DCT

1:24-cv-00084

Samsara Inc v. Motive Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00084, D. Del., 03/20/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s incorporation in the state of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle telematics and fleet management platform infringes patents related to vehicle data analysis, machine vision systems, and event detection.
  • Technical Context: The technology domain is Internet of Things (IoT) solutions for commercial vehicle fleets, a market focused on using data and AI to improve safety, efficiency, and sustainability in physical operations industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a multi-year history of Defendant copying Plaintiff's technology and business strategy, including gaining unauthorized access to Plaintiff's platform via fictitious customer accounts beginning in 2017. Plaintiff states it notified Defendant of its patent portfolio in September 2023 and provided specific infringement allegations in January 2024.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-01-01 Motive founded as KeepTruckin
2015-01-01 Samsara founded
2016-01-01 Samsara releases Vehicle Gateway product
2017-01-01 Samsara releases CM11 dash cam
2017-10-27 Motive allegedly creates "Northside Salvage Yard" account
2018-06-01 KeepTruckin (Motive) releases its "Smart Dashcam"
2019-04-09 ’130 Patent Priority Date
2019-04-26 ’621 Patent Priority Date
2019-10-06 Motive allegedly creates "Monstera Transport" account
2020-05-01 ’373 Patent Priority Date
2021-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,127,130 Issues
2021-11-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,190,373 Issues
2022-06-01 Samsara sends letter to Motive's Board of Directors
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,611,621 Issues
2023-09-26 Samsara informs Motive of its patent portfolio
2024-01-23 Samsara provides infringement claim charts to Motive
2024-03-20 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,190,373: Vehicle Gateway Device and Interactive Graphical User Interfaces Associated Therewith (Nov. 30, 2021)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for commercial fleet operators in understanding and improving fuel/energy efficiency due to the high volume and complexity of vehicle data, as well as a lack of information to compare their fleet's performance against others (Compl. ¶108; ’373 Patent, col. 1:64-2:5, 3:27-4:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that collects vehicle metric data (e.g., speed, RPM, idling time) from a multitude of vehicles via gateway devices. A central computing device analyzes this fleet-wide data to "determine correlations" between specific behaviors and overall fuel/energy usage. Based on these learned correlations, the system determines "weightings" for different metrics and calculates a single "fuel/energy efficiency score" for individual vehicles, which is then presented to the user through a graphical interface (’373 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:24-58).
  • Technical Importance: This approach moves beyond simple miles-per-gallon reporting to a dynamic, data-driven efficiency score that learns from the behavior of an entire fleet, enabling more nuanced and actionable performance coaching (Compl. ¶109).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶107, ¶129).
  • Essential elements of claim 15 include:
    • A first vehicle gateway device to gather and transmit metric data from a first vehicle.
    • A computing device that receives metric data from a plurality of gateway devices.
    • The computing device determines fuel/energy usage across the plurality of vehicles.
    • The computing device determines correlations between other vehicle metrics and fuel/energy usage.
    • The computing device determines weightings for those metrics based on the correlations.
    • The computing device determines a fuel/energy efficiency score for the first vehicle using its specific data and the determined weightings.
    • The computing device causes the score to be provided in a user interface.
  • The complaint does not assert specific dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.

U.S. Patent No. 11,127,130: Machine Vision System and Interactive Graphical User Interfaces Related Thereto (Sep. 21, 2021)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that configuring individual machine vision systems ("smart cameras") and gathering data from them for real-time analysis is often time-consuming, difficult for non-technical users, and impractical for managing multiple devices, especially when a device fails or needs an update (Compl. ¶115; ’130 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a machine vision system that performs key functions locally at the "edge." The device acquires an image, processes it to identify features, determines an "evaluation," and locally stores both the image and the evaluation. It then transmits this data for remote storage. A critical component is an integrated "web server" that provides secure remote access to the locally stored image and evaluation, creating a self-contained, network-addressable analysis unit (’130 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:45-62).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enables efficient deployment and management of large-scale computer vision systems by decentralizing the initial processing to the device itself while centralizing access to the results, reducing data bottlenecks and simplifying system monitoring (Compl. ¶117).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶114, ¶155).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An image sensor.
    • A computer-readable storage medium with program instructions, including a web server.
    • One or more processors configured to:
      • Acquire an image.
      • Process the image to identify features.
      • Determine an evaluation of the image.
      • Locally store the image and the evaluation.
      • Transmit the image and evaluation for remote storage.
      • Execute the web server to provide secure remote access to the image and evaluation.
  • The complaint does not assert specific dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.

