DCT
1:19-cv-00354
Blackbird Tech LLC v. 9280 0366 Quebec Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: 9280-0366 Québec Inc. d/b/a Transit (Québec, Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00354, D. Del., 02/20/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s public transit mobile application infringes a patent related to measuring real-time traffic conditions using location data from a plurality of cell phones.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technology behind mobile navigation applications, a highly competitive market where real-time data is critical for providing users with accurate travel time estimations and route suggestions.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is the result of a long chain of continuation applications tracing back to 2005, which may suggest a well-developed prosecution record for the parties to analyze for claim scope and potential validity challenges. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 Priority Date |
| 2016-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 Issues |
| 2019-02-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190, "Real-Time Traffic Condition Measurement Using Network Transmission Data," issued July 26, 2016 (the “’190 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses perceived deficiencies in prior art systems for tracking and predicting the movement of people and objects, which are described as "poor and do not provide for adequate information for acceptable tracking or predicting" (’190 Patent, col. 1:44-48). The complaint further frames the problem as the inability of conventional systems to calculate vehicle traffic information based on a real-time plurality of cell phone locations selected for their proximity to a calculated route (Compl. ¶8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by using a computer system to gather location data from multiple cell phones within vehicles at different points in time. By calculating the distance traveled over the time interval for each phone, the system can determine vehicle speeds, create a "traffic condition measure" for a given route, and use this real-time data to predict travel times and provide alerts (’190 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-21). This process is intended to be repeated in real-time to provide dynamic updates (’190 Patent, col. 2:18-21).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this approach improves the accuracy and reliability of route calculation and travel time estimation by using an "unconventional technological solution" based on real-time data from in-route cell phones (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶10).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a computer-implemented process comprising the steps of:
- receiving a destination and a desired time of arrival at the destination from a user;
- receiving vehicle traffic information for a calculated route predicted to be traveled by the user to the destination;
- wherein the vehicle traffic information is calculated based on a plurality of cell phone locations, each of the plurality of cell phone locations selected based on a proximity of the cell phone to the calculated route;
- wherein each of the plurality of cell phone locations is determined following confirmation of a user setting that permits communication of a location of the user to a requestor of the location; and
- 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.
- Independent Claim 8 requires a computer-implemented process comprising the steps of:
- receiving a destination and a desired time of arrival at the destination from a user;
- receiving vehicle traffic information for a calculated route predicted to be traveled by the user to the destination;
- wherein the vehicle traffic information is calculated based on a plurality of cell phone locations, each of the plurality of cell phone locations selected based on a proximity of the cell phone to the calculated route;
- wherein each of the plurality of cell phone locations is determined following confirmation of a user setting that permits communication of a location of the user to a requestor of the location; and
- estimating a travel time for the user based on the calculated route and the user's travel habits.
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶10).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a software application named the "Transit App," available for iOS and Android smartphones (Compl. ¶5, ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Transit App provides real-time public transit information and recommends routes for users (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges the app receives a destination and desired arrival time from a user (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes a screenshot showing a user interface for entering a destination and selecting an "Arrive at" time. (Compl. ¶12). Based on this input, the app allegedly recommends calculated routes (Compl. ¶14). The app is also alleged to generate alerts, such as reminders for when a user should depart to arrive on time (Compl. ¶19-20). The complaint alleges that the app calculates vehicle traffic information based on other users' cell phone locations and uses this to provide predicted arrival times to other users (Compl. ¶15-16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a destination and a desired time of arrival at the destination from a user | The Transit App allegedly allows a user to enter a destination and a desired arrival time. A screenshot provided in the complaint shows an interface with fields for a destination address and an "Arrive at 3:00 PM" setting (Compl. p. 4). | ¶11-12 | col. 13:26-34 |
| receiving vehicle traffic information for a calculated route predicted to be traveled by the user to the destination | The Transit App allegedly recommends calculated routes and receives vehicle traffic information for those routes. The complaint cites the app's Privacy Policy, which states that Transit collects and processes location information. | ¶13-14 | col. 7:37-44 |
| wherein the vehicle traffic information is calculated based on a plurality of cell phone locations, each of the plurality of cell phone locations selected based on a proximity... | The complaint alleges that the Transit App calculates traffic information for a given user based on the cell phone locations of other users traveling along the same public transportation routes. This is supported by reference to the app's Privacy Policy, which mentions generating "real-time location data of transit vehicles" and broadcasting it to other users. | ¶15-16 | col. 1:50-61 |
