Gridley IP LLC v. SuperShuttle Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Gridley IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: SuperShuttle International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01742, D. Del., 12/22/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ride-hailing software and application infringe two patents related to tracking population movement to predict and meet demand for goods or services.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using location data from mobile devices to analyze population movements in real-time, enabling predictive allocation of resources, a foundational concept in the on-demand service economy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit were issued after a "full and fair examination" by the USPTO but does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,676,668 - "METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF A TIME, LOCATION, AND QUANTITY OF GOODS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE BASED ON MAPPED POPULATION ACTIVITY," issued March 18, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the logistical challenge of providing goods or services at the right time and place, noting that when large numbers of customers demand prompt service, sales opportunities may be lost if suppliers are not prepared ('668 Patent, col. 1:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that addresses this problem by monitoring the aggregate movement of a population. It involves detecting wireless mobile devices, discerning their location, speed, and direction to predict where the group is heading, and then using that information to determine a time, location, and quantity of goods or services to make available ('668 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:17-36). For instance, a taxi service could analyze passenger movements at an airport to proactively dispatch an appropriate number of vehicles to meet predicted demand ('668 Patent, col. 2:15-28).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a method for shifting resource allocation from a reactive model (responding to individual requests) to a predictive one based on real-time, large-scale population data ('668 Patent, col. 2:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • detecting wireless mobile devices within a geographic region at two or more different points in time;
  • discerning a location, speed and direction of the wireless mobile devices to discern a particular location toward which the devices are moving;
  • determining, based on the discerned movement, a time, location, and quantity of goods or services to be made available, performed by processors of a computer network; and
  • presenting a result of the determination on a user interface.

U.S. Patent No. 9,852,435 - "TELEMETRICS BASED LOCATION AND TRACKING," issued December 26, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the '668 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of matching service supply with unpredictable customer demand ('435 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus (comprising a memory and processor) that tracks potential purchasers by not only detecting and discerning their movement but also by retrieving demographic and historical information associated with them ('435 Patent, Abstract). The system then identifies a specific subset of the tracked devices based on this demographic or historical data and determines a quantity of goods or services to make available to that targeted subset ('435 Patent, col. 19:5-25).
• Technical Importance: This technology refines the predictive model by incorporating user-specific data to improve the accuracy of demand forecasting, aiming to identify not just where a crowd is going, but which individuals within that crowd are likely customers ('435 Patent, col. 6:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 9.
• Essential elements of claim 9 include:
  • An apparatus with a memory and a processor configured to execute instructions to:
  • detect wireless mobile devices at different points in time;
  • discern current location, speed, and direction of travel for the devices;
  • identify a set of devices estimated to be near a particular location;
  • retrieve historical and demographic information for the identified set of devices from memory;
  • identify a portion of that set based on the demographic or historical information, where the portion is associated with available goods or services; and
  • determine a quantity of goods or services to be made available to users associated with that identified portion.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The “SuperShuttle Express Software / App” system (the “Accused Product”) (Compl. ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a ride-hailing application that "enables a method for mapping population activity" by, for example, allowing a passenger to search for drivers (Compl. ¶37). Its alleged functionality includes continuously tracking and updating the locations of drivers' mobile devices (Compl. ¶38), determining driver location, speed, and direction to estimate pickup times (Compl. ¶40), and presenting results such as estimated time of arrival on the user's smartphone (Compl. ¶45). The complaint also alleges the app can retrieve driver names and pictures (demographic data) as well as vehicle type and reviews (historical data) (Compl. ¶¶53-54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint refers to claim chart exhibits that were not provided; the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body (Compl. ¶¶37, 47).

'668 Patent Infringement Allegations

'435 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A foundational question is whether the Accused Product's function of reacting to an individual user's request by finding a nearby driver performs the same function as the patent's described method of predicting aggregate demand (e.g., for 130 taxis at an airport) to proactively allocate resources ('668 Patent, col. 6:40-43).
• Scope Question ('668 Patent): The infringement analysis may turn on whether the claim limitation "discerning a particular location toward which the wireless mobile devices are moving" requires a predictive analysis of a likely destination (e.g., a theater or airport, as described in the specification), or if it is met by the accused app's alleged use of a driver's current directional vector.
• Scope Question ('435 Patent): A dispute may arise over whether the accused app's display of a driver's name and vehicle information satisfies the claim requirement to "identify a portion... based on... demographic or... historical information." The court may need to determine if this requires using such data as a filtering criterion to select the driver, or if merely displaying the data for a driver selected by proximity is sufficient.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "determining... a quantity of the goods or services to be made available" (from '668 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purpose of predictive resource allocation. The dispute will question whether this limitation requires a system-level calculation of total required supply (e.g., number of vehicles to dispatch to an area) or if it can be read on the identification of a single unit of service for a single user request.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of "a quantity" does not explicitly require more than one. A plaintiff may argue that determining a single ride ("a" quantity) for a user meets the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes determining "an amount of salable output," "appropriate amounts of food," and an "appropriate number of taxis" in the context of serving crowds, suggesting a system-level, multi-unit calculation is contemplated ('668 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-20; col. 2:34-35).

• Term: "identify a portion of the identified set... based on at least one of the demographic information or the historical information" (from '435 Patent, Claim 9)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it links the user profiling data to the act of selecting a service provider. Infringement may depend on whether the accused app uses this data as an input for filtering, or simply as information to display about an already-selected provider.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the overall process of presenting a driver to a user is "based on" all the information available, including demographic/historical data, even if proximity is the primary filter.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using demographic and historical data to "filter" a "pool of people" to "identify people who have above a threshold level of likelihood of purchasing" ('668 Patent, col. 5:56-61). This language suggests the data is used as an active criterion for selection, not merely as descriptive information about a result selected by other means.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by "encouraging infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement" (Compl. ¶62). The factual basis appears to rely on Defendant providing the Accused Product and its associated instructions, which allegedly causes users and drivers to directly infringe the patents.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶60). This allegation appears aimed at potential enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement, as no pre-suit knowledge is asserted.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the Accused Product, which appears to operate reactively by matching individual user requests with nearby drivers, in fact perform the predictive, aggregate demand-planning method claimed in the patents, which focuses on pre-positioning resources based on the anticipated movement of entire populations?
• A core issue will be one of claim scope: Can the requirement to "identify a portion... based on... demographic or... historical information" ('435 Patent) be met by an app that selects drivers based on proximity and then displays their information, or does the claim require that the demographic and historical data be used as an input to the selection and filtering algorithm itself?
• A further question of scope will be whether determining a single ride for a single user satisfies the '668 Patent's requirement to "determine... a quantity of the goods or services to be made available," a phrase the specification repeatedly associates with large-scale, crowd-level resource calculations.