U.S. Patent No. 11,611,621: Event Detection System (Mar. 21, 2023) (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses prior art event data recorders' (EDRs) lack of functionality for efficiently detecting safety events in real-time (Compl. ¶123). The patented method uses data from a first sensor (e.g., a camera) to detect an image feature, such as a traffic sign, that corresponds with a potential event type. This initial detection triggers a procedure to access a data stream from a second, different sensor (e.g., a GPS or accelerometer) to augment the visual data and confirm the event before presenting a notification to a client device (Compl. ¶122, ¶124).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 (Compl. ¶122, ¶174).
  • Accused Features: Motive's safety event detection service is accused of infringement. The complaint alleges this service uses a Motive dashcam (first sensor) to detect image features like a stop sign and then accesses data such as vehicle speed from the Motive Vehicle Gateway (second sensor) to determine if a "rolling stop" event occurred (Compl. ¶177-180). A visual in the complaint depicts Motive's dashboard for a "Stop Sign Violation" event, showing both video and a speed indicator (Compl. p. 84).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the Motive Vehicle Gateway, Motive AI Dashcam, Motive AI Omnicam, and the associated cloud-based software platform, which includes the Motive Dashboard, Motive Safety Hub, and the Motive Driver Fuel Score feature (Compl. ¶125).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused system combines in-vehicle hardware devices that collect telematics data (from the Vehicle Gateway) and video footage (from the AI Dashcam) (Compl. ¶132, ¶157). This data is transmitted to the "Motive Data Platform," a cloud-based service that analyzes the data and presents insights to customers through various software applications (Compl. ¶131). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating this three-layer architecture of IoT devices, a data platform, and AI-powered applications (Compl. p. 59, Ex. 9).
  • The complaint alleges that Motive is a direct competitor that pivoted its business model to copy Samsara's offerings after initially focusing on electronic logging devices. The complaint further alleges that Motive's product development was informed by unauthorized and fraudulent access to Samsara's own platform (Compl. ¶41-45, ¶47-59). The complaint includes an image allegedly captured by a Samsara device showing Motive's CEO and Chief Product Officer studying Samsara's products inside a vehicle (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’373 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first vehicle gateway device configured to gather and transmit first vehicle metric data Motive’s Vehicle Gateway collects and transmits vehicle metrics like speed, fuel, and fault codes. A screenshot of Motive's spec sheet shows the telematics data captured (Compl. p. 60, Ex. 10). ¶132 col. 1:20-25
a computing device... receive vehicle metric data from a plurality of vehicle gateway devices Motive’s cloud-based Data Platform and AI-Powered Applications receive metric data from multiple vehicles within a customer's fleet. ¶135 col. 5:24-28
determine correlations among one or more other vehicle metrics and the fuel/energy usage Motive’s Fuel Score computation allegedly involves normalizing for variables outside a driver's control (e.g., vehicle model, load state, environmental conditions) by comparing drivers to others in the Motive network. This process of comparison and normalization is alleged to be a determination of correlations (Compl. p. 64, "What is Fuel Hub?"). ¶140 col. 5:35-39
determine weightings of the one or more other vehicle metrics based... on the correlations The complaint alleges that the process of calculating a Fuel Score, after removing the effect of external variables, entails determining weightings for driver-controlled vehicle metrics like RPM profile and idling duration. ¶142 col. 5:40-42
determine... a fuel/energy efficiency score associated with the first vehicle The Motive platform computes a "Fuel Score" between 10 and 100 for each driver based on fuel efficiency calculations. A screenshot of the "Fuel Hub" dashboard displays this score (Compl. p. 62). ¶136, ¶146 col. 5:50-53
cause the fuel/energy efficiency score to be provided in an... interactive graphical user interface The Fuel Score is presented to users in the Motive Fleet Dashboard. ¶147 col. 5:54-58
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Motive’s "normalization" algorithm for its Fuel Score meets the claim requirements of first "determin[ing] correlations" and then "determin[ing] weightings" based on those correlations. The complaint asserts this is an inherent part of Motive's process, which raises the question of whether Motive's method is technically equivalent to the claimed method or operates on a different, non-infringing principle.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that Motive's system actively learns correlations from fleet-wide data to generate weightings, as opposed to using a pre-determined formula or a static model that does not perform the specific steps recited in the claim?

