DCT

1:26-cv-00032

Navog LLC v. Powerfleet Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00032, D. Del., 01/12/2026
  • 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 unspecified products infringe a patent related to a GPS-based warning system designed to alert drivers of large vehicles to low-clearance obstacles.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the safety and logistical challenges faced by commercial trucks, buses, and RVs in navigating routes with potential height restrictions, such as bridges and tunnels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-12-13 ’205 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-12 ’205 Patent Application Filing Date
2020-03-17 ’205 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205 - *“GPS and Warning System”*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of drivers of high-profile vehicles, such as commercial trucks and RVs, lacking a reliable way to know if their vehicle can safely pass under upcoming structures like bridges, tunnels, and underpasses, creating a risk of collision (Compl. Ex. 1, ’205 Patent, col. 1:56-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dedicated GPS monitoring and alarm system. It comprises a main body containing a computer module, a GPS module, a warning mechanism (e.g., audible alarm and flashing light), and a display screen. The system is programmed with a database of structure locations and their clearance heights. It continuously monitors the vehicle's position and, upon approaching a low-clearance structure, activates alarms and can display alternate routes to the driver (’205 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-59).
  • Technical Importance: The system aims to provide a reliable, automated method for preventing costly and dangerous collisions with low-clearance infrastructure by giving drivers advance warning and rerouting options (’205 Patent, col. 2:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to “Exemplary ’205 Patent Claims” detailed in an unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Assuming the assertion of the patent’s first independent claim, the analysis proceeds based on Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1: A GPS and warning system for an automobile comprising:
    • A main body with a hollow interior volume;
    • A computer module within the hollow interior, programmed with information about roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses;
    • A GPS module within the hollow interior to provide location information;
    • At least one warning mechanism connected to the computer module to provide a loud audible sound to warn of impending danger;
    • A display screen on the main body’s outer surface to provide visual information, including the height of an approaching structure;
    • Wherein the computer module and display are adapted to show alternate travel routes;
    • Wherein the computer module processes location information to determine when to signal the warning mechanism; and
    • Wherein the computer module initiates the warning when the device is within a “predetermined distance” from a structure that poses a danger.
  • The complaint’s reference to “one or more claims” suggests the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to “Exemplary Defendant Products” that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market position. All technical allegations regarding the operation of the accused products are incorporated by reference from the unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶16-17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides no narrative infringement theory, stating only that the unattached claim charts in Exhibit 2 demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '205 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the referenced exhibit or any specific factual allegations in the complaint body, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of Claim 1 of the ’205 Patent, several potential points of contention may arise should the case proceed:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may concern the scope of the limitation requiring a “computer module… adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses” (’205 Patent, col. 6:19-22). The dispute could focus on whether this requires a dedicated, pre-loaded database of clearance heights, as described in the specification, or if it could be read to cover general-purpose fleet management systems that access such data from a remote server or as part of a broader mapping dataset.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused products perform the specific function of being “further adapted to display alternate routes for the automobile to travel” (’205 Patent, col. 6:39-42)? The analysis may turn on whether the accused system proactively calculates and presents a new route in response to a low-clearance warning, or merely provides a warning that requires the driver to find an alternative.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"predetermined distance" (’205 Patent, col. 6:51)

Context and Importance

This term is critical for defining the trigger for the claimed warning system. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products issue alerts based on a distance that can be considered "predetermined." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a fixed-distance alert, a user-configurable alert, or a dynamically calculated (e.g., speed-based) alert falls within the scope of the claim.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify how the distance is predetermined, leaving open multiple possibilities. The term could be interpreted to mean any distance that is set or calculated prior to the warning being triggered, which could encompass fixed, variable, or dynamic thresholds.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to a "preset distance from the structure" at which a warning will be triggered (’205 Patent, col. 4:30-31). This language could support an argument that the distance must be fixed or configured in advance, potentially excluding systems that calculate warning distances purely dynamically based on real-time variables like vehicle speed.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement based on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to be directed at establishing a basis for post-suit willful infringement, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

Given the complaint's reliance on an unattached exhibit, the case currently presents more questions than answers. The litigation will likely center on the following issues:

  • A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual: Does discovery reveal that Defendant’s products, once identified, actually incorporate the specific combination of features required by the asserted claims, including a database of underpass clearances, a warning mechanism tied to a "predetermined distance," and the capability to display alternate routes?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the claims, which appear to describe a self-contained, dedicated safety device, be construed to cover modern, multi-function fleet management software systems that may provide similar warnings as one feature among many, potentially by accessing cloud-based data rather than using a locally programmed module?