DCT

1:19-cv-01655

PerdiemCo LLC v. Truckx Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01655, D. Del., 09/05/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant TruckX, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management system, marketed as the TruckX Application, infringes six U.S. patents related to location tracking, geofencing, and managing driving event data for electronic logging devices (ELDs).
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates within the vehicle telematics and fleet management industry, a market significantly influenced by federal regulations mandating the use of ELDs in commercial vehicles to record driver hours of service.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes an extensive litigation history involving related patents in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) against eleven other companies, which resulted in settlements and licensing agreements. The complaint also references more than ten inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging patent validity, a claim construction order adopted in the EDTX litigation, and a judicial finding that the asserted claims are directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-12-23 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit (U.S. Provisional No. 60/752,879)
2016-11-02 EDTX Court Order in related litigation denies Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing
2017-06-13 ’941 Patent Issued
2018-01-16 ’874 Patent Issued
2018-07-12 Plaintiff’s counsel sends letter to Defendant alleging infringement
2019-04-30 ’689 Patent Issued
2019-05-07 ’662 Patent Issued
2019-08-13 ’966 Patent Issued
2019-08-27 ’789 Patent Issued
2019-09-05 Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states the inventor sought a way to convey location information efficiently while protecting user privacy (Compl. ¶6). The inventions are framed as an improvement over conventional networks by providing a reliable and efficient way to track objects and convey notifications only to authorized recipients (Compl. ¶17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a location tracking system with a two-tiered administrative structure to manage privacy and data access (Compl. ¶18). A first-level "system administrator" controls overall group membership, while a second-level "administrator" (e.g., a subscriber) has control over who receives notifications for their specific group, independent of the system administrator (Compl. ¶¶18-19). This structure allows the second administrator to specify event conditions, such as a geo-fence, and create access lists to ensure privacy (Compl. ¶20). The patent specification describes this as a system that correlates events with object locations and conveys information to computing devices based on user identification and access codes (’874 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides granular, user-controlled privacy settings within location tracking systems, a feature of increasing importance as such systems became more widespread (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims, including claim 11 (Compl. ¶40). Claim 11 depends from independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A database management system (DBMS) for a mobile device tracking service that tracks locations of a plurality of mobile devices identified by device identification codes (DID codes).
    • The DBMS being controlled under a first level of administrative privilege of a service administrator.
    • The DBMS configured to specify groups of users, each group having a second level of administrative privilege assigned to a second administrator.
    • The second administrator uses the second level of privilege to specify an information access code comprising an access list identifying which users are allowed to receive event information.
    • The DBMS is further configured to check the first and second levels of administrative privilege to control conveyance of event information based on the information access codes.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent is directed to improvements in computing devices used in vehicles, specifically Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) that execute location tracking applications (LTAs) (Compl. ¶21). The patent background notes a general need for systems that correlate events with object locations and convey that information to users (’662 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system using multiple levels of privileges that allow a driver to access and manage recorded event log files (Compl. ¶22). The system records movement and non-movement driving events after detecting the vehicle has been powered on (Compl. ¶22). It further allows drivers to log into their user accounts via a wireless interface to "edit, write or enter information into the event log files" and to send notifications to authorized recipients (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technical Importance: This technology addresses the need for ELD systems that not only comply with federal mandates but also provide drivers with controlled access and input into their own hours-of-service records, a key usability feature.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims, including claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
    • Providing a computing device with a device ID configured to track a driver.
    • The device includes wireless interfaces, a storage device, and a display.
    • Receiving location information from a source to locate the driver.
    • Communicating with a DBMS to access a driver account using a driver ID and password.
    • Receiving an indication that the vehicle is powered on to cause location recording.
    • Recording a first driving event information based on a movement driving event.
    • Providing a user interface to allow the driver to edit the recorded information and cause it to be transmitted to the DBMS.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689 - "Method for controlling conveyance of events by driver administrator of vehicles equipped with ELDs"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to improved systems for controlling the conveyance of driving event information from ELDs. The system features a "System administrator" who manages privileges for authorized users logging into a database management system application (DBMSA) on a server (Compl. ¶21). The claimed improvements involve using multiple privilege levels to allow driver access to event log files for editing and sending notifications (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of the Defendant's TruckX Application offering (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941 - "A Location Tracking System Conveying Event Information Based on Administrator Authorizations"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to geofencing technology, described as an improved location tracking system that tracks multiple mobile objects and sends notifications or alerts when "group event conditions" are met (Compl. ¶15). These conditions can relate to tracked objects crossing the boundary of a defined zone (Compl. ¶16). The system uses multiple levels of administrative privileges to ensure notifications are conveyed only to authorized recipients (Compl. ¶17).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of the Defendant's TruckX App offering (Compl. ¶70).

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"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the "ELD Patents" group and is directed to in-vehicle computing devices that execute location tracking applications (Compl. ¶21). The technology involves using multiple levels of privileges for a driver to access and manage event log files that record driving events (Compl. ¶22). These events are recorded at different rates based on vehicle movement and power-on status (Compl. ¶22).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of the Defendant's TruckX App product offering (Compl. ¶80).

