DCT

1:21-cv-00175

FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. v. Roambee Corporation

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00175, D. Del., 02/09/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s asset monitoring products and services infringe six patents related to sensor-based logistics, hierarchical tracking networks, and data management.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on sensor-based logistics technology, which enables real-time monitoring of the location, condition, and environment of goods in transit, a market of significant importance for high-value and environmentally sensitive shipments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint positions Plaintiff as a pioneer in sensor-based logistics through its "SenseAware" technology platform, alleging that this work predates Defendant's founding and laid the foundation for the technology in the accused products. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,623,033 Priority Date
2009-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,766,797 Priority Date
2009-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,623,033 Issued
2013 Roambee Founded
2013-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,974,042 Priority Date
2014 Roambee Began Selling Accused Products
2014-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,182,231 Priority Date
2014-07-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,766,797 Issued
2015-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,305,744 Priority Date
2015-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,313,199 Priority Date
2015-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,182,231 Issued
2018-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,974,042 Issued
2019-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,305,744 Issued
2019-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,313,199 Issued
2021-02-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,623,033 - "Methods and Systems for Tracking Items Using a Sensor Web"

Issued November 24, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior asset tracking systems, such as those using RFID tags, as providing only "basic tracking" without a way to "improve asset management using information about the environment" (Compl. ¶33; ’033 Patent, col. 1:60-63). This limitation resulted in incomplete information, potentially leading to damaged assets (e.g., from temperature excursions) and missed opportunities for corrective action (Compl. ¶33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "sensor web" architecture to create a "strong information web surrounding the item being tracked" (’033 Patent, col. 3:4-5). In this system, a low-cost "item tracking device" on a package associates with a more capable, sensor-equipped "beacon device" when it comes within a predetermined range (e.g., inside a delivery truck) (’033 Patent, Abstract). The beacon device collects environmental data (e.g., temperature, location) and transmits it to a central database, associating that single data stream with all items currently within its range, thereby enriching the data for each item without requiring every item to have expensive sensors (Compl. ¶¶34-35; ’033 Patent, col. 3:8-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to lower the cost of sensor-based tracking by allowing simple, low-cost item tags to leverage the sensing capabilities of more complex, centrally located devices (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Claim 1 of the ’033 Patent recites a method for tracking items with the following essential elements:
    • storing, in memory, first association data reflecting an association between an item tracking device and a beacon device when the item tracking device is within a predetermined range of the beacon device;
    • detecting sensor data about an environment of the beacon device;
    • associating the sensor data with a group of items, of the multiple items, that are within the predetermined range of the beacon device; and
    • periodically transmitting the associated sensor data from the beacon device to a database.

U.S. Patent No. 8,766,797 - "Sensor Based Logistics System"

Issued July 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a lack in prior technologies of "sophisticated abilities to securely and selectively grant access to monitoring data while limiting specificity of data provided to authorized users" (Compl. ¶47; ’797 Patent, col. 2:11-14). This created challenges for collaboration between business partners who needed to share some, but not all, logistics data while complying with security and privacy requirements (Compl. ¶47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-implemented method for selectively controlling access to shipment information. The system receives sensor data and, when a party requests access, it analyzes associated rules via a "rules engine" to determine authorization (’797 Patent, col. 6:38-55). Critically, the system can restrict access by "reporting the received sensor information to the party at a level of specificity that is less than a level of specificity of sensor information collected by a sensor," thereby providing filtered or summarized data rather than the raw, detailed sensor feed (’797 Patent, col. 25:12-16; Compl. ¶48).
  • Technical Importance: This technology was designed to enhance data security in logistics networks, allowing different parties in a supply chain to "collaborate with other business partners" while preventing unwanted access to sensitive information (Compl. ¶47; ’797 Patent, col. 8:12-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Claim 1 of the ’797 Patent recites a computer-implemented method for accessing shipment information with the following essential elements:
    • receiving, at a tracking center, sensor information associated with one or more shipments;
    • analyzing rules associated with a party to determine whether the party is authorized to access the received sensor information; and
    • restricting the party from accessing the received sensor information based on the analyzed rules, wherein the restricting comprises reporting the received sensor information to the party at a level of specificity that is less than a level of specificity of sensor information collected by a sensor.

U.S. Patent No. 9,182,231 - "Hierarchical Sensor Network for a Grouped Set of Packages Being Shipped Using Elements of a Wireless Node Network"

Issued November 10, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the inefficiency of prior tracking systems like manual barcode scanning (Compl. ¶58). It discloses a hierarchical network architecture comprising a server, a "master node," and a lower-power "ID node" to enable more efficient and granular tracking of grouped or multi-piece shipments (Compl. ¶¶59, 17).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 26 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entire Roambee product ecosystem of practicing the claimed features (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 9,974,042 - "Node-Enabled Monitoring of a Piece of Equipment Using a Hierarchical Node Network"

Issued May 15, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes using a similar hierarchical "ID node" and "master node" network for equipment monitoring, rather than just package tracking (Compl. ¶¶70-71). The system is described as providing "enhanced visibility to the location of items associated with such nodes" and leveraging sensor data to "identify an actionable event so that a responsive action may be taken" (’042 Patent, col. 235:63-236:8; Compl. ¶71).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entire Roambee product ecosystem of practicing the claimed features (Compl. ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 10,305,744 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods of Event Monitoring for an Event Candidate Related to an ID Node Within a Wireless Node Network"

Issued May 28, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on methods for efficiently managing a network of ID nodes by detecting "event candidates" (Compl. ¶83). A master node identifies an event by comparing advertising signals from ID nodes, reports the event to a server, and receives an "adjustment response" from the server to cause an "operational update" of the ID node, such as changing its reporting profile (Compl. ¶83; ’744 Patent, col. 188:22-41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 56 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entire Roambee product ecosystem of practicing the claimed features (Compl. ¶84).

