DCT
1:19-cv-00251
Inventergy LBS LLC v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00251, D. Del., 02/06/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Suunto 9 Baro sports watch infringes patents related to remotely configurable tracking devices that manage power consumption and data reporting.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable GPS tracking devices, a market where extended battery life and customizable performance are critical competitive features.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-02-08 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,219,978 & 9,781,558 |
| 2015-12-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978 Issues |
| 2017-10-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,781,558 Issues |
| 2019-02-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978 (the “’978 Patent”) - “System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device”
- Issued: December 22, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for tracking devices with enhanced communication capabilities that also minimize power consumption and network airtime, which are described as "serious concern[s]" for prior art devices (’978 Patent, col. 1:40-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tracking device that can be dynamically reconfigured by a remote system. It includes routines for modifying its own operational parameters—such as how often it reports its location or buffers data when out of network range—based on commands received from a remote server (’978 Patent, col. 2:13-34; Fig. 5). This provides functional flexibility without requiring physical access to the device.
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a single device to be adapted for various uses (e.g., high-frequency tracking vs. power-saving standby) and to intelligently manage its resources, extending battery life and reducing operational costs (’978 Patent, col.1:52-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a location detector
- a communication device to communicate with a remote system
- memory for storing location and configuration data
- a processor to execute code
- a configuration routine to modify its configuration data based on communication from the remote system
- a buffering routine to store location data when unable to communicate with the remote system
- a reporting routine to transmit the stored location data when communication is re-established
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 1," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶17).
U.S. Patent No. 9,781,558 (the “’558 Patent”) - “System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device”
- Issued: October 3, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’558 Patent addresses the same problems of power consumption and network usage in tracking devices as the ’978 Patent (’558 Patent, col. 1:48-54).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a remotely reconfigurable tracking device. The invention described in the ’558 Patent includes a specific "data transfer routine" for communicating "operational data," such as battery status or radio signal strength, from the tracking device to the remote system upon request (’558 Patent, col. 2:52-63). This provides the remote system with diagnostic information about the device's health and environment.
- Technical Importance: The ability to remotely query a device's operational status allows a central system to monitor the health of a fleet of devices, preemptively identify issues like low battery, and adjust device configurations accordingly (’558 Patent, col. 2:52-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 31.
- The essential elements of Claim 31 include:
- a location detector
- a communication device
- memory for storing data
- a processor
- a configuration routine
- a reporting routine to communicate operational data to a remote system
- wherein the operational data is "indicative of battery status"
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 31," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the Amer Suunto 9 Baro sports watch as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶17). Figure 1 of the complaint provides a product marketing image of the watch (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Suunto 9 Baro is a "durable multisport GPS watch with a long battery life" (Compl. ¶17). Its accused functionality includes tracking a user's location via GPS, storing location data ("Track logging"), and communicating with a remote system (Compl. ¶¶18-20). A key feature highlighted in the complaint is the ability to switch between "predefined battery modes" (Performance, Endurance, and Ultra) that deliver between 25 and 120 hours of recording time, which allegedly alters how frequently the GPS location is reported (Compl. ¶22, Fig. 6). The complaint also alleges the device can display an estimate of remaining battery life (Compl. ¶33, Fig. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’978 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a location detector operative to determine locations of said tracking device | The Suunto 9 Baro tracks location using a built-in GPS receiver. A complaint visual shows a "GPS NAVIGATION" icon (Compl. Fig. 2). | ¶18 | col. 2:3-5 |
| a communication device operative to communicate with a remote system | The device has a built-in transceiver for communication and is compatible with smartphone apps and online communities like Strava. A visual shows its connectivity features (Compl. Fig. 3). | ¶19 | col. 2:5-7 |
| memory for storing data and code, said data including location data determined by said location detector and configuration data | The device has on-board memory for "Track logging, viewing and sharing," which allegedly stores location data. A complaint visual depicts this feature (Compl. Fig. 5). | ¶20 | col. 2:8-10 |
| a processor operative to execute said code to impart functionality to said tracking device, said functionality...depending...on said configuration data | The device includes a processor that executes code to determine location and report it, with functionality depending on the selected battery mode (configuration). | ¶21 | col. 2:10-13 |
