DCT
1:19-cv-00561
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Uber Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00561, D. Del., 03/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, transacts business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ride-hailing system, including its driver application and supporting network services, infringes a patent related to dynamically guiding and controlling vehicle movements.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves centralized, real-time vehicle fleet management and route guidance systems, a foundational technology for modern ride-hailing and logistics services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on January 23, 2017, a third party, Unified Patents Inc., filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the patent-in-suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) subsequently denied institution of the IPR on June 15, 2017. The complaint asserts that Defendant Uber is a member of Unified Patents and therefore had knowledge of the patent and its asserted strength as of these dates.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | U.S. Patent No. 6,754,580 Priority Date |
| 2004-06-22 | U.S. Patent No. 6,754,580 Issued |
| 2015-08-06 | Date of "Uber Driver Video" cited in complaint |
| 2017-01-23 | Unified Patents files IPR petition for '580 Patent |
| 2017-06-15 | PTAB denies institution of IPR for '580 Patent |
| 2019-03-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,754,580 - System for Guiding Vehicles, Issued June 22, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art vehicle guidance systems as being limited because they calculate optimal routes based "solely on the current traffic flow" without considering other factors like vehicle type or the goal of optimizing "the entire traffic operation in the system" (’580 Patent, col. 1:39-40, col. 2:26-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a comprehensive system where vehicles "log into" a central "traffic information center" before a journey begins (’580 Patent, col. 2:44-46). This center receives vehicle-specific data (e.g., identity, position, speed, destination) and uses this comprehensive, real-time information to achieve "overall control of the traffic," dynamically providing route guidance to optimize system-wide flow (’580 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-63). The system conceptualizes the road network itself as a "data network" (’580 Patent, col. 2:42-44).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a shift from static or singly-factored route planning to a dynamic, multi-factored, centrally-controlled system intended to manage a fleet of vehicles as a coordinated whole rather than as independent agents. (’580 Patent, col. 2:26-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system for controlling vehicle movements comprising:
- A road network arranged to be entered into the system as a data network.
- A plurality of vehicles with means for identification, road information, and transmission of information to a traffic information center.
- Each vehicle logs in for traveling on the network.
- Each vehicle is identified with a dynamic or static identity at login.
- Information about the intended destination is sent from each vehicle to the traffic information center.
- Information about the position and speed of each vehicle is reported at regular intervals to the center.
- Overall control of the traffic is achieved based on the reported information.
- Information about a proposed route is transmitted from the center to each vehicle.
- The system exhibits an exact image of the actual traffic situation and provides dynamic guidance.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "Uber Driver System," which the complaint defines as the combination of Uber's network services ("Uber Services") and its mobile applications for drivers ("Uber Driver App") (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Uber Driver System is a ride-hailing platform where drivers use the Uber Driver App to connect to Uber's network. Drivers must log in with a unique identity and select a specific, identified vehicle to go "online" (Compl. ¶¶18, 25). Once online, the system tracks their location and sends them trip requests from nearby riders (Compl. ¶30). Upon accepting a trip, the system provides turn-by-turn navigation to the pickup location and the rider's destination (Compl. ¶¶19, 27). The complaint highlights features like "real-time traffic" and the UberPOOL service—which dynamically routes drivers to pick up and drop off multiple passengers along a coordinated route—as evidence of the system's dynamic control capabilities (Compl. ¶¶33, 37). The complaint presents the system as a core component of Uber's on-demand transportation business (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,754,580 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for controlling vehicle movements, in areas containing a road network, and a plurality of vehicles that exhibit means for identification, means for road information and means for transmission of information between the vehicle and a traffic information center | The Uber Driver System allegedly manages vehicle movements for logged-in drivers. Vehicles are identified by login credentials and vehicle profiles. The app provides maps and transmits data to/from Uber's servers (Compl. ¶18, Page 6). | ¶16-21 | col. 10:46-54 |
| the road network is so arranged as to be entered into the system as a data network | The Uber Driver App allegedly displays the road network as a digital map, and Uber allegedly describes its operation as processing a "string of data events" for each trip. | ¶22-23 | col. 10:55-56 |
| each vehicle that is intended to make use of the road network is logged in for travelling on the road network | Each Uber driver must allegedly log into the Uber Driver App to access the Uber Services and receive trip requests (Compl. ¶18, Page 6). | ¶24-25 | col. 10:57-58 |
| each vehicle is identified with an identity at the time of logging in, in conjunction with which the identity is either dynamic or static | Drivers allegedly log in with a unique username/password and select a specific vehicle with unique identifiers like make, model, and license number. | ¶25 | col. 10:59-62 |
