DCT
1:18-cv-08060
Inventergy LBS LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inventergy LBS, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-08060, N.D. Ill., 03/21/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Angelsense GPS tracking device and associated service infringe two patents related to remotely configurable tracking devices that manage data buffering, transmission, and power consumption.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to personal GPS tracking devices, a field where a key technical challenge is balancing the need for real-time location data against the physical constraints of battery life and the cost of cellular data transmission.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on August 2, 2018, a pre-suit notice letter, including a preliminary claim chart, was sent to Angelsense, a company identified as a seller of the accused device manufactured by Verizon. This allegation may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-02-08 | Priority Date (’286 and ’978 Patents) |
| 2014-06-24 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286) |
| 2015-12-22 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978) |
| 2018-08-02 | Pre-suit notice letter sent to Angelsense |
| 2019-03-21 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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 asserts that prior art tracking systems were limited in their communication capabilities, often only transmitting a device identifier and location data. This limitation was driven by the need to minimize device power consumption and network airtime costs, which were significant concerns for small, battery-powered personal trackers (’286 Patent, col. 1:28-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a tracking device that can be remotely reconfigured by a central system. This "functional access" allows an operator to modify the device's behavior on the fly, for example, by changing how often it reports its location or how it buffers data when it loses a network connection. This allows the device's operation to be adapted to specific situations (e.g., an emergency versus routine tracking) to better balance data needs with resource conservation (’286 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides enhanced flexibility for personal tracking systems, allowing their performance characteristics to be dynamically optimized in the field without requiring physical access to the device (’286 Patent, col. 1:50-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶21).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A tracking device with a location detector, a communication device, memory, and a processor.
- A "configuration routine" that can modify the device's "configuration data" based on commands received from a remote system.
- The modifiable configuration data at least partially determines an "interval for buffering" location data when the device is unable to communicate with the remote system.
- The buffering interval at least partially controls how frequently new location data is stored in the device's memory.
U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978, “System and Method for Communication with a Tracking Device,” issued December 22, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the ’978 Patent addresses the technical challenge that personal tracking devices must operate under power and network cost constraints, which historically limited their communication features (’978 Patent, col. 1:35-50).
- The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a tracking device with distinct software routines for managing data during network outages. A "buffering routine" is used to store location data when the device cannot communicate, and a "reporting routine" is used to transmit that stored data once a connection is re-established. These routines are part of a system that can be remotely configured (’978 Patent, col. 42:51-64).
- Technical Importance: This system architecture is designed to ensure data integrity and reliable transmission despite the intermittent network connectivity common to mobile devices, preventing the loss of tracking history during coverage gaps (’978 Patent, col. 2:23-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶32).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A tracking device with a location detector, a communication device, memory, a processor, and a configuration routine responsive to a remote system.
- A "buffering routine" operative to buffer location data when the device is unable to communicate with the remote system.
- A "reporting routine" operative to transmit the buffered location data when the device is able to communicate with the remote system.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Angelsense GPS device" and its associated service, which the complaint alleges is manufactured by Verizon (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a personal GPS tracker marketed as a safety device for children with special needs (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2). The device determines its location via GPS and transmits this data over a cellular network to an application used by parents or guardians (Compl. ¶21-23). The complaint alleges the product includes features such as a "Runner Mode" that increases the frequency of location updates to every 10 seconds (Compl. ¶26, Fig. 6). The complaint also points to product documentation stating that the device stores GPS readings in its memory if cellular connectivity is lost and transmits the stored recording once the connection is re-established (Compl. ¶24, Fig. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’286 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a location detector operative to determine locations of said tracking device; | The device has GPS to determine its location. | ¶22 | col. 4:6-8 |
| a communication device operative to communicate with a plurality of remote systems including a tracking service system...and a device of a user... | The device communicates with cellular networks to send data to an app used by multiple guardians, who can be added via email and mobile number. The complaint provides a screenshot from the AngelSense support website illustrating how users can add guardians to the system (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 3). | ¶23 | col. 4:5-10 |
| memory for storing data and code, said data including location data...and configuration data. | The device stores GPS readings and configuration data in its memory. The complaint includes a screenshot of product documentation stating the device stores GPS data when connectivity is lost (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 5). | ¶24 | col. 4:18-21 |
| a processor operative to execute said code to impart functionality to said tracking device... | The device is alleged to inherently have a processor that executes code to enable its tracking functions. | ¶25 | col. 4:21-24 |
| a configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from any one of said remote systems; | Users can remotely activate a "Runner Mode" to modify the device's behavior. | ¶26 | col. 2:12-17 |
| wherein said configuration data...at least partially determines an interval for buffering said location data when said communication device is unable to communicate...and...controls how frequently newly acquired location data will be stored... | The device stores GPS data in memory and transmits it once saved; different modes, like "Runner Mode" (10-second updates) and "In transit" (30-second updates), are alleged to determine the interval for buffering and storing data. | ¶27 | col. 2:20-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused product’s functionality meets the specific limitations of claim 1(f). The complaint alleges that different operational modes (e.g., "Runner Mode") establish an "interval for buffering." A court may need to determine if evidence of different online reporting frequencies is sufficient to prove the existence of a modifiable "interval for buffering" that controls data storage frequency specifically during a communications outage, as the claim requires.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation in paragraph 28, which describes a "power state" limitation, does not correspond to any element in the asserted independent claim 1. The language appears to map to dependent claim 6 of the ’286 patent. This raises the question of whether this is a pleading error or an unstated intent to assert additional claims.
