PerdiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PerDiemCo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: NexTraq LLC (Delaware, with a principal place of business in Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: ADDYHART P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00193, N.D. Ga., 01/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant NexTraq maintains its corporate headquarters in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet tracking products and services infringe seven U.S. patents related to location-based event monitoring, geofencing, and the controlled conveyance of event notifications through multi-level administrative structures.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using location data, such as from GPS, to trigger alerts when a tracked object interacts with a predefined geographic zone, a core capability in the vehicle telematics and fleet management market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents share a common specification with other patents in the same family that have been subject to extensive litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. It also states that prior art from thirteen Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed against related patents was submitted for consideration during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. The complaint further references prior court orders from related litigation that construed key claim terms and affirmed the patent eligibility and written description support for similar claims, suggesting these prior rulings may be influential in the current case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-12-23	Patent Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2017-06-13	U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941 Issued
2018-01-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 Issued
2018-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,021,198 Issued
2019-08-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789 Issued
2020-03-24	U.S. Patent No. 10,602,364 Issued
2020-10-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,819,809 Issued
2021-07-13	U.S. Patent No. 11,064,038 Issued
2023-01-13	Complaint Filing Date

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

This report provides a full analysis of the first two patents asserted in the complaint for which the patent documents were provided with the source materials, followed by capsule summaries for the other provided patents-in-suit.

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,198 - "Software-Based Mobile Tracking Service with Video Streaming When Events Occur"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for systems that can correlate defined "events" with the physical location of objects and then convey information about those events to interested users, moving beyond prior art systems that were programmed for predetermined tasks (Compl. ¶42; ’198 Patent, col. 1:30-33, 1:53-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can define a geographic zone (e.g., a geofence) and an "object location event" based on the relationship between a tracked object and that zone (e.g., entering or exiting the zone) (’198 Patent, col. 2:11-15). When the event occurs, information is conveyed to specific computing devices based on user identification codes and access control codes, allowing for multiple levels of access and enhanced privacy (’198 Patent, col. 2:4-6, 2:44-67).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for user-configurable, location-based alerts with granular control over who receives the information, a foundational concept for modern fleet management and logistics tracking systems (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, and 12 (Compl. ¶¶101, 107).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the essential elements of:
  • Providing a server with first database management software that maintains a database for a "first information sharing environment" used by multiple authorized users.
  • Using "first administrative privileges" by a "first administrator" to define multiple "second information sharing environments."
  • Using "second administrative privileges" by "second administrators" to define groups within their respective environments.
  • Providing "second database management software" on user computing devices that enables a "first authorized user" to define an "event condition" (based on an object's location relative to a zone) and an "event information access code" (a list of users who get an alert).
  • Monitoring object location, determining when the event condition is met, and conveying an alert only to the users on the access list.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶101, 111).

U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789 - "Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Information About Carriers of Mobile Devices Based on Location Information Received from Location Information Sources Used by the Mobile Devices"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’198 patent, the technology addresses the need for a system to link location-based events to objects and controllably distribute information about those events to computing devices (Compl. ¶42; ’789 Patent, col. 1:58-62).
• The Patented Solution: This patent describes a method for controlling event notifications through a multi-level administrative structure. A "first level" administrator (e.g., the tracking service provider) authorizes user accounts, while a "second level" administrator (e.g., a group administrator for a customer) can log in to set zones, define event conditions, and specify an access list of recipients for notifications (’789 Patent, Claim 1). The system then monitors mobile devices and conveys event notifications only to those on the access list (’789 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific hierarchical administrative model for managing location-based alerts, allowing a service provider to manage multiple distinct customer groups, each with its own internal control over notifications (Compl. ¶¶45-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, and 16 (Compl. ¶¶113, 119).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the essential elements of:
  • Controlling notifications based on a "first level of administrative privileges" used by a "tracking service administrator."
  • Giving a "second level of administrative privileges" to a "group administrator" to perform group functions.
  • Enabling the group administrator to log in and set a zone, a first event condition (based on location), a second event condition (based on movement), and an access list of recipients.
  • Interfacing with mobile devices to receive location and movement information.
  • Giving access to the event notifications based on the specified access list.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶¶113, 123).

Multi-Patent Capsule Summaries

• U.S. Patent No. 10,602,364 - "Method for Conveyance of Event Information to Individuals Interested Devices Having Phone Numbers"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for conveying location-based event information. It focuses on a method where a user can define a zone and an associated event, and the system then conveys information about that event to specified computing devices.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 3 is asserted (Compl. ¶125).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's tracking products and services, which offer geo-fencing and real-time alerts, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶73, 125).

• U.S. Patent No. 10,819,809 - "Method for Controlling Conveyance Of Event Notifications in Sub-Groups Defined Within Groups Based on Multiple Levels Of Administrative Privilege"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details a method for managing event notifications using a hierarchical structure of groups and sub-groups. The system employs multiple levels of administrative privilege to control how event notifications are defined and conveyed within these nested groups.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 are asserted (Compl. ¶138).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's multi-user fleet management system, which provides for different levels of user access and control over alerts, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶73, 138).

