DCT
8:23-cv-02022
University Of South Florida Board Of Trustees v. Geophysical Survey Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: University of South Florida Board of Trustees (Florida)
- Defendant: Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. ("GSSI") (New Hampshire) and GeoView, Inc. ("GeoView") (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fee & Jeffries, PA.
- Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02022, M.D. Fla., 09/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ purported acts of infringement within the Middle District of Florida and on Defendant GeoView maintaining its principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ ground penetrating radar systems and related services infringe two patents related to automated methods for detecting and locating buried objects.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the automated processing of ground penetrating radar (GPR) data to identify the location of underground objects, a process critical to the construction, utility, and geophysical survey industries.
- Key Procedural History: The ’914 Patent is a continuation of the application which issued as the ’350 Patent, creating a direct family relationship that may be relevant to claim construction. The complaint also references a 2019 YouTube video allegedly depicting the use of the accused product by one of the defendants, which may be relevant to issues of notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-06-28 | Priority Date for '350 and '914 Patents |
| 2019-01-08 | U.S. Patent No. 10,175,350 Issued |
| 2019-10-17 | YouTube video published allegedly showing accused product use |
| 2020-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,677,914 Issued |
| 2023-09-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,175,350 - "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING BURIED OBJECTS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,175,350, "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING BURIED OBJECTS," issued January 8, 2019. (Compl. ¶8, 10).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that manual processing of GPR data to locate buried objects is often time-consuming, requires significant user skill, and can be unreliable in the presence of noisy or incomplete data. (’350 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated method that processes GPR signals in real time. It computes a specific energy metric—the maximum power spectral density (PSD)—for signals received at different locations. As a GPR device approaches a buried object, the reflected energy, and thus the maximum PSD, increases. By plotting these PSD values against location, the system generates a hyperbolic curve; the apex of this hyperbola is then used to designate the estimated location of the object. (’350 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-16).
- Technical Importance: This automated, real-time statistical approach is intended to provide faster and more reliable on-site estimates of buried object locations than traditional manual analysis. (’350 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- receiving ground penetrating radar (GPR) signals captured at discrete locations along a surface of a medium in which an object may be buried;
- computing a maximum power spectral density (PSD) value for each received GPR signal, the maximum PSD values being indicative of the proximity of a buried object;
- plotting the computed maximum PSD values as a function of location along the surface of the medium;
- determining an apex of a hyperbola that results from the plotting of the computed maximum PSD values; and
- designating a location along the surface of the medium at which the apex occurs as an estimated location of the buried object.
U.S. Patent No. 10,677,914 - "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING BURIED OBJECTS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,677,914, "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING BURIED OBJECTS," issued June 9, 2020. (Compl. ¶9, 11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the '914 Patent seeks to overcome the challenges of manual, skill-based, and time-intensive GPR data interpretation. (’914 Patent, col. 1:17-27).
- The Patented Solution: The '914 Patent describes a similar automated method but uses the broader term "energy value" instead of the more specific "maximum power spectral density (PSD) value." The method still involves capturing GPR signals, computing an "energy value" for each, plotting these values to form a hyperbola, and identifying the hyperbola's apex to estimate the object's location. (’914 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-27).
- Technical Importance: This invention claims a more generalized version of the energy-based detection method, potentially covering a wider range of computational techniques beyond PSD analysis. (’914 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶29).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- receiving ground penetrating radar (GPR) signals captured at discrete locations..., one GPR signal being captured for each discrete location;
- computing for each captured GPR signal an energy value that are is indicative of the proximity of a buried object;
- plotting the computed energy values as a function of location;
- determining an apex of a hyperbola that results from the plotting of the computed energy values; and
- designating a location along the surface of the medium at which the apex occurs as an estimated location of the buried object.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are identified as GSSI’s "UtilityScan® with GS Software," including specific models such as the UtilityScan Pro (SIR 3000 and 400 MHz) and the SIR 4000 system. (Compl. ¶14, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The GSSI UtilityScan® is a GPR system marketed for use in geological studies, utility designation, and locating rebar and post-tensioning cables. (Compl. ¶15). Defendant GSSI manufactures and sells the accused systems, while Defendant GeoView is a service company that uses the accused systems to provide geophysical services to clients in the engineering, construction, and environmental industries. (Compl. ¶15-16). The complaint references a YouTube video from October 2019, which reportedly shows the president of co-defendant GeoView describing and using the accused GSSI UtilityScan® system in the field. (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused GSSI UtilityScan® system performs all steps of the asserted claims, referring to non-proffered exhibits for a detailed mapping. (Compl. ¶21, 30). The narrative theory is summarized below.
