Inventergy LBS LLC v. Datablaze LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Datablaze, LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kent & Risley LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02448, N.D. Ga., 05/29/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant Datablaze, LLC is incorporated in the state of Georgia and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SpyderKey tracking products infringe a patent related to the remote configuration and control of tracking devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for two-way communication with location-tracking devices, enabling remote servers to dynamically alter device behavior to manage power consumption and network usage.
• 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

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 - "System and method for communication with a tracking device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286, “System and method for communication with a tracking device,” issued June 24, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies that prior art tracking systems were "very limited" in their communication capabilities, typically restricted to one-way transmission of location data from the device to a central station. This limitation arose from the need to conserve the device's battery power and minimize the cost of network access (col. 1:27-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a remote system with "functional access" to the tracking device, enabling two-way communication. A "configuration routine" on the tracking device can modify its own "configuration data" in response to commands from a remote server (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16). This allows for dynamic adjustment of the device's operating parameters, such as how often it reports its location or how it buffers data when it loses its network connection, thereby providing enhanced flexibility and efficiency (’286 Patent, col. 2:17-30).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for more granular and efficient remote management of tracking devices, enabling a balance between the need for timely location data and the practical constraints of device battery life and network data costs (’286 Patent, col. 1:40-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A tracking device comprising a location detector, a communication device, memory, and a processor.
  • The communication device is operative to communicate with a "plurality of remote systems" including both a "tracking service system" and a "device of a user."
  • The memory stores "configuration data" which in part dictates the device's functionality.
  • A "configuration routine" is operative to modify the configuration data based on communications from a remote system.
  • The modifiable configuration data determines an "interval for buffering said location data" when the device is unable to communicate with the remote system.
  • This buffering interval controls "how frequently newly acquired location data will be stored."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" generally (Compl. ¶11, ¶14, ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Datablaze SpyderKey" as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the SpyderKey products "practice the technology claimed by the '286 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation or features of the SpyderKey. All detailed infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from an exhibit that was not included with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that claim charts demonstrating infringement are included in its Exhibit B (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided with the public filing, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the "Exemplary Datablaze Products" directly, literally, or under the doctrine of equivalence, "practice the technology claimed by the '286 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '286 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A principal issue will be whether discovery produces evidence that the SpyderKey product contains the specific structures and performs the specific functions recited in Claim 1. The complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations regarding the product’s operation raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will rely on to show the product contains a "configuration routine" that modifies a "buffering interval" based on remote commands.
• Functional Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product’s method for handling offline data storage meets the "wherein" clauses of Claim 1. A key question is whether the product uses a remotely modifiable parameter that "at least partially determines an interval for buffering" data and "controls how frequently" that data is stored when the device is offline, as the claim requires (’286 Patent, col. 44:17-27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term for Construction: "configuration routine"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's concept of providing "functional access" to the device. The definition of this term will be critical for determining whether the accused product's software architecture meets the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and summary describe the routine in functional terms as being "operative to modify the configuration data responsive to a communication from the remote system" (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-14). This language may support a construction where any software code that performs this modification function, regardless of its specific implementation, meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential arguments for a narrower interpretation.

Term for Construction: "communicate with a plurality of remote systems including a tracking service system . . . and a device of a user"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in independent claim 1 and requires communication with two different types of remote entities. A failure to prove the accused system communicates with both could be dispositive of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on the argument that a user employing their device (e.g., a smartphone) to access a web portal (the "tracking service system") would satisfy the plain language of the claim, even if a single data pathway is used.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses the possibility of "direct communication between tracking devices 102 and subscribers 118 via a communication link (e.g., mobile phone network), which is not shown in FIG. 1" (’286 Patent, col. 4:45-50). This disclosure of a distinct, direct communication path could support an argument that the claim requires two separate types of communication channels, not merely a single channel to a server that is accessed by a user device.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Datablaze distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that its filing "constitutes notice and actual knowledge" and that Datablaze "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶12, ¶13).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof and function: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused SpyderKey product contains the specific, remotely modifiable "configuration routine" required by Claim 1? The case will likely depend on demonstrating a direct mapping between the product's actual operation and the claimed functionality, particularly the ability to remotely alter a "buffering interval" that dictates how frequently location data is stored when the device is offline.
• A second central issue will involve definitional scope: How the court construes the phrase "communicate with a plurality of remote systems including a tracking service system... and a device of a user" may be critical. The dispute may turn on whether this language requires two distinct communication pathways to separate entities, or if it can be satisfied by a single communication pathway to a server that a user accesses via their personal device.