• U.S. Patent No. 11,064,038 - "Method for Tracking Mobile Objects Based on Event Conditions Met at Mobile Object Locations"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method for tracking mobile objects by defining event conditions based on the object's location. The system is designed to manage the conveyance of event information among various computing devices using access control codes to protect privacy and manage access.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 are asserted (Compl. ¶150).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's products and services for vehicle and asset tracking, which use event conditions like geofence triggers, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶73, 150).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities include the NexTraq® Fleet Tracking solution, NexTraq® Web Services, and associated products for fleet visibility, productivity, geo-fencing, real-time alerts, and mobile applications such as NexTraq® View™ and NexTraq® Connect™ (Compl. ¶73).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products form a comprehensive system that allows customers to monitor and report vehicle fleet activity (Compl. ¶74). Key accused functionalities include vehicle and asset tracking, setting up geo-fences and virtual boundaries, and configuring real-time alerts that are triggered when vehicles cross these boundaries (Compl. ¶73.1).
• The complaint alleges NexTraq is a for-profit entity owned by Groupe Michelin and that these tools provide it with a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Compl. ¶75).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach exemplary claim chart exhibits for the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶77, 89, 101, 113, 125, 138, 150). The following summarizes the narrative infringement theories for the lead patents.

• ’198 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's fleet tracking system directly infringes by allowing its customers (the "first authorized user" in the claim's terminology) to use its software to define event conditions (e.g., setting a geo-fence and an alert for when a vehicle enters it) and to create access lists specifying who receives those alerts (Compl. ¶¶73, 101). The complaint alleges that NexTraq provides instruction materials, such as user guides, that instruct customers on how to use the system in an infringing manner, forming a basis for the inducement allegations (Compl. ¶¶105-106).
• ’789 Patent Infringement Allegations: The infringement theory for this patent centers on the allegation that NexTraq's system embodies the claimed multi-level administrative structure. NexTraq, as the service provider, is alleged to act as the "tracking service administrator" with "first level" privileges, while its customers act as "group administrators" with "second level" privileges to manage zones and alert recipients for their own fleets (Compl. ¶¶45, 113). The complaint alleges that Defendant's provision of its web-based solution and user guides induces customers to perform the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶117-118).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the user roles and permission structures in NexTraq's commercial fleet management system correspond to the specific two-tiered "first level of administrative privilege" (service provider) and "second level of administrative privilege" (customer/subscriber) architecture described and claimed in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’198 Patent, the complaint asserts claims that require conveying an alert comprising a "video" (’198 Patent, col. 24:12-14). A point of contention may be whether the accused NexTraq Dashcam™ product, when integrated with the geo-fencing and alert system, transmits video in a manner that satisfies this claim element (Compl. ¶73.3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first level of administrative privilege" / "second level of administrative privilege"

  • Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the patents' claimed architecture, which distinguishes between a top-level service administrator and a lower-level group administrator (e.g., a customer). Practitioners may focus on these terms because the infringement case hinges on whether NexTraq's system of user roles and permissions maps onto this specific claimed hierarchy.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves define the privileges by the functions each level of administrator can perform (e.g., the first administrator defines "second information sharing environments," while the second administrator defines "groups" within them) (’198 Patent, Claim 1). This functional definition could support a broader reading that covers any system with a similar division of tasks.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example distinguishing a "system administrator of the tracking service" from a "service subscriber" in a group, suggesting a specific commercial relationship between a service provider and its customer (Compl. ¶45; ’198 Patent, col. 23:25-42). This could support a narrower construction tied to this specific embodiment.

• The Term: "event information"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what must be conveyed to a user to constitute infringement. The dispute may turn on whether a simple alert (e.g., a text message saying "Vehicle 1 entered Zone A") is sufficient, or if a more detailed data package is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe "event information" as comprising "an alert" when an event condition is met, suggesting the alert itself could be the information (’198 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states that the "occurrence of an object location event produces object location event information that is conveyed to users," suggesting the "event information" is a data product that contains details about the event, not just the alert itself (’198 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement across all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that NexTraq provides its customers with instruction materials, user guides, and support services that allegedly instruct and encourage them to operate the accused fleet tracking system in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (e.g., Compl. ¶¶80-82, 92-94).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that NexTraq's infringement became willful at least from the time it received notice of the patents and its infringement through the filing of the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶¶85, 97).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the hierarchy of user accounts, permissions, and roles within the accused NexTraq fleet management platform map onto the patents' specific, two-tiered "first level" and "second level" administrative privilege structure, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the control architecture?
• A second central issue will be one of claim scope shaped by history: given the extensive litigation history and prior claim construction rulings involving related patents that share the same specification, how will those precedents—and the prior art considered during prosecution—influence the court’s construction of key terms and the ultimate scope of the asserted claims?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what specific evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform every step of the asserted method claims, particularly the conveyance of alerts "only" to authorized users specified on an "access list" and, for certain claims, the transmission of "video" as part of a location-triggered alert?