Inventergy LBS LLC v. Agilis Systems LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Agilis Systems, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamatios Stamoulis; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01484, D. Del., 08/08/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MotoSafety product line infringes three patents related to systems and methods for remotely communicating with and configuring tracking devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns remotely manageable tracking devices, a foundational technology for vehicle fleet management, asset tracking, and personal safety monitoring systems.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a common specification and priority date, originating from the same provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-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’s background section identifies limitations in prior art tracking systems, including high power consumption, the high cost of network access (e.g., cellular data), and limited communication capabilities between the device and a central station ('286 Patent, col. 1:35-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a tracking device whose functionality can be dynamically modified by a remote system. A central server can send communications to the device to reconfigure its operational parameters, such as how and when it buffers location data, particularly when it cannot establish a network connection ('286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-29). This remote configurability is intended to conserve power and minimize network usage while maintaining operational flexibility ('286 Patent, col. 2:52-63).
• Technical Importance: Remote management of device behavior allows a single hardware device to be adapted for various applications and operating conditions, addressing the critical commercial constraints of battery life and data costs in the tracking industry ('286 Patent, col. 1:40-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • A tracking device comprising: a location detector, a communication device, memory, a processor, and a configuration routine.
  • The communication device is operative to communicate with a "plurality of remote systems," including a "tracking service system" and a "device of a user."
  • The processor executes code to impart functionality that depends on "configuration data" stored in memory.
  • The "configuration routine" is operative to "modify" the configuration data in response to communications from any of the remote systems.
  • The modifiable configuration data determines an "interval for buffering" location data when the device is unable to communicate with a remote system.
  • This buffering interval controls "how frequently newly acquired location data will be stored."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other unspecified claims (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 9,781,558 - "System and method for communication with a tracking device," issued October 3, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Sharing a specification with the '286 Patent, the '558 Patent addresses the same problems of high power consumption and data costs in tracking devices ('558 Patent, col. 1:32-43).
• The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a tracking device that includes a "reporting routine" for communicating operational data back to a remote system. The patent claims a device where this operational data specifically includes data "indicative of a battery status," allowing the remote system to monitor the device's power level ('558 Patent, col. 43:31-34). The flowchart in Figure 5 illustrates the general method of a remote system providing configuration data and receiving processed data back from the device ('558 Patent, Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: The ability for a remote system to receive battery status updates is crucial for managing large fleets of tracked assets or ensuring the reliability of personal safety devices, as it enables proactive maintenance and battery replacement ('558 Patent, col. 2:55-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least exemplary independent claim 31 (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of claim 31 are:
  • A tracking device comprising: a location detector, a communication device, memory, a processor, a configuration routine, and a reporting routine.
  • The "configuration routine" modifies configuration data responsive to communication from a remote system.
  • The "reporting routine" is operative to communicate "operational data" between the tracking device and the remote system.
  • The operational data is "indicative of a battery status."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other unspecified claims (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978 - "System and method for communication with a tracking device," issued December 22, 2015

Technology Synopsis

This patent, from the same family, discloses a tracking device with remotely configurable buffering and reporting routines. The invention allows a remote system to define how the device stores location data when it is out of communication range ("buffering") and how it later transmits that stored data once reconnected ("reporting") ('978 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-33).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the accused MotoSafety products infringe by implementing the claimed system of remotely configurable buffering and reporting routines (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "at least Agilis's MotoSafety" products as the "Exemplary Agilis Products" that allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding the technical functionality, features, or operation of the MotoSafety products. The allegations of infringement rely entirely on incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶22, 32, 42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused MotoSafety products infringe the asserted patents but provides no substantive factual detail in the body of the complaint to support these allegations. Instead, it states that infringement is demonstrated in claim charts attached as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶21, 31, 41). The narrative infringement theory is therefore limited to the conclusory assertion that the accused products practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the exemplary claims (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 31-32, 41-42). As the complaint does not provide a basis for a claim chart summary, none can be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, a primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce discovery evidence to show that the accused MotoSafety products contain the specific software and hardware components recited in the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates the existence of a "configuration routine" that modifies device behavior based on remote commands, as required by claim 1 of the '286 Patent?
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the scope of the claim language relative to the accused product's architecture. For instance, claim 1 of the '286 Patent requires communication with a "plurality of remote systems" including a "tracking service system" and a "device of a user." A dispute may arise over whether the accused system, which may only communicate with a central server, meets this specific architectural limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The case may turn on technical mismatches between the product's function and the claims. For example, regarding claim 31 of the '558 Patent, what evidence shows that the accused product's transmission of general status information constitutes a "reporting routine" communicating "operational data... indicative of a battery status" as specifically required by the claim?

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "configuration routine" ('286 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive concept of remote device management. Its construction will determine what level of software functionality in the accused device is sufficient to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome could distinguish between a device with specific, dedicated firmware for reconfiguration versus a device with only general-purpose settings that can be changed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept broadly, stating the routine is "operative to modify the configuration data responsive to a communication from the remote system," which could support an interpretation covering any software module that alters settings based on external commands ('286 Patent, col. 2:11-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes a detailed "Communication Protocol Specification" with specific command structures (e.g., SET_REPORTING_INTERVAL, SET_GPS_POWERSTATE). A party could argue that the "configuration routine" should be limited to a component that implements these specific, enumerated functions ('286 Patent, col. 9:4-10, Table at col. 9-10).

The Term: "plurality of remote systems" ('286 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required network environment. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on the accused device communicating with at least two distinct types of systems: a "tracking service system" and a "device of a user."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's block diagram (Fig. 1) shows communication paths to both central "servers (104)" and end-user "subscribers (118)," which could support an argument that any architecture enabling these two endpoints to interact with the tracking device (even if indirectly through the server) meets the limitation ('286 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:11-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also contemplates "direct communication between tracking devices 102 and subscribers 118," which could support a narrower reading that requires the tracking device to be capable of communicating directly with a user's device, separate from its communication with the service system's servers ('286 Patent, col. 4:45-53).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for these claims is the allegation that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct or encourage users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶18, 19, 29).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing of the lawsuit provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement and that any continued infringing activities are therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶17-18). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A central issue for the court will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's complete reliance on unprovided exhibits, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient factual evidence through discovery to map the specific functionalities of the accused MotoSafety products to the detailed requirements of the asserted claims, such as the "configuration routine" and "buffering interval" of the '286 Patent?
• A key legal issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "plurality of remote systems," which requires communication with both a service system and a user's device, be construed to read on the accused system's architecture? The answer may determine whether a system that communicates only with a central server can infringe claim 1 of the '286 Patent.
• A critical technical question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused product's method of reporting its general health and status information perform the specific function of a "reporting routine" communicating "operational data... indicative of a battery status" as claimed in the '558 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the product's operation and the claim's requirements?