Hailo Tech LLC v. Curb Mobility LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hailo Technologies, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Curb Mobility, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00945, D. Del., 05/22/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's incorporation in the State of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ride-hailing platform, including its "DASH V8 tablet," infringes a patent related to a system for automatically dispatching vehicles.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the foundational technology of automated, location-based vehicle dispatch systems, which underpin the modern ride-hailing and fleet management industries.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 6,756,913, the patent-in-suit, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination that concluded with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate on April 3, 2019, approximately seven weeks before this complaint was filed. The reexamination resulted in significant amendments to the asserted claim, narrowing its scope and adding new limitations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-11-01	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,756,913
2004-06-29	U.S. Patent No. 6,756,913 Issued
2019-04-03	Reexamination Certificate US 6,756,913 C1 Issued
2019-05-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,756,913 (as amended by Reexamination Certificate US 6,756,913 C1), "SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY DISPATCHING TAXIS TO CLIENT LOCATIONS," Issued June 29, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a system to automate the dispatch of taxis to clients that overcomes the limitations of prior art systems, which could not determine the location of clients using mobile phones and often required the intervention of a human operator (’913 Patent, col. 1:21-25, 44-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "dispatcher free" system where a central server receives service requests and location data from a client's handset, maintains a database of available taxis and their locations, and automatically dispatches the nearest or most suitable taxi to the client (’913 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-41). The system relies on location identification technology (e.g., GPS) in both the client's device and the taxi's mobile data terminal to enable automated matching (’913 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more efficient and flexible dispatch method by removing the need for human dispatchers and leveraging emerging mobile location technologies to match supply (taxis) with demand (clients) in real-time (’913 Patent, col. 2:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’913 Compl. ¶¶12, 15, 16).
• The complaint’s text recites the language of the original, pre-reexamination version of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12). However, the legally operative claim is the amended version of Claim 1 as issued in the Reexamination Certificate (’913 C1, col. 1:20–col. 2:19).
• Essential elements of the amended and controlling Independent Claim 1 include:
  • receiving a request at a server for a commercial vehicle from a client device;
  • periodically receiving location information of the client device at said server;
  • determining one or more available vehicles from a plurality of commercial vehicles, based on information from data terminals in those vehicles;
  • wherein each data terminal performs a process of periodically sensing if a meter on a vehicle is active to determine availability, and on sensing availability, determining and sending its position coordinates to the server;
  • said server determining travel time of the available vehicle(s) to the client device location;
  • said server selecting and dispatching a vehicle with the least travel time to the client device location;
  • said server periodically sending the client location information to the selected vehicle; and
  • said server periodically sending the current position coordinates of the selected vehicle to the client device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is identified as Defendant's "software solutions that connect users with independent private car operators for securing paid transportation, including without limitation the ‘DASH V8 tablet’" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides a high-level description of the accused product as a platform for securing paid transportation (Compl. ¶13). It does not provide specific technical details about the architecture of the server-side software, the functionality of the DASH V8 tablet, or how vehicle availability and dispatch decisions are made. The complaint alleges that Defendant develops, uses, sells, implements, and distributes these software solutions in the United States (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶14). Therefore, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes Claim 1 of the ’913 Patent (Compl. ¶18). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the Defendant's system, which includes the DASH V8 tablet, practices the claimed method for vehicle dispatch (Compl. ¶¶13, 17). The complaint specifically alleges that the Accused Product is "preprogrammed to practice the method of Claim 1" (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Discrepancy: A primary issue is that the complaint quotes and appears to base its infringement allegations on the original, pre-reexamination version of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12), which describes a method performed by the vehicle. However, the controlling version of Claim 1 was amended during reexamination to recite a server-side dispatching method with different and additional steps (’913 C1, col. 1:20–col. 2:19). This raises the question of whether the complaint plausibly alleges infringement of the patent claim as it legally exists.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the Accused Product performs several key steps of the amended claim, such as determining vehicle availability by "sensing if a meter on a...vehicle is active" or dispatching based on the "least travel time." The court will need to consider what evidence supports the allegation that the Accused Product’s functionality maps to these specific claimed functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "meter on a...vehicle" (’913 C1, col. 1:33)

Context and Importance: This term is critical because the amended claim requires that vehicle availability be determined by "periodically sensing if a meter on a...vehicle is active." The infringement analysis may turn on whether Defendant's method for tracking vehicle availability, which likely involves driver status input in a software application, constitutes a "meter" in the context of the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "meter" is not explicitly defined. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could functionally encompass any device or system for measuring service usage to determine if a vehicle is occupied.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the "meter" directly to a "taxi" and its occupancy status, stating "One such external sensor means is an output of the meter that indicates if the meter is activated or not, and thus indicates if the taxi is occupied or not" (’913 Patent, col. 4:32-35). This context, tied to traditional taxi hardware, could support a narrower construction that excludes purely software-based availability indicators used in modern ride-hailing apps.

The Term: "server" (’913 C1, col. 1:22)

Context and Importance: The amended claim recites a series of steps performed by "said server." Modern ride-hailing platforms often use distributed, cloud-based computing architectures rather than a single, monolithic server. The case may depend on whether Defendant's distributed system can be considered a single "server" for the purposes of the claim.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "server" in a limiting way. A party might argue that any collection of computing resources performing the recited functions meets the definition.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a singular "REMOTE SERVER 40" as a distinct component of the system (’913 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 4). The specification describes this server containing a processor, database, and communication device, which could suggest a more centralized and self-contained unit (’913 Patent, col. 4:41-44).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant "actively induc[es] infringement" both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶15, 16). The factual basis provided is the allegation that Defendant distributes the Accused Product, which is "preprogrammed to practice the method of Claim 1" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific facts regarding intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the word "willful." However, it seeks damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which includes the potential for enhancement (Compl. ¶B, Prayer for Relief). The allegations of active inducement suggest a claim of pre-suit knowledge, but no specific facts are pleaded to support a claim of egregious infringement behavior that might lead to enhanced damages.

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

• A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, by alleging infringement based on the language of an outdated and superseded patent claim, state a plausible claim for relief for infringement of the legally effective, amended version of Claim 1?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "meter," which the patent specification links to a physical device on a taxi indicating occupancy, be construed to cover the software-based availability status (e.g., "online," "on a trip") used in a modern ride-hailing application?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can be produced to show that the accused system performs the specific steps added during reexamination, particularly the calculation of "travel time" and the selection of a vehicle based on the "least travel time," as required by the controlling claim?