includes allegations of tortious interference related to a potential contract between Plaintiff and Honeywell.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-06 | '441 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-12-16 | '441 Patent Application Date |
| 2015-07-21 | '441 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-01-01 | Discussions between UTTO and Metrotech reportedly begin |
| 2021-10-05 | Plaintiff's negotiations with Honeywell reportedly begin |
| 2021-12-21 | Meeting involving Plaintiff, Defendant, and Honeywell |
| 2021-12-31 | Plaintiff discovers alleged infringement (approx. date) |
| 2022-01-31 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2022-02-17 | Defendant responds to Plaintiff's notice letter |
| 2022-03-11 | Defendant denies infringement in subsequent correspondence |
| 2022-03-28 | Defendant posts YouTube video of accused feature |
| 2022-07-07 | Honeywell announces partnership with Defendant |
| 2022-10-24 | Third Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441 - Detection of Buried Assets Using Current Location and Known Buffer Zones
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441, Detection of Buried Assets Using Current Location and Known Buffer Zones, issued July 21, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty faced by technicians trying to locate a specific underground utility line when multiple "buried assets" are in close proximity. The overlapping electromagnetic signals from these assets can create interference, leading to time-consuming work, errors, and safety hazards ('441 Patent, col. 2:7-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a mobile computing device that leverages pre-existing geospatial data for a target asset. The device receives a set of data points for the asset and generates a "buffer zone" around them. It then uses its own real-time location (e.g., from GPS) to determine if the operator is inside or outside this pre-defined zone, displaying different graphics to guide the operator toward the target. This reduces reliance on interpreting complex real-time electromagnetic signals until the operator is already in the correct vicinity ('441 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-15).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the safety, precision, and efficiency of locating buried assets by using stored data and location-based guidance to overcome the challenge of signal interference in congested underground environments (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1 through 7 of the '441 Patent (Compl. ¶¶13, 23-27). Independent claim 1 is central to the allegations.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- receiving, via a communications network, a group of buried asset data points corresponding to a particular buried asset;
- reading a predefined value pertaining to a width of a buffer zone;
- generating, based on the group of buried asset data points, a two dimensional area comprising the buffer zone;
- iteratively executing a four-step process of: a) calculating the device's own location, b) determining if that location is within the buffer zone, c) displaying a first graphic if outside the zone, and d) displaying a second graphic if inside the zone.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "RTK-Pro Utility Locator with Survey-Grade GNSS," specifically the firmware feature known as the "RTK-Pro Walk Back Feature" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the "Walk Back Feature" allows a technician to use the RTK-Pro device to "fetch" previously stored location data for one or more "walk back points" from Defendant's "VMMap Cloud" over a 4G connection (Compl. ¶17). The device then provides on-screen directional guidance to the technician. The complaint describes a YouTube video demonstrating the feature, in which a "guidance arrow" directs the user when they are outside a target area, and a two-dimensional circle graphic appears when the user is within 10 feet of a point (Compl. ¶¶20, 26). The complaint alleges this feature is marketed as a key part of Defendant's locating technology (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'441 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, via a communications network... a group of buried asset data points corresponding to a particular buried asset... | The RTK-Pro's "Walk Back Feature" allegedly "fetches" one or more "walk back points" over a 4G connection from the "VMMap Cloud" server. The complaint alleges these "walk back points" are the claimed "buried asset data points" (Compl. Ex. 2). | ¶17 | col. 10:50-55 |
| reading a predefined value pertaining to a width of a buffer zone | The accused feature allegedly uses a predefined proximity, such as an area "within ten feet of the walk back point," to trigger certain functions. | ¶20, ¶23 | col. 18:1-3 |
| generating, based on the group of buried asset data points, a two dimensional area comprising the buffer zone... | The complaint alleges that when a user gets within 10 feet of a walk back point, the accused feature generates a "two-dimensional graphic" consisting of a "circle around the walk back point," which constitutes the claimed buffer zone. | ¶20 | col. 12:8-15 |
| iteratively executing... a) calculating an above-surface location of the mobile computing device using spatial processes | The accused RTK-Pro device allegedly uses "satellite navigation technology" (GNSS) to determine its own current location in the field. | ¶24 | col. 18:5-7 |
