DCT
1:17-cv-00877
Blackbird Tech LLC v. INRIX Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: INRIX, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00877, D. Del., 06/30/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, INRIX, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s INRIX Traffic App infringes a patent related to using crowdsourced location data to measure traffic conditions and provide predictive travel alerts.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves leveraging mobile devices as a distributed sensor network to generate real-time traffic data, which is then used to power predictive navigation features such as "time to leave" alerts.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is the result of an extensive prosecution history, claiming priority to applications filed as early as 2004, indicating a long development and examination process. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-02-05 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 |
| 2016-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 Issues |
| 2017-06-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 - “Real-Time Traffic Condition Measurement Using Network Transmission Data”
Issued July 26, 2016 (’190 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for improved systems for tracking and predicting the movement of people and objects, stating that prior art systems were "poor and do not provide for adequate information for acceptable tracking or predicting" (’190 Patent, col. 1:41-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by using a "plurality of automobiles using cell phone tower triangulation to locate a cell phone within each" to create a real-time measure of traffic conditions (’190 Patent, Abstract). This data is then used to calculate vehicle speeds, predict travel times, and provide users with proactive alerts, such as when to depart to arrive at a destination on time (’190 Patent, col. 9:46-56, FIG. 26). The system is designed to provide these predictions based on factors like the time of day, day of the week, or current road conditions (’190 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift toward using the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones as a large-scale, dynamic sensor network to generate traffic data, rather than relying on static infrastructure like road sensors or cameras (’190 Patent, col. 2:5-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 14 (Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, 22).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented process comprising:
- receiving a destination and a desired time of arrival from a user;
- receiving vehicle traffic information for a predicted route;
- wherein the traffic information is calculated using a plurality of cell phone locations, with user permission; and
- communicating an alert to the user indicating when to proceed for an on-time arrival.
- Independent Claim 8 recites a similar process but requires the additional step of:
- estimating a travel time for the user based on the calculated route and the user's travel habits.
- Independent Claim 14 recites a similar process but requires the additional steps of:
- receiving traffic information for a plurality of routes; and
- recommending one of the plurality of routes to the user based on the traffic information.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "INRIX Traffic App" for mobile devices (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The INRIX Traffic App allows users to save destinations as "Places" and specify a desired "Arrive by" time (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). A screenshot in the complaint shows the user interface for setting a desired arrival time of 1:15 PM for a trip to the Museum of Fine Arts (Compl. p. 5).
- The app allegedly provides "Pre-Drive Alerts (PDAs)," described as "reminders that notify drivers when to leave to arrive at a destination on time" based on live traffic conditions (Compl. p. 8).
- The complaint alleges the app calculates traffic information by gathering "real-time, predictive and historical data from more than 300 million sources, including... GPS, cell towers, [and] mobile devices" (Compl. p. 7). A screenshot shows a pop-up informing the user that INRIX uses their location to "crowdsource traffic conditions" (Compl. p. 8).
- The system is alleged to estimate travel times based not only on traffic but also on "user's travel habits," such as preferences to avoid tolls or highways, and by learning a user's "preferred route" (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20).
- The complaint presents the INRIX app as being powered by a "powerful cloud route monitoring platform" that provides services to the automotive, mobile, and public sectors (Compl. ¶5, p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’190 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. receiving a destination and a desired time of arrival at the destination from a user; | The INRIX Traffic App allows a user to add "Places" (destinations) and specify a desired arrival time for that destination. The complaint includes a screenshot of the app's interface for setting an "Arrive by" time (Compl. p. 5). | ¶¶12-14 | col. 13:26-34 |
| b. receiving vehicle traffic information for a calculated route predicted to be traveled by the user to the destination, | The app allegedly calculates and displays one or more routes to a destination based on "real-time traffic feeds, speed flows, road conditions, and incident reports." | ¶15 | col. 2:16-20 |
| c. wherein the vehicle traffic information is calculated based on a plurality of cell phone locations... wherein each of the plurality of cell phone locations is determined following confirmation of a user setting that permits communication of a location... | INRIX allegedly "gathers real-time... data from... cell towers [and] mobile devices" to calculate traffic. The app requires a user to accept a privacy policy and permit location communication to "crowdsource traffic conditions," as shown in a screenshot (Compl. p. 8). | ¶¶16-17 | col. 2:5-12 |
| d. communicating an alert to the user, based on the vehicle traffic information, indicating the user should proceed to the destination for an on-time arrival at the destination. | The app allegedly sends "Pre-Drive Alerts" that "notify drivers when to leave to arrive at a destination on time." A screenshot shows an alert stating, "Leave for Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in 5min. It will take 36min with Light Traffic" (Compl. p. 11). | ¶18 | col. 12:4-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 8 requires estimating travel time based on "the user's travel habits." The complaint alleges this is met by INRIX learning a user's "preferred route" and accounting for settings like "Avoid Tolls" (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The litigation may raise the question of whether these functionalities meet the patent's definition of "travel habits," which the specification exemplifies as "how fast he typically drives as compared to speed limits" ('190 Patent, col. 14:38-40).
