DCT

1:19-cv-01653

PerdiemCo LLC v. QV21 Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01653, D. Del., 09/04/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management system and Electronic Logging Device (ELD) services infringe six patents related to location tracking, geofencing, and multi-level administrative controls for managing user privacy and data access.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the commercial fleet management and logistics sector, where vehicle tracking and compliance with federal ELD mandates are critical for operational efficiency and regulatory adherence.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit belong to a larger portfolio that has been subject to extensive litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) against eleven companies, all of which resulted in settlement and licensing agreements. During the EDTX litigation, a court reportedly denied a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, construed key claim terms, and confirmed the patent claims were directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. The complaint also notes that the patents-in-suit issued after the USPTO considered prior art cited during the EDTX litigation and related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-12-23 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2017-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941 Issued
2018-01-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 Issued
2018-07-12 Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant alleging infringement
2019-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689 Issued
2019-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 Issued
2019-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966 Issued
2019-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789 Issued
2019-09-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 - "A Multi-Level Database Management System and Method for an Object Tracking Service That Protects User Privacy" (Issued Jan. 16, 2018)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As sources of location information become more integrated with computing devices, the patent describes a need for a system to correlate events with object locations and convey that information to users while managing access and privacy (Compl. ¶6; ’874 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with multiple levels of administrative privileges to control access to location and event data. A top-level "system administrator" manages user groups, while a second-level "group administrator" (e.g., a service subscriber) controls who within their specific group can receive notifications, such as geofence alerts, thereby providing privacy and control independent of the top-level administrator (Compl. ¶¶17-19; ’874 Patent, col. 5:3-13).
  • Technical Importance: This hierarchical administrative structure allows for scalable, private, and user-configurable location tracking services, a key requirement for commercial fleet management and personal tracking applications (Compl. ¶¶6, 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Essential elements of claim 11 include:
    • A database management system for a mobile device tracking service that tracks locations of multiple mobile devices.
    • The system is controlled by a first level of administrative privilege for a service administrator.
    • This first-level administrator authorizes a user in each group to be a second administrator with a second level of administrative privilege.
    • The second administrator uses the second level of privilege to specify an information access code for the group.
    • The system checks the second level of privilege of the second administrator before allowing the user to perform administrative functions, including specifying an access list.
    • The system provides access to event notifications based on the access list.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 - "Electronic logging devices (ELD) for tracking driver of a vehicle in different tracking modes" (Issued May 7, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved in-vehicle computing devices, specifically Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs), that can track driver and vehicle events and control how that information is conveyed and managed (Compl. ¶21; ’662 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computing device (ELD) in a vehicle that executes a location tracking application (LTA). The device records driving events (e.g., movement, non-movement) after detecting the vehicle is powered on and the driver has logged in. A key feature is providing the driver with an interface to not only access but also "edit" the recorded driving event information before it is transmitted to a central database management system (Compl. ¶¶22-23; ’662 Patent, col. 23:59-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides drivers with direct control and review of their logged hours-of-service data on the ELD itself, which is a core feature of federally mandated ELD systems designed to replace paper logs (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A computing device with a device ID for tracking a driver in a vehicle.
    • It includes wireless interfaces to a network providing access to a driver user account in a database management system (DBMSA).
    • A location tracking software application (LTA) that records driving event information after the driver powers on the vehicle.
    • The LTA provides a log-in interface for the driver to access the recorded driving event information.
    • The LTA records a "first driving event information" based on a "movement driving event."
    • The device provides a "first user interface" that allows the driver to "edit the recorded driving event information" after logging in.
    • The device causes the recorded information to be transmitted to the DBMSA.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689, "Method for controlling conveyance of events by driver administrator of vehicles equipped with ELDs," Issued April 30, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to methods for controlling the flow of event information in a vehicle tracking service. It describes a system where a "Driver administrator" is given privileges by a higher-level "ELD administrator" to manage access rights for other users and control the sending of notifications based on recorded driving events (Compl. ¶¶21-23; ’689 Patent, col. 23:16-24:22).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of Defendant's "The LogisticsFramework" (TLF) fleet management system (Compl. ¶59).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941, "A Location Tracking System Conveying Event Information Based on Administrator Authorizations," Issued June 13, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a location tracking system with multi-level access controls. It describes a system where a first administrator authorizes a second administrator (e.g., a subscriber) to control who receives event notifications for a specific group of tracked objects, thereby ensuring privacy for the subscriber (Compl. ¶¶15, 18-20).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of Defendant's TLF fleet management system (Compl. ¶69).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966, "A Computing Device Carried by A Vehicle for Tracking Driving Events in a Zone Using Location and Event Log Files," Issued August 13, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves a computing device in a vehicle that uses location and event log files to track driving events within a defined zone. The system allows a driver to log into an account, access recorded event log files, and edit information within those files (Compl. ¶¶21-23; ’966 Patent, col. 23:25-50).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of Defendant's TLF fleet management system (Compl. ¶79).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789, "Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Information About Carriers of Mobile Device Based on Location Information Received from Location Information Sources Used by the Mobile Devices," Issued August 27, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for controlling event information related to carriers of mobile devices using a multi-level administrative structure. A tracking service administrator provides privileges to a group administrator, who then controls event notifications for their group based on location information and user-defined event conditions (Compl. ¶¶17-20; ’789 Patent, col. 23:26-24:25).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of Defendant's TLF fleet management system (Compl. ¶90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products and services are collectively identified as "The LogisticsFramework" ("TLF") (Compl. ¶31). This encompasses a fleet management system, including servers and a web-based fleet management application, and is also described as a registered Electronic Logging Device (ELD) service provider (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The TLF system provides fleet management functionality through web-based applications that interface with a Data Base Management System (DBMS) (Compl. ¶33). As an ELD provider, its functionality is designed to adhere to Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations for electronically recording driver hours of service (Compl. ¶32).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of each asserted patent by incorporating by reference exemplary claim charts (Exhibits J-O), which were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶40, 49, 59, 69, 79, 90). The complaint does not contain a narrative description of the alleged infringement sufficient to construct claim chart summaries.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (’874 Patent): A central question may be whether the administrative and user permission structures within Defendant's TLF system meet the specific hierarchical limitations of claim 11. The dispute may focus on whether the TLF system's roles map onto the claimed "first level of administrative privilege" for a "service administrator" and a distinct "second level of administrative privilege" for an "authorized user" who acts as a group administrator.
    • Technical Questions (’662 Patent): The infringement analysis will likely scrutinize the functionality of the accused ELD product. A key question will be whether the accused LTA provides a user interface that "allows the driver to edit the recorded driving event information" as required by claim 1. The definition of "edit" will be critical, as federal ELD regulations place strict limits on how and what a driver can change in an official log, which could create a factual dispute over whether the accused product's functionality matches the claimed functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 (Claim 11):

