Inventergy LBS LLC v. Spot LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Spot LLC (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01670, USDC Colorado, 06/10/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is incorporated in Colorado, has an established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS tracking products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for remotely communicating with and configuring a tracking device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal tracking devices that can have their functionality, such as location reporting intervals and power states, modified remotely by a central system.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 12/322,941 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,154,401) and claims priority to a 2008 provisional application, which may be relevant for establishing an early effective filing date for the claimed subject matter.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-02-08	U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/065,116 Priority Date
2014-06-24	U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 Issues
2019-06-10	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 - "System and method for communication with a tracking device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art tracking systems where communication between the tracking device and a central station was very limited, often restricted to transmitting a device identifier and location data. This limited functionality was due to concerns over device power consumption and the cost of network access time (’286 Patent, col. 1:26-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a tracking device that can be remotely configured and reconfigured by a remote system. It includes a "configuration routine" that modifies the device’s operational parameters in response to communications from the remote system (’286 Patent, col. 2:5-15). This allows for dynamic adjustment of functions like location reporting intervals, data buffering logic, power states, and geofence monitoring, thereby providing enhanced flexibility while managing power and network usage (’286 Patent, col. 2:16-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for greater functional control over a fleet of deployed tracking devices, enabling users to adapt device behavior to specific needs without physical access.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’286 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • A location detector operative to determine locations of the tracking device.
  • A communication device operative to communicate with a plurality of remote systems.
  • Memory for storing data including location data and configuration data.
  • A processor operative to execute code to impart functionality to the device, with the functionality depending on the configuration data.
  • A configuration routine operative to modify the configuration data responsive to a communication from any of the remote systems.
  • The modifiable configuration data at least partially determines an interval for buffering location data when the communication device is unable to communicate with a remote system.
  • The buffering interval at least partially controls how frequently newly acquired location data will be stored.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies at least "Spot's GEN3 GPS Tracker" as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a "GPS Tracker" (Compl. ¶11). It does not provide specific details on the product's operation, market position, or technical features beyond this general identification. The infringement allegations are based on the assertion that the product, by its nature as a GPS tracker, incorporates the technology claimed in the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶11, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that allegedly detail how the accused products infringe the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶16-17). As the charts are not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

The core of the infringement theory, as alleged, is that the "Exemplary Spot Products" (e.g., the GEN3 GPS Tracker) are tracking devices that necessarily contain the elements of claim 1 of the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶11, 16). The plaintiff’s theory appears to be that the accused GPS trackers can be remotely configured by a central service (e.g., to set reporting intervals or other parameters), which would map to the "configuration routine" and "modifiable configuration data" limitations of claim 1. The complaint alleges that the accused products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims literally or by the doctrine of equivalence (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's functionality for receiving updates or setting changes from a server meets the claim limitation of a "configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from any of said remote systems." The definition of "configuration routine" and the mechanism of modification will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the accused product actually performs the specific function of modifying a "buffering interval" when communication is lost, as required by the final two limitations of claim 1. The complaint does not provide specific evidence that the accused product has this specific data buffering functionality tied to remote configuration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "configuration routine"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the inventive concept of providing remote functional control over the tracking device. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused product’s software architecture for receiving and implementing settings from a server constitutes a "configuration routine" as described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the routine in functional terms as being "operative to modify the configuration data responsive to a communication from the remote system" (’286 Patent, col. 2:11-14), which could be argued to cover any software module that updates settings based on network commands.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links the routine to modifying a wide array of specific parameters, such as power states, geofences, and diagnostic intervals, beyond just simple reporting (’286 Patent, col. 2:16-50). A defendant may argue the term implies a more comprehensive and specific software structure than a generic settings-update feature.

• The Term: "an interval for buffering said location data when said communication device is unable to communicate"

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific capability: adjusting the data buffering behavior specifically in response to a loss of communication, with that behavior being set by the modifiable configuration data. Infringement requires proof that the accused product not only buffers data but does so according to a remotely configurable interval triggered by communication loss.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional. A plaintiff might argue that any remotely-set parameter that dictates how often data points are saved to memory during a network outage meets this limitation, regardless of the underlying implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives examples like buffering based on a "time interval (e.g., every 30 minutes) or a distance interval (e.g., whenever the tracking device moves 50 yards)" (’286 Patent, col. 2:25-29). A defendant could argue this implies a specific type of interval-based buffering, potentially distinguishing it from a simple data logging or caching function in the accused device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges that Spot sells the accused products to customers for use "in a manner that infringes" and distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner" (Compl. ¶13-14). For contributory infringement, it alleges Spot sells the products for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its filing constitutes "notice and actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a finding of ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶12-13). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶D.i).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Spot GEN3 GPS Tracker performs the specific, conditional function recited in claim 1—namely, that it modifies a data buffering interval in response to a loss of communication, and that this interval is itself remotely configurable as part of the "configuration data"? The complaint's lack of specific technical allegations on this point makes it a critical question.

2. A second key issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court construe the term "configuration routine"? The case may turn on whether this term is interpreted to mean any mechanism for updating device settings remotely, or if the patent's specification narrows it to a more complex software component capable of modifying a specific and extensive set of operational parameters as described in the patent's embodiments.