| ...b) determining whether the above-surface location of the mobile computing device is located within the two dimensional area | The accused system allegedly compares the device's current location to the stored "walk back point" data to determine if the user is within the 10-foot circular area. | ¶21 | col. 18:8-11 |
| ...c) if the above-surface location is not located within the two dimensional area, displaying a first graphic in... the... device | The complaint alleges that when the user is not in the target area, the RTK-Pro displays a "guidance arrow directing the user," which serves as the "first graphic." The complaint references a YouTube video showing this functionality (Compl. Ex. 2). | ¶26 | col. 18:11-14 |
| ...d) if the above-surface location is located within the two dimensional area, displaying a second graphic in the display | The complaint alleges that when the user reaches the target area, the RTK-Pro screen changes to a "‘zero in’ screen," which constitutes the "second graphic." | ¶21 | col. 18:14-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint highlights a dispute over the meaning of "group of buried asset data points." Defendant allegedly argued its feature retrieves only a single data point and thus does not infringe (Compl. ¶32). Plaintiff counters that "group" can encompass a single data point and that the feature is used to retrieve multiple points in practice (Compl. ¶¶17, 32). This raises a core claim construction question for the court.
- Technical Questions: A potential issue is whether the accused feature's alleged sequential generation of circles around individual points is technically equivalent to the claimed method of generating a buffer zone "based on the group of buried asset data points." The complaint argues this is "functionally indistinguishable" (Compl. ¶20), but this may be a point of dispute. A further question is whether the accused "guidance arrow" and "zero in" screen meet the functional requirements of the "first graphic" and "second graphic" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "group of buried asset data points"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term appears to be the central issue in the infringement dispute, as noted in the complaint's summary of pre-suit correspondence (Compl. ¶32). Whether the accused feature, which retrieves "walk back points," meets this limitation will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine infringement for the entire accused feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint points to specification language stating that retrieved data may consist of "'one or more records for each buried asset, and each record may include one or more buried asset data points'" ('441 Patent, col. 6:5-9, as cited in Compl. ¶32). This could support an interpretation where "group" includes a set with only one point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the plural "points" and the patent's focus on solving problems arising from "multiple buried assets" ('441 Patent, col. 2:11-13) could support an argument that the term requires two or more data points to form a "group." The patent's figures consistently depict multiple points (e.g., '441 Patent, Fig. 4A).
The Term: "buffer zone"
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on mapping the accused feature's "10-foot circular area" (Compl. ¶20) to the claimed "buffer zone." The defense may argue that its proximity alert is not the formally generated "buffer zone" described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes generating a "two dimensional area comprising a buffer zone" without specifying its exact shape or method of creation, suggesting a potentially broad definition ('441 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses specific methods for generating the zone, such as creating circles of varying sizes based on precision data or creating a "corridor" shape by connecting points ('441 Patent, col. 12:5-15; col. 13:1-10; Figs. 4C, 4E). This could support a narrower construction limited to the specific generation methods disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged continued marketing and sale of the accused feature after receiving actual notice of the '441 Patent and the infringement allegations. The notice was allegedly provided via a letter dated January 31, 2022, and subsequent communications (Compl. ¶¶29, 41-42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "group of buried asset data points," which appears in a patent focused on resolving interference between multiple assets, be construed to cover a feature that allegedly retrieves what Defendant claims is only a single data point?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does Defendant's "Walk Back Feature," as a matter of fact, retrieve single or multiple "walk back points" from its cloud service during typical use? The evidence presented regarding the product's actual functionality will be critical to resolving the factual basis of the infringement claim.
- A central question of infringement will be whether the accused product's combination of a "guidance arrow" for out-of-range targets and a "zero in" screen for in-range targets performs the functions of the claimed "first graphic" and "second graphic" in a manner that satisfies the limitations of Claim 1.