’978 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a location detector operative to determine locations of said tracking device; | The device uses a real-time GPS monitor to track its location. | ¶33 | col. 2:4-6 |
| a communication device operative to communicate with a remote system. | The device uses cellular networks and email to communicate with remote systems, such as the devices of designated guardians. | ¶34 | col. 2:6-9 |
| memory for storing data and code, said data including location data...and configuration data. | The device stores GPS readings in its memory. | ¶35 | col. 2:9-12 |
| a processor operative to execute said code to impart functionality to said tracking device... | The device is alleged to inherently possess a processor to execute its software and enable its functions. | ¶36 | col. 2:12-15 |
| a configuration routine operative to modify said configuration data responsive to a communication from said remote system. | The device allows users to remotely activate different operating modes, such as "Runner Mode," thereby modifying its configuration. | ¶37 | col. 2:15-18 |
| a buffering routine operative to buffer location data indicative of a plurality of said locations when said communication device is unable to communicate... | The device is alleged to store data in its memory if it cannot communicate with the cellular network due to a lack of coverage. | ¶38 | col. 42:51-57 |
| a reporting routine operative to transmit said location data...when said communication device is able to communicate... | The device transmits the stored GPS data once communication with the server is possible again. | ¶39 | col. 42:58-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires a "buffering routine" and a "reporting routine." A potential point of contention is whether the accused product’s integrated function of storing data when offline and transmitting it when online comprises two distinct "routines" as contemplated by the patent, or a single, inseparable software function.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegations for the ’978 patent rely on substantially the same evidence as for the ’286 patent. A factual question for the court will be to distinguish the evidence for the ’978 patent’s broader "buffering routine" from the evidence for the ’286 patent’s more specific "interval for buffering."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’286 Patent:
- The Term: "interval for buffering"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final, and arguably most specific, limitation of claim 1. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused device's various operational modes can be characterized as establishing a modifiable "interval" that governs the act of buffering (i.e., storing to memory during a communication failure), rather than merely governing the frequency of reporting (i.e., transmitting over the network).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes modifiable intervals in general terms, including "a time interval (e.g., every 30 minutes) or a distance interval" (’286 Patent, col. 2:26-29), which could support construing any remotely adjustable time or distance setting as meeting the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description includes a specific "SET_BUFFERING_INTERVAL" command structure, which "controls how frequently location records will be stored in the device memory in the event of a temporary out-of-coverage condition" (’286 Patent, col. 16:54-65). This could support a narrower construction requiring a configuration setting specifically designated for offline buffering behavior.
For the ’978 Patent:
- The Term: "buffering routine" and "reporting routine"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites these as two separate limitations. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused device contains two structurally distinct software components corresponding to these routines, or if a single, integrated software function performs both buffering and reporting.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "routine" or require the routines to be in separate software modules. A party could argue that any block of code that performs the function of buffering qualifies as a "buffering routine," and likewise for reporting, regardless of their implementation (’978 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims a "buffering routine" and a "reporting routine." The use of separate terms for separate functions could imply they are intended to be structurally distinct elements. The patent summary discusses buffering and communicating as distinct configurable examples, which may support an argument for separability (’978 Patent, col. 2:17-29).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains counts for direct infringement only and does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶21, ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is premised on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that on August 2, 2018, a notice letter was sent to Angelsense, which it identifies as a seller of the accused device manufactured by Verizon (Compl. ¶16). This letter allegedly "described exactly how the Device infringed through a preliminary claim chart and infringement analysis" (Compl. ¶17). The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 14, D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: does the complaint's evidence, which centers on remotely configurable online reporting frequencies (e.g., "Runner Mode"), sufficiently allege the ’286 patent’s more specific requirement of a modifiable "interval for buffering" that governs data storage during a communications outage?
- A second key issue will be one of architectural scope: for the ’978 patent, does the accused device’s method for storing data when offline and sending it when online meet the claim requirements of a distinct "buffering routine" and a "reporting routine," or does it perform a single, integrated function that falls outside the claimed two-part structure?
- A critical question for damages will be one of imputed knowledge: can the pre-suit notice letter sent to Angelsense, a third-party seller, establish that the manufacturer, Verizon, had the requisite knowledge of infringement to support a finding of willfulness? This may depend on the specific relationship between the two companies and the content of the notice.