DCT

1:25-cv-01240

Passtron LLC v. Parkmobile LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: PassTron LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: ParkMobile, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01240, D. Del., 10/08/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for mobile parking payments infringe a patent related to location-based verification for controlling access to data.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a client device's geographic location, verified against a pre-approved area, as a condition for permitting the device to access or upload data to a central server.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-04-17	’987 Patent Priority Date
2016-09-27	’987 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,455,987 - "Method, system and apparatus for geo-verification"

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of controlling access to centralized data, particularly in preventing data access from insecure locations or preventing the upload of fraudulent data from unapproved locations (’987 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system that controls data access based on geography. An administrator first defines an “approved geographic area” associated with specific data (’987 Patent, col. 5:42-6:10). A client device then sends a request to access that data, and the request includes the device’s current location (e.g., GPS coordinates) (’987 Patent, col. 6:57-64). The server compares the device's location to the approved area; if the device is within the area, access is permitted, and if it is outside, access is denied (’987 Patent, col. 7:20-34). This process is illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 7.
Technical Importance: This method provides a two-factor-like security control, requiring not just authentication credentials (like a password) but also the physical presence of the user's device in a pre-determined location to access or submit sensitive data (’987 Patent, col. 8:46-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’987 Patent without specifying them, instead referring to “Exemplary ’987 Patent Claims” in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 9, a system claim directed to a server, is representative of the technology.
Independent Claim 9 (Server):
- A memory storing data and access control data including an approved geographic area.
- A network interface connected to a client computing device.
- A processor configured to:
  - prior to storing the access control data, receive a selection of an approved location from the client computing device;
  - determine whether a licensed number of approved geographic areas has been exceeded;
  - generate an approved geographic area based on the selected location;
  - receive a request for access to the data from the client device, the request containing a client location including GPS coordinates;
  - compare the client location to the approved geographic area;
  - permit access when the client location is within the approved area; and
  - deny the request when the client location is not within the approved area.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to “one or more claims” (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and has its employees test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint provides no specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning or commercial importance.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '987 Patent" and incorporates by reference the allegations from claim charts in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint document, a detailed element-by-element analysis cannot be conducted. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the Defendant’s products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '987 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the asserted patent and the general nature of mobile parking applications, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a system using pre-defined parking zones established by a third party (e.g., a municipality) meets the claim limitation of a server "receiving a selection of an approved location from the client computing device" and "generating an approved geographic area based on the selected location." The claim language suggests an active role for the client device in defining the approved area, which may not align with the functionality of a typical parking service.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system uses "global positioning system (GPS) coordinates" as required by the claim? Mobile devices often use a combination of location data sources (e.g., Wi-Fi triangulation, cellular network location), raising the question of whether the accused products meet this specific limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "generating an approved geographic area based on the selected location"
Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the invention. The infringement case may depend on whether this requires the server to dynamically create a new geographic boundary in response to a specific location selected by a user on the client device, or if it can cover a system that simply associates a user's session with a pre-existing, static zone selected from a map.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is silent on whether the "approved location" must be novel or can be chosen from a list of pre-set locations. The term "generating" could arguably be interpreted broadly to include retrieving or designating a pre-defined area that corresponds to the selected location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "generating" as potentially "adding a radius (e.g. a radius of two kilometers) to the selected GPS location" (’987 Patent, col. 6:6-9). This example embodiment suggests an active process of creating a new geographic shape based on a point location, which could support a narrower construction.
The Term: "receiving a selection of an approved location from the client computing device"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the origin of the information used to create the geo-fence. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to place the act of "selection" for creating the approved area with the end-user's device, not with a third-party administrator who pre-loads zones into the system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly forbid the "selection" from being a choice from a list of pre-approved locations presented to the client device by the server.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a user selecting a location on a map presented on the client device or providing the device's current location as the "selected location" for the server to then process (’987 Patent, col. 5:51-57). This could suggest the selection is a user-driven input for the purpose of defining the approved area, not merely choosing from an existing menu of zones.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’987 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge acquired upon service of the complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" at least since being served (Compl. ¶15). It also asserts that service of the complaint and the attached charts "constitutes actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶13).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the claim language requiring a server to "generate" an "approved geographic area" based on a "selection" from a "client device" read on a system that operates using pre-defined, static geographic zones (such as designated parking areas) that are merely selected by a user during a transaction?
A second key issue will be one of technical proof: what evidence can the Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused system performs the specific steps recited in the claims, particularly the steps related to the creation and storage of the "approved geographic area" as distinct from the subsequent comparison of a user's location against it? The complaint's reliance on an unfiled exhibit for its infringement contentions leaves this question open.