| information relating to the intended destination is sent in from each vehicle to the traffic information center... | When a driver accepts a trip request, information about the rider's destination is allegedly sent to the driver's app from Uber's servers, which constitutes the destination information for that leg of the journey. | ¶26-27 | col. 10:63-65 |
| information about position and speed of the each vehicle is reported at regular intervals to the... traffic information center | The Uber system allegedly tracks the location and speed of online drivers to dispatch the closest vehicle to a rider and to identify driving behaviors (Compl. ¶13, Page 13). | ¶28-30 | col. 11:1-3 |
| whereby overall control of the traffic is achieved on the basis of the information reported to the traffic information center | Uber allegedly controls the flow of its drivers by monitoring their locations and providing routes. The complaint highlights the UberPOOL feature, where routes are dynamically updated to accommodate multiple passengers, as evidence of this control (Compl. ¶33, Page 16). | ¶31-33 | col. 11:4-6 |
| information about a proposed route for each vehicle is transmitted from the traffic information center to the each vehicle | When a driver accepts a trip, the Uber Driver App allegedly receives and displays "En Route" or "On Trip" navigation from Uber's services (Compl. ¶12, Page 12). | ¶34-35 | col. 11:7-9 |
| the system exhibits an exact image of the actual traffic situation and guides the traffic dynamically, for control of the traffic situation centrally | The Uber Driver App allegedly displays the driver's route on a map and dynamically guides the driver based on real-time data, including traffic conditions. | ¶36-37 | col. 11:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a private, commercial ride-hailing system that controls only its own participating vehicles meets the scope of a system for "overall control of the traffic" that aims to "optimize the entire traffic operation in the system." The defense may argue the patent contemplates a municipal or public-facing system managing a broader traffic environment, not a closed, proprietary one.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system's function of dispatching the nearest driver and providing a route constitute the "overall control" and "optimization" described in the patent? The court may need to determine if this functionality is technically distinct from the more holistic, system-wide traffic management implied by the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "traffic information center"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the claim requires this "center" to receive information, perform control, and transmit routes. The complaint alleges Uber's cloud-based server infrastructure ("Uber Services") is the "traffic information center." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's figures and description could be interpreted to imply a single, centralized physical or logical entity, potentially raising a dispute over whether a distributed, modern cloud architecture meets the definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the "center" as a single server or location. The term itself could be read functionally to encompass any system, centralized or distributed, that performs the recited functions of receiving, processing, and transmitting information for traffic control (’580 Patent, col. 2:50-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "the" traffic information center as a singular entity and notes that multiple such centers (6, 6A, 6B, etc.) can permit "roaming" between them, which might suggest each "center" is a discrete node rather than a diffuse cloud service (’580 Patent, col. 7:37-41).
The Term: "overall control of the traffic"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on whether Uber's management of its own driver fleet constitutes "overall control of the traffic." The definition of "the traffic" is paramount.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify "all traffic" or "public traffic." A plaintiff could argue "the traffic" simply means the traffic composed of the vehicles participating in the patented system, which in this case would be Uber's drivers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's objective is to "optimize the entire traffic operation in the system" (’580 Patent, col. 2:27-28). The defense may argue this implies a scope beyond a single company's fleet and points toward management of a general traffic environment, a function typically associated with a public authority.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Uber induces infringement by providing the Uber Driver App to drivers and instructing them, through instructional videos and the app's functionality, to operate the system in a manner that directly infringes Claim 1 (Compl. ¶39). The underlying direct infringement is alleged to be performed by the drivers who use the system as instructed (Compl. ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Uber's purported knowledge of the ’580 Patent. This allegation is specifically grounded in Uber's alleged membership in Unified Patents Inc., an entity that filed an IPR petition against the ’580 patent on January 23, 2017. The complaint asserts that Uber's knowledge is further supported by the PTAB's subsequent decision to deny institution of that IPR, and that Uber's continued operation of the accused system despite this knowledge constitutes an unjustifiably high risk of infringement (Compl. ¶¶41-43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "traffic information center," as used in the patent, be construed to cover a modern, distributed cloud-server architecture? Furthermore, does Uber's management of its proprietary driver fleet constitute the "overall control of the traffic" envisioned by a patent that speaks of optimizing the "entire traffic operation"?
A second key issue will be one of technical and functional scope: Does the accused system's method of logging in drivers to a commercial app and dispatching them based on proximity and availability perform the same function as the patent's system for logging vehicles into a "data network" for the purpose of centralized, system-wide traffic optimization?
The willfulness claim presents a critical evidentiary question: Can the plaintiff prove that Uber's alleged membership in Unified Patents establishes pre-suit knowledge of the patent sufficient to support a willfulness finding, particularly in light of the PTAB's decision not to institute the IPR, which Uber was allegedly aware of?