DCT
1:18-cv-01875
Innobrilliance LLC v. Selex Es Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: InnoBrilliance, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Selex ES Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01875, D. Del., 11/27/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems infringe three patents related to autonomously capturing and processing license plate information from a moving surveillance vehicle.
- Technical Context: The technology involves vehicle-mounted camera and computer systems used by law enforcement to automatically identify vehicles of interest by scanning license plates of surrounding traffic without direct operator intervention for each scan.
- Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit share a common origin, stemming from a PCT application filed in 2003. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-10 | Priority Date for '150, '498, and '870 Patents (PCT Filing) |
| 2010-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 Issues |
| 2011-02-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,881,498 Issues |
| 2011-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870 Issues |
| 2018-11-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 - "Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition" (Issued May 4, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional license plate recognition systems as requiring "conscious efforts on the part of the driver," such as maneuvering the surveillance vehicle relative to a target vehicle or manually triggering a camera to capture an image ('150 Patent, col. 1:41-48). These actions divert the officer's attention from driving and other activities, creating potential safety risks (Compl. ¶10; '150 Patent, col. 1:23-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle-mounted system that operates autonomously in the background to capture license plate images from surrounding vehicles, including those in adjacent lanes ('150 Patent, Abstract). The system uses at least two cameras and a processor to perform optical character recognition (OCR) on the captured images, check the resulting numbers against a database for problems, and alert the operator only when a potential issue is identified, all "without any input from the driver or other operator" for the capture and analysis cycle ('150 Patent, col. 2:21-27). Figure 2 of the patent depicts a block diagram of the system, showing cameras (22A, 22B) feeding image data to a processor (26) which can then trigger an alert via a speaker or display (28A, 28B) ('150 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This autonomous approach was intended to improve officer safety by reducing distractions and to increase the thoroughness of surveillance by continuously monitoring all vehicles within the cameras' view, not just those singled out by an operator ('150 Patent, col. 1:49-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
- Essential elements of claim 1 (as corrected by a Certificate of Correction dated Nov. 16, 2010) include:
- At least first and second cameras mounted on a moving surveillance vehicle.
- The cameras are collectively configured to capture images of license plates from target vehicles in the same or adjacent lanes "without a need for input from the operator."
- At least one processor, carried by the vehicle, that "continuously uses character recognition to determine the first and second license plate numbers, and to alert the operator... only upon discovering that there is a potential problem related to the first or second target vehicles, all without a need for input from the operator."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,881,498 - "Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition" (Issued Feb. 1, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '498 Patent, a continuation of the application that led to the '150 Patent, identifies the same technical problem: prior art systems required officers to manually aim and trigger cameras, which was inefficient and potentially hazardous (Compl. ¶21; '498 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method of autonomous surveillance. The method involves operating a camera system on a moving vehicle to capture license plate information from other moving vehicles in the same or adjacent lanes ('498 Patent, col. 2:2-6). A computer on the vehicle is then used to determine the license plate numbers from the captured information and alert the operator "only upon discovering that there is a potential problem," with the entire process occurring "without a need for input from the operator" ('498 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a framework for an automated surveillance process that enhances safety and operational efficiency compared to manual systems ('498 Patent, col. 1:55-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Essential elements of the method claimed in claim 1 include:
- Providing or operating a surveillance vehicle with a camera system to capture license plate information from multiple target vehicles, regardless of lane, while all vehicles are moving.
- Providing or operating the vehicle with a computer programmed to use the captured information to determine license plate numbers.
- The computer alerts an operator "only upon discovering that there is a potential problem related to one of the target vehicles."
- The process is performed "all without a need for input from the operator."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870, "Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition," issued August 30, 2011.
- Technology Synopsis: As a further continuation in the same patent family, the '870 Patent addresses the same need for autonomous ALPR to reduce officer distraction (Compl. ¶28; '870 Patent, col. 1:55-65). It claims a system that specifically alerts an operator with respect to vehicles in multiple explicitly defined surrounding lanes: "in the first lane in front of the surveillance vehicle... in a second lane to the left... in a third lane to the right... and... traveling in the first lane behind the surveillance vehicle" ('870 Patent, claim 1). The system autonomously captures images, applies character recognition, and alerts the operator when a license plate number matches an entry in a database related to a "possible law enforcement-related problem" ('870 Patent, claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Selex Plate Hunter M6 system infringes by using vehicle-mounted cameras to surveil multiple lanes of traffic, a processor to determine plate numbers, and software to compare those numbers against a "hotlist" to alert the operator of a match (Compl. ¶¶58, 64-65).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Plate Hunter M6 Mobile ALPR System" sold by Defendant Selex ES Inc. (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Plate Hunter M6 is a system designed to be mounted on patrol cars (Compl. ¶11, Fig. 5). It is described as using cameras, a processing unit, and proprietary software to capture license plate images from surrounding traffic, including in multiple lanes, while the patrol car is moving (Compl. ¶¶33, 36). The system then "instantaneously" compares the captured plate information with a "hot list" of records to identify vehicles of interest and provides audible and visual alerts to the officer "within milliseconds" of a match (Compl. ¶¶32, 40, Fig. 11). The complaint emphasizes marketing materials stating the system "works behind the scenes," allowing operators to "keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the scene," which it alleges supports the autonomous nature of the system (Compl. ¶36). This image from Defendant's materials describes how the system provides audible and visual alerts when a suspect license plate is read (Compl. ¶35, Fig. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as corrected) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for alerting an operator of a moving surveillance vehicle with respect to first and second license plates on moving first and second target vehicles... | The Plate Hunter M6 system is configured to surveil vehicles, capture license plate images from moving targets, and alert the operator. This screenshot from Defendant's marketing materials illustrates the alert function. (Compl. ¶32, Fig. 2). | ¶32 | col. 1:59-61 |
