Jewell Pathway LLC v. Puma North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jewell Pathway LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Puma North America Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00720, D. Del., 05/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has an established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for generating traversable paths for environmental modeling using crowd-sourced location data from mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the creation of detailed, dynamic maps for areas not covered by traditional road networks (e.g., parks, trails) by aggregating and analyzing path data from GPS-enabled user devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-18	’711 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2014-08-26	’711 Patent Issue Date
2020-05-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,818,711 - "3D path analysis for environmental modeling" (issued Aug. 26, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional digital mapping applications are often limited to existing, predetermined roadways and are unable to provide effective navigation through areas like parks or public walkways. Furthermore, satellite imagery may be outdated, lack sufficient resolution, or be difficult to interpret due to shadows and other visual obstructions, making it an unreliable tool for identifying traversable paths. (Compl. ¶8; ’971 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where location data is collected from multiple mobile devices as users traverse an area. A central server analyzes this crowd-sourced data to identify and generate "traversable paths" that may not exist on traditional maps. The system is designed to distinguish different forms of travel (e.g., walking vs. driving) and can create a multi-dimensional map that is dynamically updated as new user data is collected. (’711 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-33, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for automatically modeling areas with complex features by leveraging user-generated data, creating maps that reflect how spaces are actually used rather than relying solely on pre-surveyed road data. (’711 Patent, col. 2:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '711 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted method.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Receiving a first set of location data from a first mobile device, representing a first path.
  • Generating, using a processor, a "traversable path" based on the first set of location data "without using traditional maps."
  • The generated traversable path must follow a "non-predetermined path" and include a portion that "deviates from the first path" based on "differences between the first set of location data and one or more second sets of location data from one or more second mobile devices."
  • Superimposing the traversable path onto a map.
  • Packaging the map for delivery or display.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint references, but does not include, an "Exhibit 2" which purportedly contains charts identifying the accused products and their infringing functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18). The complaint itself contains no descriptions, screenshots, or other information detailing the operation of any specific Puma product, service, or method. As such, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18). In lieu of a claim chart summary, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products practice the technology claimed by the ’711 Patent and, accordingly, satisfy all elements of the exemplary claims (Compl. ¶17). The complaint asserts that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products, and also by having its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). However, the complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory or identify the specific features of the accused products that allegedly meet each claim limitation.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be whether the accused products perform the specific function required by claim 1 of generating a "traversable path" that includes a "portion that deviates from the first path" based on aggregated data from other, separate mobile devices. The complaint does not allege facts to support this specific path-modification functionality.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the scope of the negative limitation "without using traditional maps" (’711 Patent, col. 16:4-5). A dispute could arise over whether this limitation is met by an accused system that generates a path data layer independently but then immediately superimposes it on a traditional map base layer for display to the user.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a portion that deviates from the first path traversed by the first mobile device"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical limitation in independent claim 1. It requires that the final "traversable path" is not merely a recording of a single user's journey, but is instead a modified path created by reference to data from other users. The Plaintiff's ability to prove infringement will depend on showing that the accused products perform this specific type of crowd-sourced path modification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any form of path smoothing, averaging, or "heat map" generation based on multiple users' data results in a composite path that "deviates" from any single user's raw path data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where "the traversable path 131 determined by the server 170 may differ from the traversed path 130 followed by the mobile device 105," for instance, if other users' data indicates an elevation is to be avoided (’711 Patent, col. 5:21-27). This suggests a specific, algorithm-driven modification rather than simple aggregation or averaging.

• The Term: "traversable path"

  • Context and Importance: This is the core output of the claimed method. Its definition will determine what kind of processed data satisfies the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be more than just a raw log of GPS coordinates.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that a traversable path can be determined from location data and can be represented as an overlay on a map, which could support a view that any generated route based on user data qualifies (’711 Patent, col. 2:25-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes generating the path by "performing interpolation on the location data," "identifying trends (e.g., densities)," and "considering the trusted status of the mobile devices" (’711 Patent, col. 10:20-24). This suggests "traversable path" is the result of significant data processing, not a simple trace.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’711 Patent, ¶14). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused products "are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its service constitutes "actual knowledge" of the patent and that Defendant's continued infringement is therefore post-suit and knowing (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). Plaintiff seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" and requests an award of attorneys' fees, which is consistent with an allegation of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer E.i).

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Puma products perform the specific, multi-step process of (a) receiving path data from a first user, (b) receiving path data from one or more other users, and (c) generating a final "traversable path" for the first user that explicitly "deviates" from their original path based on the data from the other users, as recited in claim 1?

2. The case may also hinge on a question of claim construction: does the negative limitation "generating... a traversable path... without using traditional maps" preclude infringement by a system that creates a path data layer independently but relies on a traditional map as a necessary base layer for the path to be displayed and used, as described in other parts of the patent?

3. A third key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "traversable path" be construed broadly to cover a generalized "heat map" of popular routes derived from aggregate user data, or will it be limited to a discrete, calculated route that is actively modified based on specific logic and data inputs as described in the patent's embodiments?