Autolocate Systems LLC v. First Student Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AutoLocate Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: First Student, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01317, D. Del., 10/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated there and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle tracking products and services infringe a patent related to systems for wirelessly transmitting a vehicle's current location and estimated time of arrival to a requestor.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses technology for real-time vehicle tracking and communication, a field critical for logistics, public transportation, and fleet management services that provide users with up-to-the-minute location and arrival information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,340,904 - "Transmission of wireless messages of current vehicle location and estimated arrival time to requestors"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of passengers waiting for public transportation, such as a bus, with no reliable information about its actual location or arrival time beyond a static, often inaccurate, posted schedule ('904 Patent, col. 1:26-44). This uncertainty is caused by unpredictable factors like traffic conditions and vehicle breakdowns, leading to wasted time for passengers (id.).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a wireless communication device installed on a vehicle that solves this problem ('904 Patent, col. 4:38-47). The device uses a GPS processor to determine the vehicle's geographic location ('904 Patent, col. 9:8-11). When it receives a request directly from a user's portable device (e.g., a cell phone), a "request response subsystem" automatically generates and transmits a real-time message back to that user's device, indicating when the vehicle will arrive at its stops, without needing to go through a stationary communication device like a central server ('904 Patent, col. 9:12-21). This creates a direct-response loop between the user and the vehicle itself.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide dynamic, real-time location and arrival data directly to individual users, moving beyond the limitations of fixed schedules and centralized dispatch systems ('904 Patent, col. 1:49-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '904 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit, without specifying which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A wireless communication device disposed on a vehicle for public transportation.
  • A vehicle location processor for receiving GPS data to compute the vehicle's geographic location.
  • A request response subsystem for:
    • receiving a real-time wireless telephonic signal from a remote requestor's portable communication device; and
    • automatically generating and transmitting a real-time vehicle location message directly to the portable device of the requestor;
    • wherein the response indicates the time the vehicle will arrive at each of a plurality of stops;
    • and wherein the communication occurs "without requiring to use a stationary communication device."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific products, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '904 Patent" and that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). Given the defendant is First Student, Inc., a school bus operator, the accused instrumentality is presumably a system for tracking school bus locations and providing ETAs to parents or students.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Defendant's employees also directly infringe by internally testing and using the products (Compl. ¶12). Further, it alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing materials that instruct customers on how to use the products in a way that infringes the ’904 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's language, the infringement analysis raises several potential questions.

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "without requiring to use a stationary communication device" ('904 Patent, col. 9:18-19). Modern vehicle tracking systems typically rely on central servers (which could be considered "stationary communication devices") to process data from a vehicle's GPS unit and relay it to a user's app. The analysis will question whether an accused system that uses such servers can be found to infringe a claim that appears to recite a more direct, serverless communication path.
• Technical Questions: A further question concerns the interpretation of a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" from a "remote requestor" ('904 Patent, col. 9:13). The infringement analysis will explore whether a data request sent from a modern smartphone application over a cellular data network meets the definition of a "telephonic signal" as understood in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"without requiring to use a stationary communication device"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical limitation differentiating the claimed invention from a standard client-server architecture. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims read on modern, cloud-based vehicle tracking systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because most commercially available tracking services route communications through a central server infrastructure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee may argue the term means the system does not depend on a stationary device, even if one is optionally used. The focus on providing information "directly to the portable communication device of the remote requestor" could be argued as the core of the invention, with the "without requiring" language being less restrictive than "without using" ('904 Patent, col. 9:16-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defendant may argue this term explicitly carves out systems that use central servers. The patent's description of an alternative embodiment involving a "traffic message center 110" (a stationary device) that processes requests and sends messages could be used to argue that the claims, which require communication without such a device, were intended to cover only direct vehicle-to-user communication ('904 Patent, col. 5:10-28; Fig. 1).

"real-time wireless telephonic signal"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to whether a data packet sent from a smartphone app constitutes the claimed request signal. The defendant could argue for a narrow definition limited to voice calls or SMS, while the plaintiff would likely advocate for a broader definition covering any signal originating from a phone.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly mentions requests from a "cellular phone user" and describes the response as a "short message" (SM), which is a data-based communication ('904 Patent, col. 5:13-16). This suggests the patent contemplates data communications, not just traditional voice telephony.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "telephonic" could be argued to invoke the traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) or voice-channel signaling, distinguishing it from general-purpose internet data packets. The patent does not explicitly mention internet protocols, which could support an argument that such modern data signals are outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’904 Patent (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement (Compl. ¶13). The allegations of continued infringement after this notice form the basis for claims of post-filing inducement and potential willfulness (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the claim limitation "without requiring to use a stationary communication device" be construed to cover a modern, server-mediated vehicle tracking system, or is it strictly limited to a direct, peer-to-peer communication architecture between a user's device and the vehicle?
• A second key question will be one of technological definition: Does a data packet sent from a smartphone application over a mobile data network constitute a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" as that term is used in the context of the ’904 Patent, which was filed in 2007?
• An early procedural question may center on pleading sufficiency: Whether the complaint's reliance on incorporating an unfiled external exhibit for its core infringement allegations provides the defendant with sufficient notice under federal pleading standards.