| a configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from said remote system | The device can be configured to various reporting plans (e.g., Performance, Endurance, Ultra modes) which determine how frequently location is reported. A visual shows these user-selectable modes (Compl. Fig. 6). | ¶22 | col. 2:13-16 |
| a buffering routine operative to buffer location data...when said communication device is unable to communicate with said remote system | The device "stores the location data in its memory if the device cannot communicate with Amer’s server." | ¶23 | col. 43:3-9 |
| a reporting routine operative to transmit said location data...when said communication device is able to communicate with said remote system | The device has a reporting mechanism that is activated when requested if it cannot communicate with the server, transmitting the stored data. | ¶24 | col. 43:10-14 |
’558 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) a location detector... (b) a communication device... (c) memory for storing data... (d) a processor operative to execute said code... | Allegations for these elements are identical to those for the ’978 Patent, citing the device's GPS, transceiver, on-board memory, and processor (Compl. Figs. 1-5). | ¶¶27-30 | col. 2:5-15 |
| (e) a configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from said remote system | The device can be configured "over-the-air to various reporting plans which determine how frequently location is reported" (Compl. Fig. 7). | ¶31 | col. 2:15-20 |
| (f) a reporting routine operative to communicate operational data between said tracking device and said remote system... | The device has a reporting mechanism that is activated on request. The complaint points to a visual showing battery estimates as evidence of this operational data reporting (Compl. Fig. 8). | ¶32 | col. 2:52-54 |
| (g) wherein said operational data is indicative of battery status | The device is "capable of reading the voltage of the battery...at fixed intervals and sending a report for the last voltage reading." The complaint cites a visual showing battery life estimates (Compl. Fig. 8). | ¶33 | col. 2:54-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the "configuration routine" relies on a user changing settings (e.g., battery modes) on the device or a connected app (Compl. ¶22, ¶31). A potential question is whether this user-initiated action constitutes modifying configuration data "responsive to a communication from said remote system," as the patent specification also describes a server-initiated process (e.g., ’978 Patent, col. 2:13-16).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the device reports battery status to a remote system (Compl. ¶33). However, the evidence provided (Compl. Fig. 8) shows an on-device display of an estimate of remaining battery. A key evidentiary question may be whether this data is actually transmitted to the "remote system" (e.g., Amer's servers) as required by Claim 31 of the ’558 Patent, or if it is merely displayed locally for the user.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term for Construction: "configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from said remote system"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive concept of a remotely adaptable device. Its construction will determine whether a user changing a setting via a smartphone app falls within the scope of the claims, or if a more direct server-to-device command is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the routine modifies data "responsive to a communication from the remote system," without limiting the initiator of that communication (’978 Patent, col. 2:13-16). A communication originating from a user's interaction with a cloud-connected app could be argued to fall within this language.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts often depict a server-centric model where a central system sends commands to the device (e.g., ’978 Patent, Fig. 5, step 510, "Provide New Configuration Data To Tracking Device"). The term "remote system" is defined to include a "central station, subscriber server, etc." (’978 Patent, col. 2:6-7), which may be interpreted as distinct from a user's own smartphone.
Term for Construction: "remote system"
- Context and Importance: The identity of the "remote system" is critical. If it is construed narrowly to mean only a central server controlled by a service provider, the infringement case may be more difficult to prove than if it is construed broadly to include a user's smartphone running a companion app.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly exclude a subscriber's own system. The claim language is general, and the specification describes communication with "subscribers 118" who "interact with servers 104" (’978 Patent, col. 4:38-42). This could suggest the subscriber's own equipment is part of the overall system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines "remote system" with examples like "a central station, subscriber server, etc." (’978 Patent, col. 2:6-7). Figure 1 shows a clear architectural separation between "Servers (104)," the "Tracking Interface (112)," and the "Tracking Device (102)," suggesting the "remote system" is the server-side infrastructure, not the user's client device.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 11, ¶D). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations regarding Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or other conduct that would typically be required to substantiate a claim for willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and architecture: Can the term "remote system" be interpreted to include a user's smartphone running a companion app, and can a user's action of changing a setting on that app be considered a "configuration routine...responsive to a communication from" that system? The case may depend on whether the patent requires a server-initiated command versus a user-initiated one.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of data transmission: While the accused watch displays operational data like battery status, does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that this data is actually transmitted to a "remote system" as required by the claims of the ’558 Patent, or is the functionality confined to the device itself? The distinction between local processing and remote reporting will be critical.