DCT

1:24-cv-01378

Navog LLC v. Trimble Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Navog LLC (NM)
- Defendant: Trimble Inc. (DE, with place of business in CO)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01378, D. Colo., 05/16/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has allegedly committed acts of infringement there, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products, presumably related to GPS and navigation, infringe a patent directed to a system for warning drivers of large vehicles about upcoming low-clearance obstacles.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the logistical and safety problem of oversized vehicles, such as commercial trucks and RVs, colliding with structures like bridges and tunnels that lack sufficient vertical clearance.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge for indirect and willful infringement are based on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-12-13	Patent Priority Date (from Provisional App. 62/266,644)
2020-03-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205 Issued
2024-05-16	Complaint Filed

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205, “GPS and Warning System,” issued March 17, 2020 (the “’205 Patent”).

U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205 - “GPS and Warning System”

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the problem faced by drivers of high-profile vehicles (e.g., trucks, buses, RVs) who risk colliding with low-clearance structures such as underpasses, bridges, and tunnels, a situation that can be difficult to avoid at highway speeds and which requires wasting "valuable time and resources" to find an alternate route (’205 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle-mounted system that uses a GPS module to determine the vehicle's location and a computer module pre-programmed with a database of low-clearance structure locations and their measurements (’205 Patent, col. 4:40-49). When the system detects that the vehicle is approaching a structure with insufficient clearance within a "predetermined distance," it activates a warning mechanism, such as a "loud audible sound and flashing light," to alert the driver and can display alternate routes (’205 Patent, col. 2:40-44, col. 2:55-59). Figure 4 of the patent depicts the system (100) in a truck cab (172) approaching a low-clearance overpass (176) and issuing a warning.
Technical Importance: The technology provides an automated, proactive warning system intended to prevent costly and dangerous collisions, addressing a persistent safety and efficiency challenge in the commercial and recreational transportation sectors (’205 Patent, col. 1:56-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" identified in an attached exhibit, but does not specify claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the foundational system claim.
Independent Claim 1:
- A GPS and warning system for an automobile comprising:
- (a) a main body with a hollow interior volume;
- (b) a computer module located within the hollow interior volume and adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses;
- (c) a GPS module located within the hollow interior volume and adapted to provide location information;
- (d) at least one warning mechanism electrically connected to the computer module and adapted to provide a loud audible sound to warn a driver of impending danger; and
- (e) a display screen on an outer surface, connected to the computer module, to provide visual information to the driver, including the height of an approaching bridge or underpass and alternate routes.
The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. Based on Defendant Trimble Inc.'s known business, the accused products are likely related to its portfolio of GPS, navigation, and fleet management technologies for the transportation and logistics industries. The complaint alleges that these products are made, used, sold, and imported by Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’205 Patent, with the specific mapping of claim elements to product features contained in an Exhibit 2 that was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint's narrative theory is that the Defendant's products "practice the technology claimed by the '205 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Pleading Sufficiency: A primary issue may be whether the complaint, which defers all substantive infringement allegations to a missing exhibit, meets the plausibility standards required by Twombly/Iqbal.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question, once products are identified, will be whether the accused systems are "programmed with information" in the manner claimed. For instance, does a system that dynamically receives data from a cloud service meet the limitation of a "computer module... adapted to be programmed," which could be interpreted to imply a more static, self-contained database as depicted in the patent's figures?
- Functional Questions: It will be necessary to determine if the accused products contain a "warning mechanism" that provides a "loud audible sound" specifically for the purpose of warning about low-clearance obstacles, as required by the claim, or if they provide more general-purpose route or hazard notifications that may not align with the claimed function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "computer module... adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the patent's scope. The dispute will likely focus on whether this limitation covers modern, cloud-connected navigation systems or is limited to the self-contained, pre-loaded device described in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of data storage and access in navigation technology has evolved significantly since the patent's 2015 priority date.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "information," which could be argued to encompass any form of data, whether stored locally or accessed remotely. The term "adapted to be programmed" could be construed broadly to mean any system capable of receiving and using such data.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a "computer module located within the hollow interior volume" which is "programmed with information" (’205 Patent, col. 2:33-36). The patent figures depict a single, physical device, which may suggest that the "computer module" and its "programmed information" are intended to be self-contained within the "main body."
The Term: "within a predetermined distance" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the warning mechanism. Its construction is critical because it lacks an explicit numerical range or method of determination in the claim itself, raising potential indefiniteness questions. The parties will dispute what "predetermined" means—whether it must be a fixed value, user-configurable, or dynamically calculated.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to define a specific distance, which could support a construction that covers any system that sets a warning distance in advance of an alert, regardless of how that distance is determined.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification mentions a "preset distance from the structure" at which the alarm will alert the driver (’205 Patent, col. 4:31-34). This could be argued to require a specific, pre-set (e.g., factory or user-set) value, rather than a dynamically calculated distance based on factors like vehicle speed.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant induces infringement by selling the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15). The claim is predicated on knowledge acquired, at the latest, upon service of the complaint.
Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based entirely on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge," and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

Pleading and Proof: The most immediate question is evidentiary. Given that the complaint outsources all specific infringement contentions to a missing exhibit, a central issue will be whether the Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed, and what evidence will be produced to show how Trimble’s specific products meet each limitation of the asserted claims.
Definitional Scope: A core claim construction battle will likely concern the scope of a "computer module... programmed with information." The case may turn on whether this 2015-priority-date term can be construed to cover modern navigation systems that rely on dynamic, cloud-based data, or if it is limited to the self-contained, pre-loaded architecture described in the patent's specification.
Functional Equivalence: A key factual question for infringement will be one of functional mapping. Does the accused system's alert functionality constitute the specific "warning mechanism... adapted to provide a loud audible sound" for low-clearance danger as claimed, or is it a general-purpose navigation alert that is technically distinct from the dedicated safety system required by the claim?