’130 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a computer readable storage medium having program instructions... including at least a web server The Motive system, including the AI Dashcam, Vehicle Gateway, and cloud platform, allegedly includes storage and software that constitutes a web server to provide connectivity and remote access. ¶159 col. 1:45-48
process the image to identify one or more features Motive’s AI Dashcam and AI Omnicam have software that processes captured images to identify features related to unsafe driving, such as "hard brakes" or distracted driving. A screenshot shows the system identifying a "Hard Brake Detected" event (Compl. p. 75). ¶162 col. 1:39-40
determine an evaluation of the image based at least in part on the one or more features The accused system determines evaluations of images, identifying them as "unsafe driving events or distracted driver events." ¶163 col. 4:2-3
locally store the image and the evaluation The complaint cites a Motive blog post explaining that Motive dashcams "save video[s]" of potentially severe events locally on the device before transmission. A diagram from this post illustrates a "Save Video" step occurring on the device (Compl. p. 77). ¶164 col. 1:45-46
transmit the image and evaluation for remote storage The AI Dashcam and AI Omnicam transmit images and their associated evaluations to the Motive cloud for remote storage, using the Vehicle Gateway for connectivity. ¶165 col. 1:51-53
execute the web server to provide secure remote access to the image and evaluation The Motive cloud platform provides a web server that allows fleet managers remote access to view stored event videos and evaluations on a dashboard. A screenshot shows a "Video of a DPE delivered to a fleet manager's dashboard" (Compl. p. 79). ¶166 col. 1:56-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory posits that the distributed architecture of the Motive dashcam, gateway, and cloud platform collectively forms the claimed "machine vision system." This raises the question of whether the term "web server," as claimed, can be construed to cover functionality distributed across these separate components, or if it requires a more integrated function residing on the camera device itself.
    • Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that an "evaluation" of the image is created and stored locally on the dashcam, as distinct from the image data itself, before transmission to the cloud? The distinction between storing raw video and storing a separate "evaluation" data object locally may become a point of technical dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

From the ’373 Patent (Claim 15):

  • The Term: "determine correlations"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’373 patent. The complaint alleges that Motive's "normalization" process for its Fuel Score inherently involves determining correlations. Motive may argue for a more stringent, technical definition of "determining correlations" that its algorithm does not meet. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely decide whether Motive's method of calculating a comparative score falls within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes determining correlations in the context of identifying relationships between vehicle metrics and fuel/energy usage to generate a score, without providing a highly specific mathematical definition, which may support construing the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning in the field of data analysis ('373 Patent, col. 5:35-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for the term. A defendant might argue, potentially through expert testimony, that in the relevant technical field, "determining correlations" implies a specific statistical process that its "normalization" or "comparison" algorithm does not perform.

From the ’130 Patent (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "web server"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "web server" is critical because the accused system is a distributed architecture. The complaint’s infringement theory requires that the combination of the dashcam, gateway, and cloud platform includes the claimed "web server." The outcome may depend on whether the term is construed to mean a specific piece of software on a single device or a broader set of functions that provides web-based communication and access across a distributed system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites a storage medium having instructions "including at least a web server" and processors configured to "execute the web server," which could be read to mean the system's overall functionality provides web-based access, not that a monolithic "web server" application must reside entirely on the camera device ('130 Patent, cl. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is directed to a "machine vision system," and the patent's detailed description discusses the web server in the context of the "machine vision device" itself ('130 Patent, col. 3:40-44). This could support an interpretation that the "web server" functionality must be substantially located on the camera device, not primarily on a remote cloud platform.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The inducement allegations are based on Motive providing product documentation, help center articles, and instructional videos that allegedly encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶148, ¶167, ¶184). The contributory infringement allegations assert that the accused products (e.g., the Vehicle Gateway, AI Dashcam, and associated software features) are especially made for infringing the patents and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶149, ¶168, ¶186).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Motive’s knowledge of the patents. It asserts Motive was aware of Samsara's patent portfolio as of September 26, 2023, and received claim charts detailing the alleged infringement on January 23, 2024, before the amended complaint was filed (Compl. ¶126). The willfulness claim is further supported by extensive allegations of a "pervasive culture of copying" and intentional, fraudulent access to Samsara’s platform, which Plaintiff may argue demonstrates a conscious disregard for Samsara's intellectual property rights generally (Compl. ¶1-4, ¶47-59, ¶152, ¶171, ¶189).

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

  • A core technical question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: does Motive's proprietary "normalization" algorithm for its Fuel Score perform the specific, ordered steps of "determining correlations" and then "determining weightings" based on those correlations as required by the '373 patent, or does it achieve a similar result through a method that falls outside the claim scope?
  • A central issue of system architecture will be whether Motive's distributed system—comprising a dashcam, a vehicle gateway, and a cloud platform—can be construed as a single "machine vision system" that both "locally store[s]" an evaluation and includes a "web server" as recited in Claim 1 of the '130 patent.
  • A key factual narrative will center on the extensive allegations of improper conduct, including the alleged use of fictitious accounts to access and reverse-engineer Samsara's platform. While not a direct element of patent infringement, this evidence may significantly influence the context of the willfulness allegations and the overall judicial view of the parties' behavior.