Inventergy LBS LLC v. Global Cloud Fleet Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Global Cloud Fleet Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02063, D. Del., 12/28/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle fleet tracking devices and associated systems infringe a patent related to methods for communicating with and remotely configuring a tracking device to conserve power and network usage.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle and asset tracking systems, a critical component of modern logistics, fleet management, and telematics, where remote device management and data efficiency are significant operational factors.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a divisional of a 2012 application, which was a continuation of a 2009 application that claims priority to a 2008 provisional application. This prosecution history may be relevant to interpreting the scope of the claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978 - System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978, System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device, issued December 22, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for improved communication with tracking devices that addresses the limitations of prior systems, such as high power consumption and costly network airtime (U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978, col. 1:38-44; Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a tracking device that can be remotely configured and reconfigured by a central system. This allows for dynamic adjustment of the device's functionality—such as how often it reports its location or buffers data—in response to commands from the remote system, thereby enabling more efficient use of power and network resources (’978 Patent, col. 2:2-16). The method involves establishing communication, providing configuration data, receiving processed data, and then providing new configuration data to alter the device’s behavior, as illustrated in a flowchart (’978 Patent, Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a system with enhanced flexibility and efficiency for managing remote tracking devices, moving beyond static, one-way data transmission to a more interactive and adaptable model (’978 Patent, col. 1:52-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • a location detector
  • a communication device
  • memory for storing data and code, including location and configuration data
  • a processor to execute the code
  • a configuration routine to modify the configuration data based on communication from a remote system
  • a buffering routine to buffer location data when communication with the remote system is unavailable
  • a reporting routine to transmit the location data when communication is available
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Plug and Play Fleet Tracker," model EZ-160-PNP, and the associated system (Compl. ¶13). An image of the device is provided in the complaint. (Compl. Fig. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a vehicle tracking device that installs in a vehicle's OBD-II port (Compl. Fig. 1). It determines location via GPS and transmits data over a 3G CDMA cellular network (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint highlights features such as "smart power management," the ability to be configured for various "reporting plans," and "store and forward capabilities" for when the device is out of cellular coverage (Compl. ¶18-19; Compl. Fig. 5). These features are alleged to provide customers with robust, real-time data for managing vehicle fleets (Compl. ¶18; Compl. Fig. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’978 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general functionalities described in the Defendant's marketing materials (e.g., "customizable... reports," "store and forward capabilities") meet the specific definitions of a "configuration routine," "buffering routine," and "reporting routine" as recited in the claim. The dispute could center on whether these are distinct, operative software routines or merely inherent, high-level functions of any modern telematics device.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of these routines based on marketing documents. A key technical question will be what evidence exists in the accused device's actual source code and operation to demonstrate that it performs the claimed functions in the specific manner required. For instance, does the "buffering routine" activate specifically "when said communication device is unable to communicate," or does the device simply log all data continuously regardless of connectivity status?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from said remote system"

• Context and Importance: The case's outcome may depend on the construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a specific, modifiable software module on the tracking device itself, or if it is met by any system that allows a user to change device settings (e.g., reporting frequency) through a remote interface.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope, stating that "functional access...to the tracking device is provided to the remote system" and that the device can be "configured and reconfigured in many ways" (’978 Patent, col. 2:13-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific term "routine," and the patent's block diagram of the tracking device depicts distinct "Application Program(s)" and a "Tracking Device Comm. Protocol" within its memory, suggesting discrete software components rather than a generalized capability (’978 Patent, Fig. 4).

The Term: "a buffering routine operative to buffer location data... when said communication device is unable to communicate with said remote system"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement may turn on whether the accused device's "store and forward" feature operates in the conditional manner claimed. The key distinction is between a device that always logs data and one that specifically initiates a buffering process as a result of losing its connection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes this feature in general terms, stating it is for when the device is "out of communication range" (’978 Patent, col. 2:24-27).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 explicitly links the operation of the "buffering routine" to the condition of being "unable to communicate," suggesting a causal relationship. The claim requires the routine to be "operative to buffer... when..." the condition occurs, which could be interpreted to mean the routine is triggered by the loss of communication.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain specific counts for induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant "providing a system" that infringes (Compl. ¶13).

Willful Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 8, ¶D). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or conduct rising to the level of willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Do the high-level, market-facing features of the accused "Plug and Play Fleet Tracker," such as "customizable alerts" and "store and forward" functionality, constitute the specific, structurally-claimed "configuration routine" and conditional "buffering routine" of Claim 1?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: The infringement allegations rely heavily on marketing materials. The case will likely turn on whether discovery reveals that the accused device's underlying software architecture and operation map onto the specific functional elements and sequences recited in the patent's claims.