U.S. Patent No. 10,313,199 - "Systems, Apparatus, and Methods of Enhanced Management of a Wireless Node Network Based Upon an Event Candidate Related to Elements of the Wireless Node Network"

Issued June 4, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses problems of "overloaded and overstressed communication pathways" in sensor networks (Compl. ¶94). It discloses a system where a server offloads some management tasks to the master node; the server receives an event report, generates a "confidence rating" for the event, updates its management information, and sends a "management message" back to the master node to control the network, lessening the reporting burden on the master node (Compl. ¶¶93-95).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the entire Roambee product ecosystem of practicing the claimed features (Compl. ¶96).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as, individually or in combination, the Roambee BeeBeacon, BeeBeacon Plus, BeeMobile application, BeeSense, BeeSense Air, BeeRouter, BeeFleet, BeeAsset, BeeTrac, BeeLock, BeeFleet, Roambee portal, Honeycomb Cloud server, and BeeCentral products and services (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products form an "end-to-end visibility solution for goods and assets monitoring" (Compl. ¶29). This system is said to feature a "family of wireless devices and a centralized software platform" that monitors conditions including location, temperature, light exposure, humidity, shock, and barometric pressure (Compl. ¶29). The platform allegedly allows customers to "customize alerts associated with monitored conditions" (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them in the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 49, 61, 72, 84, 96). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • '033 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities meet the limitations of claim 1 by providing a system where item tracking devices (e.g., BeeSense) associate with beacon devices (e.g., BeeBeacon) when they are within a predetermined range (Compl. ¶34). It is alleged that the beacon device detects environmental sensor data and transmits this data to a database (e.g., Honeycomb Cloud server), where the data is associated with the group of items in proximity to the beacon, thus building an "information web" as claimed (Compl. ¶¶33-35).

  • '797 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities meet the limitations of claim 1 by providing a computer-implemented method for controlling data access (Compl. ¶¶46, 48). The allegations suggest that the Roambee software platform receives sensor data and uses a rules-based system to analyze whether a party is authorized to access it (Compl. ¶47). The system then allegedly restricts access based on those rules, including by reporting the information at a reduced "level of specificity" compared to the originally collected data (Compl. ¶48).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Architectural Questions: For the '033 patent and the four hierarchical network patents ('231, '042, '744, '199), a central issue may be whether the architecture of the Roambee system corresponds to the specific multi-component structures claimed. For example, does the Roambee system employ distinct "item tracking devices" and "beacon devices" ('033 Patent) or "ID nodes" and "master nodes" ('231 Patent) that perform the specific, distinct functions required by the claims?
    • Functional Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the specific functionality of the accused software. For the '797 patent, a key question is whether the Roambee platform’s standard permissioning and alert features perform the specific claimed step of "reporting... at a level of specificity that is less than" the collected data, or if it merely grants or denies access to the raw data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '033 Patent:

    • The Term: "beacon device"
    • Context and Importance: The claim requires both an "item tracking device" and a "beacon device." The patent's inventive concept appears to rely on the functional distinction between these two components, where the beacon leverages its capabilities for multiple item trackers. Practitioners may focus on whether Roambee's system includes a component that meets the specific functional and relational requirements of the "beacon device" as distinct from a simple tracker.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not structurally limit the "beacon device" beyond its functional roles of detecting environmental data and transmitting it.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes beacon devices as potentially being located in "various sites along the delivery path," such as in vehicles or storage facilities, where they act as gateways for item-level devices (’033 Patent, col. 4:26-34). This context could support an interpretation requiring a more stationary or infrastructural role compared to the mobile "item tracking device."

  • For the '797 Patent:

    • The Term: "reporting the received sensor information to the party at a level of specificity that is less than a level of specificity of sensor information collected by a sensor"
    • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a key point of novelty. The dispute may turn on whether Roambee's user-permissioning system, which may allow a user to see an alert summary instead of raw data, performs this specific data-abstraction function as part of the claimed method for "restricting the party from accessing" information.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not specify the mechanism of reduction. Any form of data summary or abstraction presented to a user in lieu of the full, raw data set could be argued to meet this limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frames this feature as a way to "comply[] with security or privacy requirements for data sharing" among different business partners (’797 Patent, col. 2:14-16). This context may support a narrower construction tied to a specific security-driven filtering process, rather than any general data summarization for user interface purposes.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges Defendant actively induces infringement by its customers and contributes to infringement by selling and supplying the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 38-40, 50-52, 62-64, 73-75, 85-87, 97-99). The complaint asserts these products constitute a material part of the inventions, are especially made or adapted for infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶39).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful and deliberate because Defendant became aware of the infringing nature of the Accused Instrumentalities "at least since the filing of this complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 53, 65, 76, 88, 100). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: do the components of the accused Roambee system map onto the specific multi-device architectures recited in the asserted patents? This includes whether the system uses functionally distinct "beacon devices" and "item tracking devices" (’033 patent) or "master nodes" and "ID nodes" (e.g., '231 patent) that interact in the precise manner claimed.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope, particularly for the software-implemented claims: can the standard user-permissioning and alert-customization functions alleged in the Roambee platform be construed to meet the specific claim limitations, such as "reporting... at a level of specificity that is less than" the collected data ('797 patent) or performing server-based "event candidate" analysis and generating "confidence ratings" ('199 patent)?
  • An underlying evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the complaint makes broad allegations that the entire Roambee product line infringes all asserted patents. The case will likely require a detailed factual inquiry into which specific products perform which specific steps, and whether the actual operation of those products matches the detailed functional requirements of the claims.