Pivot Innovations LLC v. Avikus USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pivot Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Avikus USA, Inc (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office Of Barbra Stern PA
• Case Identification: 0:25-cv-61470, S.D. Fla., 07/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district and provides allegedly infringing products and services to residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HiNAS marine navigation system infringes a patent purportedly related to a method for vehicle traffic flow data acquisition and reporting.
• Technical Context: The technology domain concerns advanced maritime navigation and situational awareness systems, which integrate various sensor inputs to enhance vessel safety and operational efficiency.
• Key Procedural History: A significant issue apparent on the face of the complaint is a discrepancy between the asserted patent's number and its substance. The complaint identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,552,274 by number, but the subject matter and claim language it quotes appear to belong to a different, unidentified patent. The issued '274 patent, as a matter of public record, is directed to methods for enhancing software logging, not vehicle navigation. This discrepancy raises a fundamental question about the sufficiency of the pleading.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-06-27	'274 Patent Priority Date
2017-01-24	'274 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,552,274 - ENHANCEMENTS TO LOGGING OF A COMPUTER PROGRAM

• Issued: January 24, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of software logging in development projects, which can lead to logs that are either missing vital diagnostic data or are cluttered with unnecessary information, making debugging and troubleshooting difficult ('274 Patent, col. 1:35-53, col. 2:1-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates recommendations for improving software logging. It analyzes a program's source code, its version control commit history, and associated bug-tracking data to quantify and standardize logging practices ('274 Patent, Abstract). The system identifies methods with "ideal" logging behavior (e.g., those whose logging statements were frequently modified during high-priority bug fixes) and compares their characteristics to other methods to recommend enhancements, such as adding or removing log statements ('274 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the efficiency of diagnosing software failures in large, complex projects by creating a data-driven, systematic approach to standardizing the quality and content of program logs ('274 Patent, col. 1:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint states it asserts at least claims 1-7 of the ’274 Patent (Compl. ¶10). However, the language for Claim 1 quoted in the complaint (Compl. ¶14) does not appear in the issued patent. The actual independent Claim 1 of the ’274 Patent recites the following primary elements:
  • ranking a plurality of methods in the source code of a computer program based on a relative importance value computed for each method;
  • identifying a method that exhibits ideal logging behavior for the computer program, the method identified based at least in part on historical logging code modifications of the method;
  • computing a logging behavior value for each of the plurality of methods;
  • comparing the logging behavior value of a method having a highest relative importance value with the logging behavior value of the method that exhibits ideal logging behavior; and
  • generating a recommendation for enhancing the logging code based at least in part on comparing the logging behavior values.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims by alleging infringement of "at least claim 1-7" (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Hyundai Intelligent Navigation Assistant System HiNAS," which includes the components HiNAS Navigation, HiNAS Control, HiNAS SVM, and HiNAS Cloud (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the HiNAS system is a marine navigation platform that integrates data from an "array of ship board sensors" to monitor marine traffic and enhance situational awareness for collision avoidance (Compl. ¶16). The system is described as providing features like a 360-degree "bird's-eye view" and connectivity to a cloud platform for remote fleet monitoring and data analysis (Compl. p. 7-8). A screenshot in the complaint describes its "Collision Avoidance Control" feature, which shows a combined map and forward-looking camera view to enhance human navigation (Compl. p. 6). Another screenshot depicts an "Enhanced Safety" display showing detected targets with data from camera, radar, and AIS systems (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,552,274 Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory is premised on claim language that is not part of the asserted ’274 Patent. The complaint quotes what it purports to be Claim 1, concerning "vehicle traffic flow data acquisition" (Compl. ¶14), and maps features of the accused HiNAS system to this incorrect claim language using a series of screenshots and descriptions (Compl. ¶23, pp. 6-8). For example, a screenshot of the HiNAS interface is presented as evidence of "acquiring, at a first location, data of multiple vehicles" (Compl. p. 6).

The actual claims of the ’274 Patent, however, are directed to methods for enhancing software logging code, as described in Section II. The complaint provides no factual allegations that connect the functionality of the accused HiNAS marine navigation system to any of the elements of the actual claims of the ’274 Patent. Therefore, an analysis of the infringement allegations as pleaded is not possible.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint fails to allege how any specific feature of the accused HiNAS system meets any limitation of an actual claim of the '274 patent, it is not possible to identify specific claim terms whose construction would be central to a potential dispute. Any such analysis would be speculative until the fundamental discrepancy in the pleading is resolved.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides customers with hardware, software, and instructions to practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 36). It further alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Defendant supplies a material part of an infringing system that is not a staple article of commerce and is incapable of substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 39). These allegations, however, are explicitly tied to the practice of the incorrectly quoted claim concerning vehicle navigation, not the actual claims of the ’274 Patent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is intentional, knowing, and ongoing (Compl. ¶30). The basis for this allegation appears to be that infringement continued "subsequent to notice" (Compl. ¶18). As with the other allegations, this is predicated on the infringement of incorrect claim language.

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

The complaint, as filed, presents fundamental procedural and substantive questions that must be resolved before any merits-based analysis can occur. The key issues for the case are:

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold question is whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Given that the complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9552274 but bases its entire infringement theory on descriptive text and claim language that do not appear in that patent, the initial focus will be on whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

2. Identity of the Asserted Intellectual Property: A core issue for the court will be to clarify the intellectual property actually in dispute. Is the conflict over the '274 patent as issued (related to software logging), for which no coherent infringement theory has been pleaded, or is it over an entirely different, misidentified patent related to vehicle navigation? The resolution of this foundational ambiguity is a prerequisite to any further proceedings.