Inventergy LBS LLC v. Whistle Labs Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Whistle Labs, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00365, D. Del., 02/21/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet tracking device and associated system infringe a patent related to remotely configurable tracking devices that can manage power consumption and network usage.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns battery-powered location-tracking devices that can be remotely reconfigured to alter their operational parameters, such as location reporting frequency and data buffering policies.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 - System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device, Issued June 24, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to improve upon prior art tracking systems that were limited by high power consumption and costly network airtime, which restricted their communication capabilities and, therefore, their utility (’286 Patent, col. 1:33-48; Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a tracking device whose functionality can be dynamically modified by a remote system. As described in the specification, a remote server can send commands to the device to reconfigure its operational parameters, such as how often it reports its location or how it buffers data when unable to communicate (’286 Patent, col. 2:13-22, Fig. 5). This remote configurability allows the device to adapt its behavior to conserve battery power and minimize network usage.
• Technical Importance: This approach provides enhanced flexibility and efficiency for managing a fleet of battery-powered tracking devices, overcoming the static, power-intensive nature of earlier systems (’286 Patent, col. 1:53-64).

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 tracking device comprising a location detector, a communication device, memory, and a processor.
  • A configuration routine that can modify the device’s configuration data based on commands from a remote system.
  • The modifiable configuration data determines an "interval for buffering" location data for times when the device is unable to communicate with the remote system.
  • This "interval for buffering" also controls how frequently newly acquired location data is stored in the device's memory.
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names the "Whistle 3 Tracker" and its associated system as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Whistle 3 Tracker is a device that attaches to a pet's collar to track its location and activity (Compl. ¶18). It uses a combination of GPS, Wi-Fi, and cellular technologies to locate the pet and transmit that data to a user's smartphone app (Compl. ¶¶14, 18).
• A key feature described in the complaint is the ability to designate Wi-Fi networks as a "safe Place." When the device is connected to a "safe Place" Wi-Fi, it enters a "power save mode" (Compl. ¶18). When the pet leaves the Wi-Fi range, the device uses cellular and GPS to enable tracking (Compl. ¶18). The complaint cites marketing materials describing the product as "the most advanced pet tracker" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’286 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A principal dispute may arise over the meaning of "unable to communicate" and "buffering." The complaint describes a "power save mode" when the device is on Wi-Fi, during which it is not actively tracked via cellular/GPS (Compl. ¶18). The court may need to decide if this power-saving state, where cellular communication is deliberately paused in favor of Wi-Fi, qualifies as being "unable to communicate" in the sense required by the claim, which may imply an involuntary loss of signal.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the device’s "reporting plans" satisfy the limitations regarding an "interval for buffering" (Compl. ¶¶19-20). A key technical question will be what evidence supports this assertion. The complaint does not provide specific documentation showing that if the Whistle 3 Tracker loses cellular signal, it continues to acquire and store a series of location points at a configurable interval for later upload. The allegations for the final two elements of Claim 1 are less detailed than those for the initial hardware elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "interval for buffering"

Context and Importance

• This term is critical for infringement of claims 1(f) and 1(g). The case outcome may depend on whether the accused product's features—such as user-configurable "reporting plans" or its "power save mode" within a Wi-Fi "safe Place"—can be characterized as establishing an "interval for buffering" as the patent defines it.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the interval can be, "for example and without limitation, a time interval (e.g., every 30 minutes) or a distance interval (e.g., whenever the tracking device moves 50 yards)" (’286 Patent, col. 2:27-30). A plaintiff could argue this language supports a broad interpretation encompassing any configurable time- or distance-based trigger for data storage during periods of non-communication.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim context—"when said communication device is unable to communicate"—requires an involuntary condition, such as being out of cellular range. They might contend that the term does not cover a deliberate, power-saving mode where the device is connected to a different network (Wi-Fi) and is therefore not "unable" to communicate.

The Term: "configuration routine"

Context and Importance

• This term from claim 1(e) is central to the patent's concept of remote configurability. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what level of software complexity is required to infringe.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be read broadly to cover any software function that receives a command from a remote system and, in response, modifies a setting on the device, such as its location reporting frequency.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract and summary list the "configuration routine" as a distinct component of the device alongside the processor and memory (’286 Patent, Abstract). A defendant could argue this implies a specific, dedicated software module, not merely the inherent ability of a processor to change a stored setting value.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The sole count is for direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶12-20).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent or any egregious conduct in its factual allegations. However, the Prayer for Relief requests an award of enhanced damages for "willful infringement," suggesting this claim may be based on the filing of the lawsuit itself or on facts to be developed during discovery (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Does the accused product’s feature of entering a "power save mode" when connected to a Wi-Fi "safe Place" meet the specific claim requirement of buffering location data during an interval when the device is "unable to communicate"? The resolution may depend on whether this state is functionally and legally equivalent to an involuntary loss of cellular connection as contemplated by the patent.
• A second central issue will be evidentiary: Can Plaintiff produce evidence to substantiate its relatively conclusory allegations that the accused device’s configurable "reporting plans" perform the specific functions of establishing a "buffering interval" and controlling the "frequency" of data storage when communication is lost, as recited in the final two limitations of Claim 1?