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"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is broadly directed to controlling the flow of event information from mobile devices based on their location. Although not explicitly grouped by the complaint, its title and infringement allegations suggest it covers core functionalities of both geofencing and ELD-type event reporting.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of the Defendant's Accused TruckX App product offering (Compl. ¶90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products and services are Defendant's fleet management system, advertised as the "TruckX Application," which includes servers providing functionality through a web-based application (Compl. ¶31).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The Accused Products and Services function as a fleet management system and a registered ELD service provider that adheres to Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations (Compl. ¶¶31-32). The system uses servers that provide functionality through web-based applications, which in turn interface with a Data Base Management System (DBMS) (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the TruckX Application's features, but incorporates by reference "exemplary infringement claim charts" (Exhibits J-O) which are alleged to detail the correspondence between the product's features and the patent claims (Compl. ¶33).
    • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference exemplary claim charts (Exhibits J-O) that are alleged to detail infringement but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶33). The narrative allegations are summarized below.

  • ’874 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that the TruckX App infringes by providing a location tracking system with multi-level administrative privileges for geofencing and controlling notifications (Compl. ¶¶15-20, 40). The infringement theory suggests that Defendant's system allows a first level of administration for user and group management, and a second level of administration that gives group managers (e.g., fleet owners) control over defining zones and specifying who receives alerts when vehicles cross zone boundaries, thereby protecting user privacy (Compl. ¶¶18-20).
    • Identified Points of Contention: A primary point of contention may be claim construction, specifically whether the user role and permissioning architecture of the TruckX Application maps onto the claimed "first level" and "second level" of administrative privilege. The analysis will likely question whether the defendant's system creates the specific, independent spheres of control for a "system administrator" and a "second administrator" as required by the claims.

  • ’662 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The infringement allegations for the ’662 Patent center on the ELD functionalities of the TruckX Application (Compl. ¶¶21-23, 50). The complaint contends that the accused system infringes by providing an in-vehicle device that uses multiple privilege levels to allow drivers to access event log files, records driving events at different rates based on vehicle status, and allows drivers to log in wirelessly to edit or enter information into those logs (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
    • Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis may focus on the specific sequence of operations. For example, a question may arise as to whether the accused TruckX App records driving events only after a driver logs in, as recited in claim 1, or if it begins logging upon vehicle power-on for regulatory compliance, which may create a mismatch with the claim language. Another question may be whether the "edit, write or enter" functionality offered to drivers in the accused product performs the same function in the same way as the steps required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’874 Patent, Claim 1

    • The Term: "a second level of administrative privilege being assigned to a second administrator"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's claimed structure for providing user-controlled privacy. The distinction between the system-wide "first level" and the group-specific "second level" of privilege is the core of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue its system employs a different user management hierarchy that does not meet this two-tiered limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention in the ’874 patent family broadly describes "multiple levels of access control," which may support an argument that the specific "first" and "second" level language should not be unduly limited (’689 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself provides a specific description, where the first-level administrator "does not exercise the second level of administrative privilege," suggesting a strict separation of duties that could support a narrower construction (Compl. ¶18).

  • ’662 Patent, Claim 1

    • The Term: "record a first driving event information based on a movement driving event which occurs after the power-on driving event"
    • Context and Importance: The temporal sequence of events—power-on, then movement, then recording—is a critical limitation. ELD systems must often log any vehicle movement for compliance reasons, regardless of driver login status. The case may turn on whether the accused system's recording process aligns with the specific sequence recited in the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general description of the invention relates to tracking events "after detecting that the vehicles are powered on," which could be read to encompass any recording that happens subsequent to power-on, regardless of other intermediate steps (Compl. ¶22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly recites steps in a specific order, such as providing a log-in interface and recording a movement event after a power-on event. This defined sequence could support a narrower interpretation requiring that exact operational flow.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement for all asserted patents, based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions, user manuals, and technical documentation that guide customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶43, 53, 63, 73, 83, 93). It also alleges contributory infringement, contending the Accused Products are a material part of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially made to infringe (Compl. ¶¶44, 54, 64, 74, 84, 94).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that on July 12, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant's CEO identifying infringing products and offering a license (Compl. ¶37). It further alleges that in a subsequent phone call, Defendant's CEO stated a belief of non-infringement but did not provide a formal written response, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶38).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the specific, two-tiered "administrative privilege" structure for managing privacy, as claimed in the '874 and '941 patents, be shown to read on the actual user hierarchy and permissioning system implemented in the accused TruckX Application, or does the accused system operate under a fundamentally different control architecture?
  • A second key issue will concern the impact of prior litigation: given the extensive history of litigation, claim construction, and validity challenges in the EDTX involving this patent family, a central question will be how that history shapes this case. The court will need to determine the extent to which prior rulings may influence or preclude claim construction and validity arguments presented by either party.
  • A third question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused ELD system's method for logging data perform the precise sequence of steps required by claims such as claim 1 of the '662 patent—specifically regarding the timing of vehicle power-on, driver login, and the recording of driving events—or is there a functional deviation driven by regulatory compliance or design choice that places the accused method outside the literal scope of the claims?