DCT

1:09-cv-01007

Vehicle IP LLC v. Cellco Partnership

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-02-10 '377 Patent Priority Date
1999-11-16 '377 Patent Issue Date
2008-02-25 Alleged pre-suit notice to Verizon Wireless and NIM
2009-06-11 Alleged pre-suit notice to UPS Defendants
2009-12-31 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,987,377 - "Method and Apparatus for Determining Expected Time of Arrival" (Issued Nov. 16, 1999)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for more accurate and frequently updated ETA information than was available from conventional methods, which often relied on static average travel times. It specifically notes that dispatchers for commercial vehicle fleets require better systems to monitor and direct travel routes. (’377 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that combines a remote "dispatch" with a "mobile unit" in a vehicle. The dispatch generates and transmits destination information (e.g., a series of waypoints or a final destination) to the mobile unit via a communications link. (’377 Patent, Abstract). The mobile unit, equipped with its own positioning receiver (e.g., GPS), determines its current position and, in response, calculates the ETA to the specified destination(s). This architecture allows for a dynamic ETA calculation to be performed on the vehicle itself based on its real-time location. (’377 Patent, col. 2:10-16; FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The technology integrated emerging commercial GPS and cellular communications to automate and improve the accuracy of ETA calculation, moving beyond static estimates to dynamic, real-time predictions useful for logistics and navigation. (’377 Patent, col. 1:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A "dispatch" remotely located from a vehicle that generates destination information specifying a "plurality of way points".
    • A "communications link" (specified as a "cellular telephone network") to transmit the destination information from the dispatch.
    • A "mobile unit" in the vehicle that receives the destination information, "determines a vehicle position", and, in response to that position, "determines the expected time of arrival" of the vehicle at a waypoint.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is standard practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "navigation service[s] that determine an expected time of arrival" offered by the various defendants. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32). Specific examples include:

  • AT&T Navigator (Compl. ¶22)
  • VZ Navigator (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27)
  • Garmin Mobile (Compl. ¶26)
  • TCS Navigator (Compl. ¶30)
  • TeleNav GPS Navigator (Compl. ¶31)
  • MobileCast (a fleet management service) (Compl. ¶32)

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are services that provide ETA calculations. (Compl. ¶22). It does not provide any specific technical details on how the accused services operate, such as whether the ETA calculation is performed on the mobile device or on a remote server. The accused products range from consumer-facing navigation applications to commercial fleet management services.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement theory. The following table summarizes a potential infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the generic allegations and the nature of the accused services.

'377 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a dispatch remotely located from the vehicle, the dispatch operable to generate destination information for the vehicle, the destination information specifying a plurality of way points; Defendants' remote servers allegedly generate and provide routing and destination data to end-users' mobile devices. ¶22 col. 1:53-58
a communications link coupled to the dispatch... and wherein the communications link comprises a cellular telephone network. The accused services allegedly use cellular networks (e.g., AT&T's or Verizon's) to transmit destination data from servers to mobile devices. ¶22 col. 1:59-62
the mobile unit coupled to the communications link, the mobile unit operable to receive... destination information... determine a vehicle position, [and] determine in response to the vehicle position the expected time of arrival... The end-user's mobile device running an accused application allegedly receives destination data, uses the device's GPS to determine its position, and calculates the ETA. ¶22 col. 1:62-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "dispatch", which is described in the patent primarily in the context of commercial fleet management (e.g., for trucking companies), can be construed to read on the automated, consumer-facing servers that provide data for services like AT&T Navigator. (’377 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
  • Technical Questions: A critical factual question will be where the "expected time of arrival" is determined. The claim requires the "mobile unit" to perform this calculation. If Defendants' servers perform the ETA calculation and merely transmit the result to the mobile device, this claim element may not be met. The complaint provides no evidence on this point.
  • Legal Questions: The allegations raise the possibility of a divided infringement issue. The claimed system includes both a "dispatch" (controlled by Defendants) and a "mobile unit" (operated by the end-user). To prove direct infringement, Plaintiff may need to establish that one party directs or controls the performance of the entire claimed method, a legal standard for which the complaint does not plead specific facts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dispatch"

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for defining the scope of infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to the commercial fleet management context described in the patent or if it can cover any remote server that provides navigation data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a function of the dispatch is to "generate destination information for the vehicle," a generic function that a navigation server performs. (’377 Patent, col. 1:56-58).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and summary repeatedly frame the invention in the context of "dispatchers of long-haul or local vehicles" making "routing and dispatching decisions," suggesting a system with a degree of human oversight or commercial fleet management functionality, rather than a fully automated consumer service. (’377 Patent, col. 1:42-44).

  • The Term: "mobile unit ... determines ... the expected time of arrival"

    • Context and Importance: This term dictates the location of the core inventive step. Infringement of this element depends on whether the accused mobile applications perform the ETA calculation locally on the device, or if they simply receive and display an ETA calculated remotely by Defendants' servers.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent specification appears to require the calculation to be performed on the device. It describes a "processor (100)" within the "mobile unit (42)" that "generates an expected time of arrival ... based on the vehicle position and the destination information." (’377 Patent, col. 11:24-28; FIG. 5). This suggests that a system where the server performs the calculation would not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of active inducement and contributory infringement without providing specific factual support, such as identifying instructions or user manuals that direct users to infringe. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement against Verizon Wireless, Networks In Motion, and the UPS Defendants. The basis for these allegations is Plaintiff’s alleged pre-suit notice of the ’377 patent to these specific defendants. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 28-29, 33-34).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of divided infringement: can Plaintiff establish that a single entity directs or controls all elements of the claimed system, which spans Defendants' remote servers (the "dispatch") and the separately-owned-and-operated end-user devices (the "mobile unit")?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused software running on a mobile device perform the ETA calculation locally, as required by the claim language "mobile unit ... determines ... the expected time of arrival", or is this calculation performed on Defendants' remote servers?
  3. The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "dispatch", rooted in the patent's description of commercial fleet management, be construed broadly enough to encompass the automated servers that provide navigation data to individual consumers in the majority of the accused services?