| at least first and second cameras mounted on the surveillance vehicle, | The accused system has two cameras that are mounted on the surveillance vehicle. | ¶35 | col. 4:65-67 |
| and collectively configured to capture, without a need for input from the operator, images of each of the license plates... regardless of whether the target vehicles are in a same lane... or in left or right adjacent lanes... | The accused system scans license plates in multiple lanes of traffic without requiring operator input, allowing the operator to keep their hands on the wheel. This marketing material highlights an expanded field of view for scanning multiple lanes. (Compl. ¶36, Fig. 6). | ¶36 | col. 2:21-24 |
| at least one processor carried by the surveillance vehicle | The accused system includes a processing unit. | ¶37 | col. 4:41-42 |
| that continuously uses character recognition to determine the first and second license plate numbers, | The system scans license plate images to determine the number and works independently. | ¶37 | col. 2:12-14 |
| and to alert the operator... only upon discovering that there is a potential problem related to the first or second target vehicles, all without a need for input from the operator. | The captured license plate number is compared to a hotlist, and if a match occurs, the system alerts the vehicle operator. | ¶34, ¶40 | col. 2:24-27 |
'498 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of surveilling multiple target vehicles from a surveillance vehicle, comprising: providing or operating the surveillance vehicle with a camera system disposed to capture license plate information on each of the target vehicles regardless of whether the target vehicles are in a same lane... or in left or right adjacent lanes... while the surveillance vehicle and the target vehicles are all moving. | The accused system scans the license plate of a moving target vehicle in multiple lanes of traffic while the surveillance vehicle is also moving. An image of the plate is captured and the scan data is saved. | ¶49, ¶50 | col. 2:2-6 |
| and providing or operating the surveillance vehicle with a computer programmed to use the license plate information to determine license plate numbers for each of the target vehicles, and alert an operator... only upon discovering that there is a potential problem... all without a need for input from the operator. | The accused system uses a processing unit and proprietary software to scan license plate images, determine the number, and alert the operator of a match on a hotlist, all without needing operator input for the process. This screenshot describes the use of a processing unit to compare images to a hotlist. (Compl. ¶51, Fig. 20). | ¶51, ¶53 | col. 2:6-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A significant issue for the '150 Patent arises from the complaint's quotation of the claim language. Paragraph 37 quotes a version of claim 1 that existed prior to a Certificate of Correction, stating the processor "continuously uses character recognition... only upon discovering that there is a potential problem." This phrasing is technically illogical. The corrected—and legally operative—claim language requires the processor to continuously use character recognition and to alert the operator only upon discovering a problem. The court will need to determine whether the infringement analysis proceeds based on the corrected claim text or the erroneous version pleaded in the complaint.
- Technical Questions: The case may turn on the evidence presented to support the term "continuously." The patents describe a system operating in "background mode" ('150 Patent, col. 2:22), while the complaint alleges the accused system "works independently" (Compl. ¶37). A key factual question is whether the operational cycle of the Plate Hunter M6 system—its image capture rate, processing time, and any system downtimes—satisfies the "continuous" limitation as it is ultimately construed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "without a need for input from the operator" (appears in claim 1 of both the '150 and '498 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the "autonomous" aspect that distinguishes the invention from prior art requiring manual triggering. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that actions like initial system activation, software updates, or management of the "hotlist" database constitute necessary "input from the operator," thereby placing the accused system outside the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art that "forc[es] the operator to trigger the camera" for each capture, suggesting the "input" being avoided is per-capture intervention ('150 Patent, col. 1:45-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also notes that the system "can be turned on and off by the operator as desired," which may suggest that overall system control is distinct from the "input" required for the autonomous capture-and-alert cycle itself ('150 Patent, col. 5:39-40).
The Term: "continuously" (appears in claim 1 of the '150 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the temporal nature of the system's operation. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused system's processing cycle infringes. A defendant might argue its system operates in discrete, non-continuous cycles.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the system is "designed to operate continuously for an extended period of time while vehicle 10 is patrolling" and that functions are "carried out continuously, in background mode" ('150 Patent, col. 5:36-38; col. 2:21-22). This could support a reading that means generally "always on" during a patrol, rather than a literal, uninterrupted processing stream.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that "continuously" implies a specific, high-frequency, uninterrupted technical standard of operation that the accused system may not meet. The complaint itself lacks specific factual allegations about the precise frequency or uninterrupted nature of the accused system's operation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. All three counts are for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶¶30, 44, 57).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts that would typically support a claim for willful infringement, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct. The prayer for relief includes a request for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an "exceptional" case, but the factual basis for such a finding is not developed in the complaint's allegations (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and procedural effect: will the infringement analysis for the '150 Patent be governed by the legally-operative, corrected version of claim 1, or by the technically-flawed, uncorrected version quoted in the complaint? The resolution of this discrepancy is fundamental to assessing infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: what are the precise technical operating parameters of the accused Plate Hunter M6 system? The case will likely require a detailed factual inquiry into whether the system's functions—particularly its processing frequency and the degree of operator involvement—meet the claim requirements of being "continuous" and performed "without a need for input from the operator" as those terms are defined in the context of the patents.