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will concern the precise mechanism of the accused "Pre-Drive Alerts." The complaint alleges these alerts tell a user "when to leave to arrive at a destination on time" (Compl. p. 8), which aligns with the language of Claim 1. The court will need to determine if the accused system's calculation for triggering the alert performs the specific function required by the claim—dynamically determining a departure time to meet a pre-set arrival time based on current traffic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "user's travel habits" (Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for infringement of Claim 8. Its construction will determine whether considering user-configured preferences (like toll avoidance) or learned routes is sufficient to meet the limitation, or if a more sophisticated analysis of a user's actual driving behavior is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because its potential ambiguity creates a clear point of dispute between a broad functional reading and a narrower reading limited by the specification's examples.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope by stating that the data collection facility "may be adapted to collect information pertaining to the user's habits and apply the data collected through algorithms to help determine future performance" ('190 Patent, col. 14:30-34). This could be argued to encompass any learned, user-specific travel data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary example provided in the specification is specific: "For example, the collection facility may collect information on the user's travel habits (e.g. how fast he typically drives as compared to speed limits and or other traffic)" ('190 Patent, col. 14:36-40). A defendant may argue this limits the term's scope to habits related to driving speed and behavior, not static route preferences.
The Term: "communicating an alert... indicating the user should proceed... for an on-time arrival" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core output of the process in Claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused INRIX alert, which states "Leave for... in 5 minutes" (Compl. p. 11), performs the function of "indicating the user should proceed... for an on-time arrival."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a system that "may be programmed to send the alert, or update, only when problems, congestion, or other abnormalities occur, or the system may be programmed to provide information everyday" ('190 Patent, col. 12:41-45). This suggests flexibility in the alert's trigger and content, supporting an interpretation that any "time to leave" notification aimed at meeting a deadline infringes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the phrase "for an on-time arrival" requires the alert to be the result of a specific type of dynamic calculation tied to the arrival time, and that a simple, pre-set reminder would not qualify. The language may suggest a just-in-time notification, which may or may not be how the accused feature operates.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful infringement." However, in the prayer for relief, it requests that the court adjudge the case "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and award "enhanced damages" (Compl. ¶D, p. 15). As no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent are alleged, this claim appears to be based on Defendant's continuation of its allegedly infringing conduct after the filing of the complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A central issue will be one of claim construction, particularly for the term "user's travel habits" in Claim 8. The court will need to decide if this term is broad enough to cover user-selectable route preferences (e.g., "Avoid Tolls"), as the complaint alleges, or if it is constrained by the specification's more specific examples related to a user's driving speed.
- Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused "Pre-Drive Alert" function performs the specific, multi-step process required by the claims. The court will examine if the INRIX system's alert is merely a glorified reminder or if it functions as a dynamic departure calculator that uses real-time, crowdsourced traffic data to ensure an "on-time arrival," as claimed in the '190 patent.
- Source of Data: The claims require that traffic information be "calculated based on a plurality of cell phone locations." While INRIX is alleged to use data from "cell towers" and "mobile devices" (Compl. p. 7), a potential point of dispute could be the degree to which the accused functionality relies on this specific data source versus other inputs (e.g., dedicated GPS fleet data, road sensors) and whether such a distinction matters for infringement.