| wherein each of the plurality of cell phone locations is determined following confirmation of a user setting that permits communication of a location of the user to a requestor... | The complaint alleges the Transit App requests access to the user's location, which the user must affirmatively allow through a setting. A screenshot shows a system-level permission dialog box asking the user to "Allow 'Transit' to access your location while you are using the app?" (Compl. p. 6). | ¶17-18 | col. 32:42-53 |
| 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... | The Transit App is alleged to have a reminder feature that communicates an alert to the user indicating when to depart. The complaint provides a screenshot of a "Remind me" interface that allows a user to set an alert a certain number of minutes before departure (Compl. p. 7). | ¶19-20 | col. 13:35-44 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,400,190 Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 8)
The first four elements of Claim 8 are identical to Claim 1 and are analyzed above. The analysis below covers the final, differentiating element.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimating a travel time for the user based on the calculated route and the user's travel habits | The complaint alleges that the Transit App provides an estimated travel time and that it collects user "travel habits." A screenshot shows a route option with an estimated travel time of "24 min" (Compl. p. 8). To support the "travel habits" element, the complaint cites the app's Privacy Policy, which states Transit collects "preferences, including favorite routes, saved locations and other personal customizations." | ¶21-22 | col. 14:1-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent specification frequently refers to "automobiles" and vehicle traffic in the context of personal cars on highways (’190 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). The accused product, however, is a public transit application. This raises the question of whether the claim term "vehicle traffic information" can be properly construed to encompass the movement of public buses and trains, or if its meaning is limited by the specification's focus on private automobiles.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is the source of the "vehicle traffic information." The claims require this information to be calculated from a "plurality of cell phone locations." The complaint alleges the Transit App performs this function by using location data from its other users (Compl. ¶16). However, an alternative possibility is that the app sources its real-time data directly from GPS trackers installed on public transit vehicles by transit authorities. The complaint's primary evidence for its theory is an interpretation of the defendant's Privacy Policy, creating a key factual dispute over how the accused system actually operates.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vehicle traffic information"
Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental to the dispute. The patent's specification is heavily focused on private automobile traffic, while the accused product deals with public transit. Whether the claim term is broad enough to cover public transit data will be a central issue.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "vehicle" is not explicitly limited to automobiles in the claims themselves. The specification discusses tracking "people and things" generally ( Compl. ¶2; '190 Patent, col. 1:40-41) and estimating "roadway congestion" and "travel speed" in general terms, which could support a broader application (’190 Patent, col. 7:41-48).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Abstract explicitly mentions "a plurality of automobiles." Many embodiments and figures depict private cars, dashboards, and highways (e.g., ’190 Patent, Fig. 3, Fig. 31), which may be used to argue that the invention is contextualized and limited to the field of automobile traffic.
The Term: "user's travel habits" (Claim 8)
Context and Importance: This term is a key limitation of claim 8. The infringement allegation relies on equating this term with the accused app's collection of "favorite routes, saved locations and other personal customizations" (Compl. ¶22). The definition of "travel habits" will determine if this feature meets the claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "travel habits," which could support an argument that the plain and ordinary meaning encompasses any user-specific data related to travel patterns, including route preferences.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides a specific example of what may constitute a travel habit: "how fast he typically drives as compared to speed limits and or other traffic" (’190 Patent, col. 14:5-8). A defendant may argue that this example narrows the term's scope to speed-related behaviors, rather than the broader category of route preferences and customizations alleged in the complaint.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes no allegations of indirect infringement. The single count is for direct infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. Prayer for Relief, ¶A).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or pre-suit knowledge of the ’190 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the court's answers to several central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "vehicle traffic information", which is described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of private automobiles, be construed broadly enough to read on the public bus and train data central to the accused public transit application?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused Transit App generate its real-time data by crowdsourcing and calculating information from a "plurality of cell phone locations" of its users, as required by the claims, or does it primarily ingest official data feeds from transit agencies, which would present a fundamental mismatch with the patented method?
- For the allegations related to claim 8, a dispositive question of claim construction will be whether the "user's travel habits" limitation is met by the accused app's collection of user preferences and favorite routes, or if the patent's intrinsic evidence limits the term to more specific behaviors, such as a user's typical driving speed relative to the speed limit.