DCT

9:23-cv-80233

Contiguity LLC v. Jenoptik North America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:23-cv-80233, S.D. Fla., 02/13/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant Jenoptik Optical Systems, LLC is a Florida entity and both defendants are alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for traffic monitoring infringe a patent related to automated vehicle speed detection and infraction citation.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns automated traffic enforcement systems, specifically those that calculate a vehicle's average speed between two points using imaging technology to issue speeding citations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this matter. The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of a prior U.S. patent application, which may be relevant to the scope and effective filing date of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-09-22 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,031,084
2011-10-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,031,084 Issued
2023-02-13 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,031,084 (“the ’084 Patent”).

U.S. Patent No. 8,031,084 - Method and system for infraction detection based on vehicle traffic flow data

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a method to ticket speeding motorists that does not require the physical presence of a police officer, thereby avoiding the danger posed to both officers and other motorists when police must enter traffic to pursue a speeding vehicle ('084 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using multiple imaging devices placed at different, known locations along a road ('084 Patent, Abstract). These devices capture images of vehicles at a first location and time, and again at a second location and time. By identifying the same vehicle in both sets of imagery, the system can determine the time elapsed to travel the known distance and thus calculate the vehicle's average speed. If this speed exceeds a predetermined limit, the system generates a "citation signal" ('084 Patent, col. 2:24-34; col. 4:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: The technology facilitates automated "average speed enforcement," which measures speed over a segment of road, as distinct from traditional radar or laser systems that measure instantaneous speed at a single point.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, identified as "Exemplary '084 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • acquiring first imagery of a plurality of vehicles at a first location at a first time;
    • acquiring second imagery of a plurality of vehicles at a second location at a second time;
    • identifying a first vehicle from the acquired first imagery and the acquired second imagery;
    • determining a speed of the first vehicle;
    • generating a citation signal when the speed of the first vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed; and
    • attempting to transmit the citation signal to a device of a person associated with the vehicle.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are products and services sold by Defendants for performing traffic infraction detection (Compl. ¶3). However, the complaint defers to an external "Exhibit B" for identification of the specific products and a description of their functionality (Compl. ¶12). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, the public docket does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific features or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’084 Patent by practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶17). It incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit B, which is not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18). In the absence of these charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendants make, use, sell, and import products that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the claim language and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may present several questions:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the data generated by the accused systems constitutes a "citation signal" as required by the claims, or if it is merely speed and vehicle identification data that requires further processing by a separate system to become a citable offense.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused systems perform the specific, affirmative step of "attempting to transmit the citation signal to a device of a person associated with the vehicle"? The proof of this final limitation, which appears to require an action directed toward an individual's device, may be a key factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"citation signal"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to distinguishing the claimed invention from a generic speed-monitoring system. Its construction will determine what type of data output from an accused system meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement may turn on whether the accused system generates a simple data log or a more formalized, pre-packaged violation notice.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning as any signal conveying information about a citation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the signal is data-rich, stating it "may also include the speed of the vehicle, the vehicle's tag number, the vehicle's location and an image of the vehicle" ('084 Patent, col. 7:14-17). This could support a narrower construction requiring a bundle of specific data elements.

"attempting to transmit the citation signal to a device of a person associated with the vehicle"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires an active transmission step directed at a specific type of recipient, which may significantly narrow the scope of the claim. The case could hinge on whether the accused system performs this precise function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides varied examples of transmission, including to a police officer's vehicle, which could support a construction where transmission to any authorized party's device suffices ('084 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and claims mention specific targets like an "on-board navigation system" or "a mobile phone of the person associated with the vehicle" ('084 Patent, col. 4:54-56, col. 10:35-36). This could be used to argue that the "device" must be personal to the vehicle's owner or operator, not just a law enforcement terminal.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants distribute "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’084 Patent (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that its service provides Defendants with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activities are therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint's reliance on an unattached exhibit, a primary question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the accused systems perform every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific, active steps of "generating a citation signal" and "attempting to transmit" that signal to a device associated with a person.
  • The outcome may also depend on definitional scope: The case will likely turn on how the court construes the term "citation signal." The resolution of whether this term requires a formal, pre-adjudicated notice or can be read more broadly to cover any data packet indicating a speed violation will be critical in determining infringement.