DCT
1:19-cv-06649
CCC Information Services Inc v. Bodyshop Booster Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CCC Information Services Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Bodyshop Booster, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Latham & Watkins LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-06649, N.D. Ill., 10/07/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois as it is Plaintiff's principal place of business and Defendant directed patent enforcement activities, including cease and desist letters, into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Photo Estimate" tool does not infringe Defendant's patent related to systems and methods for remotely estimating vehicle damage.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile applications that guide users through capturing and submitting photographs of vehicle damage to obtain a repair estimate without a physical inspection.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendant sending Plaintiff cease and desist letters on July 25, 2019, and September 5, 2019, the latter of which included a claim chart alleging infringement of Claim 1. Defendant is also alleged to have contacted at least one of Plaintiff's customers regarding the alleged infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-03-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,990,661 Priority Date |
| 2018-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,990,661 Issue Date |
| 2019-07-25 | Defendant sends first cease and desist letter to Plaintiff |
| 2019-09-05 | Defendant sends second cease and desist letter with claim chart |
| 2019-09-19 | Plaintiff launches accused "Photo Estimate" tool |
| 2019-10-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,990,661 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ESTIMATING VEHICLE DAMAGE
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inconvenience for car owners of having to physically visit one or more auto body shops to obtain a repair estimate, a process described as "time consuming" and often resulting in an incomplete scope of damage assessment on the first visit (’971 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system, typically embodied in a mobile application, that guides a user to capture and upload information and photos of a damaged vehicle. The system receives a user's "panel selection" identifying the damaged area and provides "dynamic instructions" to help the user position their camera correctly to take high-quality photos, potentially by comparing the camera's view to sample images (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:58-65). The system then uses this information to "generate" a repair quote, which is communicated back to the user, obviating the need for a physical visit (’971 Patent, col. 1:33-37).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aims to make the vehicle repair quoting process more efficient by enabling accurate remote assessments based on user-submitted photos that are captured using a guided, structured process (’971 Patent, col. 4:43-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on independent Claim 1, alleging that Defendant's infringement accusations are based on this claim (Compl. ¶14).
- Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A system with a controller and memory.
- Receiving user information, car information, and a "panel selection" corresponding to the damaged car portion.
- Displaying "dynamic instructions" on a user interface while the user positions a camera, directing the user to a "correct position."
- Performing a "comparative analysis between a sample image stored in memory and the photo to be taken" to determine the correct camera position.
- Communicating a confirmation to the user once the correct position is achieved.
- Receiving at least one photo of the damaged portion.
- Generating the repair quote associated with the damage.
- Communicating the repair quote to the user.
- The complaint notes that all other claims of the patent depend on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Plaintiff's "Photo Estimate tool" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Photo Estimate tool as a technology that allows a user to submit photos of a damaged vehicle to an auto body shop for a quote (Compl. ¶11). The process involves the user entering vehicle information and selecting a "point-of-impact" from one of 12 directional options, rather than selecting a specific vehicle panel (Compl. ¶12). To assist with photography, the application provides a "static" outline of a car that "does not change in response to the user's positioning of the camera" (Compl. ¶12). After photos are transmitted, an employee at the body shop manually reviews them and prepares the repair quote, which is then sent to the user (Compl. ¶12, 16).