'350 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving ground penetrating radar (GPR) signals captured at discrete locations along a surface of a medium... | The GSSI UtilityScan® system is a GPR device that captures GPR signals along a surface. | ¶20, 21 | col. 2:1-4 |
| computing a maximum power spectral density (PSD) value for each received GPR signal... | The GSSI UtilityScan® system, via its GS Software, is alleged to compute a maximum PSD value for the received signals. | ¶20, 21 | col. 2:4-6 |
| plotting the computed maximum PSD values as a function of location along the surface of the medium... | The GS Software is alleged to plot the computed maximum PSD values as a function of the system's location. | ¶20, 21 | col. 2:11-13 |
| determining an apex of a hyperbola that results from the plotting of the computed maximum PSD values... | The GS Software is alleged to determine the apex of a hyperbola formed by the plotted PSD values. | ¶20, 21 | col. 2:10-12 |
| designating a location along the surface of the medium at which the apex occurs as an estimated location of the buried object. | The GS Software is alleged to designate the location of the apex as the estimated location of the buried object. | ¶20, 21 | col. 2:13-16 |
'914 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving ground penetrating radar (GPR) signals captured at discrete locations..., one GPR signal being captured for each discrete location... | The GSSI UtilityScan® system is a GPR device that captures a GPR signal at each discrete location. | ¶29, 30 | col. 2:11-15 |
| computing for each captured GPR signal an energy value that are is indicative of the proximity of a buried object... | The GSSI UtilityScan® system, via its GS Software, is alleged to compute an energy value for each signal. | ¶29, 30 | col. 2:15-19 |
| plotting the computed energy values as a function of location... | The GS Software is alleged to plot the computed energy values as a function of the system's location. | ¶29, 30 | col. 2:20-21 |
| determining an apex of a hyperbola that results from the plotting of the computed energy values... | The GS Software is alleged to determine the apex of a hyperbola formed by the plotted energy values. | ¶29, 30 | col. 2:21-23 |
| designating a location along the surface of the medium at which the apex occurs as an estimated location of the buried object. | The GS Software is alleged to designate the location of the apex as the estimated location of the buried object. | ¶29, 30 | col. 2:23-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the calculations performed by the accused "GS Software" meet the specific definition of "maximum power spectral density (PSD) value" as required by the ’350 Patent, or if they align only with the broader "energy value" limitation of the ’914 Patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail the specific algorithm used by the accused software. This raises the question of whether the software actually models the GPR data as a mathematical "hyperbola" and finds its "apex," or if it employs a different peak-detection or curve-fitting heuristic that Plaintiff will argue is equivalent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "maximum power spectral density (PSD) value" (’350 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific energy metric at the heart of the ’350 Patent's inventive method. The infringement analysis for this patent will turn on whether the accused system's computational method falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the '350 patent from the broader claim in its '914 continuation patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes PSD in general terms as referring to a signal's "spectral energy distribution as a function of frequency." (’350 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses that PSD estimates described "were determined using the Welch method," and the detailed description of the statistical method relies on this calculation. (’350 Patent, col. 3:35-37). A party may argue that the term should be construed as being limited to calculations performed using or equivalent to the Welch method.
The Term: "energy value" (’914 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because it represents the key difference between the asserted claims of the ’350 and ’914 patents. Its scope will determine whether a wider or narrower range of computational techniques infringes the ’914 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that parameters other than PSD can be used, stating that in "other embodiments, other parameters of the captured GPR signals can be computed and monitored," and provides "dynamic time warping (DTW) values" as a specific example. (’914 Patent, col. 10:47-52).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that despite the use of a generic term, the patent's primary disclosure and all detailed examples still center on PSD as the operative parameter, suggesting "energy value" should be construed as a parameter that similarly reflects the signal's spectral energy. (’914 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
The Term: "hyperbola" (Both patents, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Both asserted claims require determining an apex of a "hyperbola." The dispute may focus on whether this requires the plotted data to form a mathematically precise hyperbola or if it can read on the characteristic "hyperbolic signature" common in GPR data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to a "hyperbolic signature" and "imperfect hyperbolic signatures," which could support a construction that covers the general shape produced by GPR data, not just a perfect geometric curve. (’350 Patent, col. 3:62-63, col. 7:26-27).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "hyperbola" has a specific mathematical definition. A defendant could argue that if its software does not fit the data to a mathematical hyperbola to find a peak, but uses another algorithm, it does not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: what is the legal and technical distinction between the "maximum power spectral density (PSD) value" of the ’350 Patent and the broader "energy value" of the ’914 Patent? The case may turn on whether the accused system's algorithm meets the specific requirements of the former, the broader requirements of the latter, or neither.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: does the accused GS Software perform the claimed steps of plotting values to form a "hyperbola" and then "determining an apex" of that specific shape, or does it use a technically distinct algorithm to identify a signal peak that Plaintiff must prove is equivalent to the claimed method?
- A central legal question may involve prosecution history: as the '914 Patent is a continuation of the '350 Patent application, arguments made during prosecution to define or distinguish terms in either patent could significantly influence how the court construes the key limitations across both patents.