DCT
1:15-cv-22483
Shipping Transit LLC v. Executive Gift Shoppe
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shipping and Transit, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Executive Gift Shoppe (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WRM Law, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:15-cv-22483, S.D. Fla., 07/01/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in Florida, has committed tortious acts in the state, and has engaged in substantial activity within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s package tracking and notification services infringe a patent related to monitoring a vehicle's location and providing advance notification of its proximity to a destination.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated systems that use vehicle location data to inform users about the status and impending arrival of deliveries or other transport services.
- 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 |
|---|---|
| 1997-03-10 | '970 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-07-15 | '970 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-07-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,400,970 - "System and Method for an Advance Notification System for Monitoring and Reporting Proximity of a Vehicle"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the common problem of uncertainty regarding the arrival times of vehicles such as commercial delivery trucks or school buses. This uncertainty forces customers or passengers to wait for long periods, and prior art notification systems were often limited by short-range transmitters and required expensive, proprietary receivers at the user's location (ʼ970 Patent, col. 2:11-37, 47-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized, automated system that monitors a vehicle's travel data, which is transmitted to a remote base station. At the base station, a "data manager" stores this information and can provide it to a user in two ways: either on-demand in response to a user request, or automatically via a notification message when the vehicle's location matches user-defined preferences (e.g., when the vehicle is a certain distance or time away from a destination) (ʼ970 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-25). The system is designed to communicate with users over standard networks, such as a telephone network (ʼ970 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described technology moves beyond simple, proximity-based hardware triggers to a more flexible, software-driven approach. This allows for customized, on-demand information retrieval and preference-based alerting for multiple users from a central monitoring system, alleviating the need for dedicated hardware at each user's location (ʼ970 Patent, col. 2:54-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the ’970 Patent but does not specify which claims (Compl. ¶9). Independent Claims 1, 4, and 8 are available for assertion. Claim 1, directed to a package delivery notification system, is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 is a means-plus-function claim comprising the following essential elements:
- means for enabling communication with a user that is designated to receive delivery of a package;
- means for presenting selectable options to the user, including an activation option;
- means for requesting entry by the user of a package identification or delivery number;
- means for identifying the vehicle based upon the user's entry;
- means for requesting entry of user contact information for notification;
- means for monitoring the travel data; and
- means for initiating the notification communication pertaining to the package.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "ADVANCE SHIP NOTICE" and "SHIPPING CONFIRMATION EMAIL" services offered by Defendant (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these services utilize "tracking and notification technologies" (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the accused services or their market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements. It broadly alleges that "every claim limitation, or its equivalent, is found" in the accused services (Compl. ¶9). The following table summarizes a potential infringement theory for representative Claim 1 based on the names of the accused services.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’970 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means for enabling communication with a user that is designated to receive delivery of a package; | A system that allows a user to interact with Defendant's services to receive package status updates. | ¶9 | col. 15:6-10 |
| means for presenting one or more selectable options to the user...including at least an activation option for instigating monitoring... | A user interface (e.g., a website or application) that presents options to track a package. | ¶9 | col. 15:11-19 |
| means for requesting entry by the user of a package identification number or package delivery number... | A user interface that prompts for a tracking or package number to initiate monitoring. | ¶9 | col. 21:1-10 |
| means for identifying the vehicle based upon the entry; | Backend system logic that associates a user-entered package number with a specific vehicle or delivery route. | ¶9 | col. 15:45-47 |
| means for requesting entry by the user of contact information...to be used in connection with a notification communication... | A process for a user to provide contact details, such as an email address, to receive notifications. | ¶9 | col. 16:65-col.17:2 |
| means for monitoring the travel data; | A backend system that monitors location data associated with the vehicle carrying the user's package. | ¶9 | col. 19:19-30 |
| means for initiating the notification communication pertaining to the package...based upon the travel data. | The automated sending of the "ADVANCE SHIP NOTICE" or "SHIPPING CONFIRMATION EMAIL" when certain travel-based criteria are met. | ¶9 | col. 20:7-20 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): Because all asserted claims are in means-plus-function format, a central dispute will be whether the specific software architecture and algorithms used in Defendant's services are structurally equivalent to the "corresponding structures" disclosed in the patent's specification. For example, the scope of the claims is tied to the specific "monitoring mechanism 69" and "message manager 82" described in the patent (ʼ970 Patent, Figs. 5-7). The infringement analysis will depend on a structural comparison, not merely a functional one.
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary. The complaint offers no technical details about the accused services. The case will depend on whether discovery reveals that the accused services actually perform the functions recited in the claims using structures equivalent to those disclosed in the patent. For instance, does the accused system compare vehicle location to user-defined preference data as depicted in the patent's flowcharts? (ʼ970 Patent, Fig. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In means-plus-function litigation, the "construction" process involves identifying the corresponding structure in the specification that performs the claimed function.
- The Term: "means for monitoring the travel data"
- Context and Importance: This term recites the core data processing function of the invention. The identification of its corresponding structure will define the technical scope of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will require showing that the accused system's monitoring architecture is the same as or equivalent to the specific structure disclosed in the patent, which could be a point of significant dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might assert that the corresponding structure is the high-level "data manager 67" in combination with the "travel data storage unit 68" (ʼ970 Patent, Fig. 4). This interpretation would focus on the general system components responsible for receiving and storing vehicle data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope would point to the more detailed disclosure of the "monitoring mechanism 69" and its specific logic as depicted in the flowchart of Figure 6 (ʼ970 Patent, col. 8:43-46; Fig. 6). This structure is described as performing specific steps, such as comparing "travel data from vehicle to preference data" (ʼ970 Patent, Fig. 6, block 105) and making a decision to "Send notification" based on that comparison (ʼ970 Patent, Fig. 6, block 106). This could limit the claim's scope to systems that use user-defined preference data to trigger alerts.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting Defendant acted with knowledge or willful blindness (Compl. ¶12). The pleading does not, however, allege specific facts to support these claims, such as identifying instructions or marketing materials that direct customers to use the services in an infringing manner.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged through the claim of "willful blindness" (Compl. ¶12) and a request for increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. p. 3, ¶B). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’970 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key legal question will be the scope of the means-plus-function claims: the outcome will likely depend on whether the specific software architecture of Defendant's notification services is found to be structurally equivalent to the detailed "monitoring mechanism" and "message manager" flowcharts disclosed in the '970 patent, or if the accused system operates in a fundamentally different technical manner.
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of factual specificity, the case will turn on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the accused services actually perform the specific, multi-step functions recited in the asserted claims (e.g., using package numbers to identify vehicles and using user-defined preferences to trigger notifications).