  • The Term: "first level of administrative privilege" and "second level of administrative privilege"
  • Context and Importance: These terms define the core inventive concept of a hierarchical, privacy-protecting administrative structure. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether Defendant's system embodies this specific two-tiered structure, where a system-wide administrator creates groups and a separate group-level administrator controls access and notifications within that group. Practitioners may focus on these terms because the distinction between the powers and independence of the two administrator levels is central to the patent's contribution over prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as applicable to a wide range of information-sharing environments, from a family to a large business to a worldwide internet service, which may support a broad interpretation of how these privilege levels can be implemented (’874 Patent, col. 5:35-42, 6:60-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly distinguishes the "system administrator" from the "second administrator, e.g., a service subscriber," and emphasizes that the first-level administrator "does not exercise the second level of administrative privilege" (Compl. ¶18). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a clear and functional separation of duties between the two roles (’874 Patent, col. 4:4-10).

For U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "edit the recorded driving event information"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because federal ELD regulations tightly control the modification of official logs to prevent fraud. The scope of "edit" will determine whether the claim reads on compliant ELD systems, which typically allow annotations or corrections subject to strict protocols, or if it requires a broader, more unrestricted modification capability. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either align with or diverge from the functionality permitted by the FMCSA regulations that the accused product allegedly follows (Compl. ¶32).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not appear to place limits on the term "edit." The plain and ordinary meaning could be construed broadly to mean "to alter, adapt, or refine."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification, in a related embodiment, states that the ELD interface allows the driver to "edit, write or enter information into the event log files" (’662 Patent, Claim 1, col. 24:1-3 from incorporated '689 Patent). This context suggests "edit" is part of a suite of data-entry functions. A defendant may argue that in the context of a regulated ELD, "edit" must be construed narrowly to mean only legally permissible annotations or corrections that maintain a record of the original entry, not wholesale alteration.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement on the basis that Defendant supplies the Accused Products with the knowledge and intent that its customers will use them to infringe, providing instructions, documentation, and technical information that facilitate the infringement (Compl. ¶¶43, 52). Contributory infringement is alleged on the grounds that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are especially made or adapted for infringement, and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶44, 53).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit. The complaint cites a letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant on July 12, 2018, which allegedly identified infringing products and at least one patent from the asserted family (Compl. ¶¶37-39, 46, 56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the hierarchical "first level" and "second level" administrative privileges, as claimed in patents like the ’874 patent, be construed to read on the user and permissioning architecture of Defendant's commercial fleet management system? The outcome may depend on whether the accused system maintains the functional independence between administrator roles described in the patents.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and regulatory reality: does the accused ELD product's ability for a driver to interact with log data constitute "editing" as claimed in patents like the ’662 patent? This question will likely involve a technical comparison between the claimed function and the specific, highly regulated actions permitted by the FMCSA for certified ELDs.
  • A third issue will be the impact of prior litigation history: how will the claim constructions and validity findings from the prior EDTX litigation, which Plaintiff has proactively introduced, influence the proceedings in this case? The court will have to determine what, if any, preclusive or persuasive effect to give these prior judicial and administrative findings.