DCT

1:23-cv-03722

PerdiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: PerDiemCo LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: NexTraq LLC (Delaware / Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ADDYHART P.C.
Case Identification: 1:23-cv-03722, N.D. Ga., 08/21/2023
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet tracking and electronic logging device (ELD) products and services infringe six U.S. patents related to geofencing, location-based event tracking, and tiered administrative control over conveyance of location data.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for tracking the location of vehicles and other mobile assets, generating alerts based on predefined geographic zones (geofences), and managing driver compliance with regulations such as federal Hours of Service (HOS) rules.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes extensive prior litigation involving related patents from the same family. In prior cases in the Eastern District of Texas, courts have reportedly issued claim construction orders construing terms also at issue here, and have found related patent claims to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and to satisfy written description and enablement requirements. The complaint also notes that thirteen Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against related patents, all of which resulted in settlements. The prior art from those IPRs was allegedly submitted to the USPTO during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff also has another pending case against Defendant in the same court involving different patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-12-23	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2019-04-30	U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689 Issued
2019-05-07	U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 Issued
2019-08-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966 Issued
2019-08-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789 Issued
2020-03-24	U.S. Patent No. 10,602,364 Issued
2023-01-13	Alleged Notice of ’364 Patent via Prior Complaint
2023-06-23	Alleged Notice of ’662, ’966, ’789, and ’689 Patents
2023-07-17	Alleged Notice of ’595 Patent
2023-08-01	U.S. Patent No. 11,716,595 Issued
2023-08-21	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,716,595 - "A Method For Conveying Event Information Based on Roles Assigned to Users of a Location Tracking Service"

Issued August 1, 2023.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The inventor sought to create a method to convey location information for a person (his daughter) in an efficient way that would also protect her privacy (Compl. ¶26). Conventional tracking networks lacked a reliable and efficient way for service subscribers to control notifications to authorized recipients (Compl. ¶44).
The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by creating a two-tiered administrative structure for a location tracking service (’689 Patent, col. 1:11-19). A "first level of administrative privilege" is used by a system administrator to manage user membership in groups, while a "second level of privilege" is assigned to a "second administrator" (e.g., a service subscriber) within each group to control the conveyance of notifications for that group (Compl. ¶45). This structure allows the second administrator to independently set event conditions, such as geofences, and define an access list of authorized recipients, thereby enhancing privacy and control separately from the main system administrator (Compl. ¶45-47).
Technical Importance: This approach suggests a technical improvement by decentralizing control over notification privacy within a centralized tracking system, allowing end-users or group managers more granular authority (Compl. ¶46-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶98).
The complaint incorporates by reference an exemplary claim chart (Exhibit A-1) that was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶98).
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 - "An Electronic Logging Device (ELD) For Tracking Driver of a Vehicle in Different Tracking Modes"

Issued May 7, 2019.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the general problem of conveying location-based event information efficiently while protecting privacy (Compl. ¶26). This patent specifically applies this concept to the context of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) used for regulatory compliance in the transportation industry (’662 Patent, col. 1:9-18).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and device for controlling the conveyance of Hours of Service (HOS) driving event information in an ELD tracking service (’662 Patent, col. 1:11-18; Compl. ¶48). The system uses multiple levels of privileges to allow driver access to recorded event log files. The ELD detects driving events (e.g., vehicle power-on) and records location, movement, and non-movement data into log files (Compl. ¶49). Drivers are provided a wireless interface to log into their accounts, edit or enter information into the log files, and authorize notifications to be sent to designated recipients (Compl. ¶50).
Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific technical framework for managing federally mandated HOS data, allowing for driver interaction and controlled dissemination of sensitive driving records (Compl. ¶48, ¶50).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14 (Compl. ¶110).
The complaint incorporates by reference an exemplary claim chart (Exhibit B-1) that was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶110).
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966 - "Computing Device Carried by A Vehicle for Tracking Driving Events in a Zone Using Location and Event Log Files"

Issued August 13, 2019 (Compl. ¶31).

Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the ELD patent group and is directed to devices, systems, and methods for controlling the conveyance of HOS driving event information in an ELD tracking service (Compl. ¶48). It focuses on tracking driving events within a defined zone using location and event log files.
Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 18, and dependent claims 3, 8, and 13 (Compl. ¶122).
Accused Features: The "Accused ELDs," which include Defendant’s ELD compliance solutions and mobile applications (Compl. ¶84.B, ¶122).

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"

Issued August 27, 2019 (Compl. ¶32).

Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the ELD patent group and is directed to methods for controlling the conveyance of event information related to mobile device carriers, such as vehicle drivers, based on location data from those devices (Compl. ¶48).
Asserted Claims: Claim 17 (independent) (Compl. ¶134).
Accused Features: The "Accused ELD Service," which includes Defendant’s ELD compliance solution and services (Compl. ¶84.B, ¶134).

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

Issued March 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶33).

Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the ELD patent group and is directed to methods for conveying event information from an ELD tracking service to devices identified by phone numbers, managed by a system administrator (Compl. ¶48).
Asserted Claims: Claim 12 (independent) (Compl. ¶146).
Accused Features: The "Accused ELD Service," which includes Defendant’s ELD compliance solution and services (Compl. ¶84.B, ¶146).

U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689 - "Method For Controlling Conveyance of Events by Driver Administrator of Vehicles Equipped with ELDS"

Issued April 30, 2019 (Compl. ¶34).

Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the ELD patent group and is directed to methods for controlling event conveyance by a "driver administrator" of vehicles equipped with ELDs, allowing drivers to manage event log files and authorize notifications (Compl. ¶48, ¶50).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Compl. ¶159).
Accused Features: The "Accused ELD Service," which includes Defendant’s ELD compliance solution and services (Compl. ¶84.B, ¶159).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names two categories of accused instrumentalities: "Geo-fencing Accused Instrumentalities" and "ELD Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶84).

The Geo-fencing products include the NexTraq® Fleet Tracking solution and NexTraq’s Fleet Visibility and Productivity products and services (Compl. ¶84.A).
The ELD products include the NexTraq ELD Compliance Solution and Services, the NexTraq® ELD for Tablets and Smartphones, and the NexTraq ELD Android and iOS mobile applications (Compl. ¶84.B).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products provide SaaS-based fleet management and data analytics solutions for the transportation industry (Compl. ¶88). Their functionalities include vehicle and asset tracking, geofencing and mapping, real-time alerts, and integration with third-party platforms (Compl. ¶84.A.ii).
The ELD products are specifically designed to help users comply with U.S. Department of Transportation HOS regulations (Compl. ¶87). The complaint alleges that the accused ELD service is a "White Labelled" version of the "VisTracks Hours of Service (HOS)" product, which is resold by NexTraq (Compl. ¶86-87).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement of all six patents but incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits that are not attached to the pleading itself. Accordingly, the infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’595 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Geo-fencing Accused Instrumentalities, including its Fleet Tracking software, directly and indirectly infringe the ’595 Patent (Compl. ¶98, ¶101). The infringement theory appears to map the patent’s claimed two-tiered administrative structure onto the accused products’ functionality (Compl. ¶44-47). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system allows users (equivalent to the claimed "second administrator") to establish geofences and control who receives notifications when a vehicle crosses a boundary, a function allegedly independent of the overall system administrator (Compl. ¶43, ¶46).

’662 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Accused ELDs directly and indirectly infringe the ’662 Patent (Compl. ¶110, ¶113). The infringement theory appears to be based on the functionality of these ELD products in tracking and recording driver HOS data (Compl. ¶48). The complaint alleges that these devices detect driving events, log location and movement data, and provide wireless interfaces for drivers to access and manage their log files, which allegedly corresponds to the method claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶49-50).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question for the '595 patent may be whether the accused system's user permission hierarchy constitutes the specific "first level" and "second level" of "administrative privilege" as claimed, particularly the alleged limitation that the first-level administrator "does not exercise" control over the second-level administrator's notification settings (Compl. ¶45). For the ELD patents, a question may arise as to whether Defendant's resold VisTracks product performs all the specific steps of the claimed methods, or if its operation differs in a material way.
Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific technical mismatches. However, for the ELD patents, a key factual question may be how the accused products define and record different "driving events" and "tracking modes" and whether this technical implementation matches the specific requirements recited in the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "first level of administrative privilege" and "second level of administrative privilege" (’595 patent family)

Context and Importance: These terms are central to the alleged novelty of the ’595 patent, which focuses on a specific, two-tiered administrative structure. Practitioners may focus on these terms because their construction will determine whether a conventional system with administrators and users falls within the claims, or if the claims are limited to a specific architecture where a system administrator is explicitly firewalled from controlling notification lists set by a subordinate group administrator.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an "information-sharing environment" where "one or more administrators may be given privileges to configure" the system, which could be argued to encompass any hierarchical user management system (’689 Patent, col. 5:46-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint emphasizes an embodiment where the system administrator "does not exercise control of the sending of notifications within groups," and the second administrator has control "independent of the system administrator" (Compl. ¶55-56). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct and independent delegation of control.

The Term: "recorded driving event information" (’662 and other ELD patents)

Context and Importance: This term defines the data that is the subject of the claimed methods for tracking, editing, and conveying information. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will be critical to determining infringement by the accused ELD products, which are designed for HOS compliance. The dispute may turn on whether the term is limited to specific HOS status changes or covers a broader set of vehicle operational data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes recording events after a driver logs in, including "logged location information that indicates where the first driving event occurs" (’689 Patent, col. 23:53-56), suggesting the term could encompass general location and time data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly tie the invention to ELDs and HOS tracking (’662 Patent, Abstract; ’662 Patent, col. 1:9-12). This context could support a narrower construction limiting "driving event information" to data specifically relevant to HOS regulations, such as on-duty, off-duty, or sleeper berth status changes.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing its customers with user guides, tutorials, technical documentation, and support services that instruct them on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶101-103, ¶113-115, ¶125-127, ¶137-139, ¶149-151, ¶162-164).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of each patent based on specific notice dates, either from an email sent by Plaintiff’s counsel or from the filing of a prior complaint involving the same parties (Compl. ¶100, ¶112, ¶124, ¶136, ¶148, ¶161). The complaint alleges willful infringement from the time of notice for each patent (Compl. ¶106, ¶118, ¶130, ¶142, ¶155, ¶167).

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

A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the user management and notification system in Defendant's fleet tracking products implement the specific two-tiered administrative hierarchy claimed by the '595 patent, where a subordinate administrator has control over notifications independent of the system-level administrator, or does it operate as a conventional permission-based system that falls outside the claim scope?
A key question of precedent and scope will be: how will the extensive litigation history cited in the complaint, including prior claim construction orders and patent eligibility rulings for related patents in the Eastern District of Texas, influence claim interpretation and validity challenges in this case?
A central evidentiary question for the ELD patents will be: what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused ELD products, which are allegedly resold third-party systems, perform each specific step of the claimed methods for logging, editing, and conveying driving event information, particularly as it relates to different "tracking modes"?