- The tool is alleged to be part of Plaintiff's suite of cloud, mobile, and telematics technologies for the automotive, insurance, and collision repair industries (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes the key arguments presented in the complaint as to why the accused tool's functionality does not meet the limitations of Claim 1.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'990,661 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged (Non-)Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receive a panel selection, wherein the panel selection corresponds to a portion of the car associated with the damage | The tool receives a "point-of-impact" selection from 12 directional options, which the complaint alleges is not a "panel selection." | ¶12, 16 | col. 7:58-61 |
| display photo instructions on a user interface, wherein the photo instructions are dynamic instructions communicated while the user is positioning a camera in space, wherein the photo instructions direct the user to position the camera in space until the camera is in a correct position | The tool provides a "static" outline of a car to help with framing; the complaint alleges these instructions are not "dynamic" and do not change based on camera position. | ¶12, 16 | col. 7:62-67 |
| wherein prior to communicating a confirmation to indicate the camera is in the correct position, perform a comparative analysis between a sample image stored in the memory and the photo to be taken | The complaint alleges the tool does not perform a comparative analysis between a sample image and the photo to be taken. | ¶16 | col. 8:1-5 |
| determine whether the position the camera in space is in the correct position | The complaint alleges the tool does not determine if the camera is in the correct position. | ¶16 | col. 8:6-9 |
| generate the repair quote associated with the damage | The quote is manually prepared by an employee at the body shop after reviewing the photos; the complaint alleges the tool itself does not generate the quote. | ¶12, 16 | col. 8:13-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises a definitional question of whether a user selecting a generalized "point-of-impact" constitutes receiving a "panel selection" as required by the claim. The complaint argues it does not (Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused tool's "static" visual guide for framing photos meets the "dynamic instructions" limitation, which the patent describes as directing the user to move the camera in space based on real-time analysis (’971 Patent, col. 4:58-65; Compl. ¶16). Another key question is whether the system can be said to "generate" a quote when the complaint alleges this function is performed manually by a human at a separate location (Compl. ¶12, 16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"panel selection"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff alleges its tool uses a "point-of-impact" system, not a "panel selection" system (Compl. ¶16). The outcome of the case may depend on whether these two concepts are construed as distinct.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is not limited to specific named parts, citing specification language that a user may select a panel "by tapping on the panel in the image that corresponds to the panel on the automobile having damage," suggesting a regional, rather than text-based, selection is contemplated (’971 Patent, col. 4:25-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides explicit examples of panel selections, such as "a left front fender, a left front door, a left rear door," and these specific parts are recited in dependent Claim 8 (’971 Patent, col. 4:17-21; Claim 8). Figure 4A depicts a user interface with a list of specific, named panels, which may support a narrower construction limited to discrete, pre-defined components.
"dynamic instructions"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's core non-infringement argument is that its tool provides only "static" guidance (Compl. ¶16). The definition of "dynamic" will therefore be dispositive for this claim element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any instruction provided within an interactive, multi-step software process is "dynamic," but this finds limited support in the specification.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context that "dynamic instructions" are communicated "while the user is positioning a camera in space" and gives examples such as instructing the user to "move in space" or to "increase the distance between the camera and the car" (’971 Patent, col. 4:58-65). This language suggests the instructions must be responsive to the camera's real-time position, supporting a narrower definition that excludes static overlays.
"generate the repair quote"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges its tool does not perform this step, but rather facilitates the collection of data for a human to manually generate a quote (Compl. ¶12, 16).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the system "generates" the quote by performing the essential data-gathering and transmission steps that are a prerequisite to the quote's creation, thereby controlling the overall process.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly states that "the controller is further configured to generate a repair quote" and the "system generates... the repair quote," which suggests an automated function performed by the claimed system itself, not by an external human actor (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:53-55).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed "by inducement, contributorily, or otherwise" (Compl. ¶19). The basis for non-infringement of these claims is predicated on the allegation that there is no direct infringement by any party for Plaintiff to have induced or contributed to (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by Plaintiff. However, the complaint establishes that Plaintiff was on notice of the patent and Defendant's infringement contentions via cease and desist letters dated July 25, 2019, and September 5, 2019 (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). This pre-suit knowledge could form the basis for a future willfulness counterclaim by the Defendant. The complaint also seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which suggests Plaintiff may seek attorneys' fees (Prayer for Relief ¶2).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court’s determination of several key questions related to claim scope and technical operation:
- A primary issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "panel selection", which is exemplified in the patent by specific automotive parts like a "fender" or "door," be construed to read on the accused tool's method of selecting a generalized, directional "point-of-impact"?
- A second core issue will concern technical functionality: Do the accused tool's static, non-responsive photographic guides perform the same function as the "dynamic instructions" claimed in the patent, which are described as actively directing the user's camera positioning in real-time?
- A final dispositive question will be the locus of action: Does a system that collects and transmits data for a human to later analyze and manually price a repair "generate the repair quote" as required by the claim, or does this element require automated estimation by the system itself?