Navog LLC v. RM Acquisition LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Navog LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: RM Acquisition, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-04023, N.D. Ill., 05/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a GPS-based warning system designed to prevent high-profile vehicles from colliding with low-clearance structures.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of commercial trucks, buses, and RVs striking low bridges or underpasses by providing a location-aware alert system.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint itself is alleged to provide Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement for the purposes of willfulness and inducement claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205 - GPS AND WARNING SYSTEM

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,593,205, "GPS AND WARNING SYSTEM," issued March 17, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue of drivers of high-profile vehicles, such as commercial trucks, buses, and RVs, being unaware of upcoming low-clearance structures like bridges, tunnels, and underpasses, which can lead to collisions (’205 Patent, col. 1:56-68). The patent notes that stopping a large vehicle at highway speeds is difficult, and rerouting after stopping wastes time and resources (col. 1:62-col. 2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a dedicated in-vehicle device that contains a GPS module, a computer module, and a warning mechanism (’205 Patent, col. 2:31-44). The computer module is programmed with a database of structures and their clearance heights (’205 Patent, col. 4:42-46). By tracking the vehicle's location via GPS, the system can determine when it is approaching a listed structure and, if the clearance is too low for the vehicle's pre-set height, it issues a "loud audible sound and flashing light" to alert the driver and can display alternate routes (’205 Patent, col. 4:50-59).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to provide a reliable, automated warning that gives drivers sufficient time to reroute, thereby preventing costly and dangerous collisions (’205 Patent, col. 2:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a GPS and warning system comprising:
  • A main body with a hollow interior volume.
  • A computer module within the body, "programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses."
  • A GPS module within the body to provide location information.
  • At least one warning mechanism connected to the computer module to provide a "loud audible sound" to warn of impending danger.
  • A display screen on the body's outer surface to provide visual information, including the height of an approaching structure and alternate routes.
  • The computer module is adapted to process location information, determine when to send a signal to the warning mechanism, and initiate the warning when the device is "within a predetermined distance" from a dangerous structure.
• The complaint does not explicitly state whether dependent claims are asserted but reserves the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states that they are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count below" and in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, 16). However, neither the charts nor Exhibit 2 are included in the provided complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '205 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in an "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint's narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '205 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the specific allegations from Exhibit 2, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of the technology, the following questions may arise:
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused product's computer module come "programmed with information" as the claim requires, or does it dynamically download or stream this data from a remote server? The specification appears to describe a self-contained unit with pre-loaded data (’205 Patent, col. 4:42-46).
  • Scope Questions: How is the claim term "predetermined distance" implemented in the accused products? The patent specification suggests a "preset distance" (’205 Patent, col. 4:30-31), raising the question of whether this term requires a fixed, non-dynamic value or if it can cover more complex, variable alert thresholds (e.g., based on vehicle speed).
  • Evidentiary Questions: What evidence will Plaintiff provide to show that the accused products include "at least one warning mechanism... adapted to provide a loud audible sound," as distinct from a general-purpose speaker for navigation prompts?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "computer module... adapted to be programmed with information pertaining to existing roads, bridges, viaducts, and underpasses" (Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the architecture of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers only devices with a self-contained, pre-loaded database of hazard locations and clearances, or if it can also read on modern systems that may query a remote, cloud-based server in real-time to obtain such information.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the computer module as being "programmed with information pertaining to" structures, and the abstract mentions including "the actual measurements of each and every structure" in the system itself, which may suggest that the data is stored locally as part of the device's initial state (’205 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:42-46).
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "adapted to be programmed" does not preclude the module from receiving updates or fetching data dynamically, and that "programmed with" could describe the state of having access to the information, regardless of where it is stored permanently.

• The Term: "within a predetermined distance" (Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the system's warning. The interpretation will be critical to infringement, as it must be compared against how the accused system calculates when to issue an alert. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it requires a fixed, preset distance or allows for a dynamically calculated one.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description uses the phrase "at a preset distance from the structure," which could imply a fixed, pre-configured value (’205 Patent, col. 4:30-31). This could limit the claim to systems that do not, for example, calculate the warning distance based on the vehicle's current speed.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "predetermined" simply means the distance is determined before the warning is issued, not that it must be a static, unchangeable value. This would allow the term to cover systems where the distance is calculated based on variables like speed or road type according to a pre-set algorithm.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a way that infringes the ’205 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activity by the Defendant thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central threshold issue is whether the allegations in the unprovided "Exhibit 2" are sufficient to state a plausible claim for infringement. The case cannot meaningfully proceed until the specific accused products are identified and the factual basis for how they allegedly meet each claim limitation is articulated.

2. Claim Scope and Modern Systems: A core technical and legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "programmed with information", which in the patent's context suggests a locally stored database, be construed to cover modern navigation systems that may dynamically query cloud-based services for hazard data in real-time?

3. Functional Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of "functional comparison": assuming an accused product is identified, does its warning logic operate "within a predetermined distance" as required by the claim? The case may turn on whether the accused system's potentially dynamic, speed-dependent alerting function falls within the scope of a term that the patent specification describes as a "preset distance."