DCT

1:25-cv-04239

Lab Technology LLC v. Here North America LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04239, N.D. Ill., 04/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe two patents related to methods for dynamically delivering content—specifically, updatable audio announcements and context-aware user interface screens—to a user's device.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for providing context-sensitive information to mobile devices, a foundational component of modern digital mapping, navigation, and location-based services.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit share a common inventor and originate from related patent applications, with the '388 Patent stemming from a patent application filed in 2006. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.

I.A. Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-30 '388 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2006-06-22 '982 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2013-07-30 '388 Patent Issued
2015-12-22 '982 Patent Issued
2025-04-23 Complaint Filed

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

II.A. U.S. Patent No. 8,498,388, "Method and system for announcement," Issued July 30, 2013

II.A.1. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and lack of timeliness in then-existing methods for delivering audio announcements, which required users to actively seek out information by dialing a number, listening to a broadcast, or navigating a website. (’388 Patent, col. 1:21-63)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a device receives a structured "announcement package" that contains one or more "announcement items," each with a unique "item identity" and associated audio data. This structure allows for dynamic content management; when the device receives a new announcement item whose identity matches an existing one, it updates the audio data, enabling content to be seamlessly replaced, added, or deleted without constant user intervention. (’388 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-20)
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for efficiently pushing dynamic, up-to-date audio content (such as traffic alerts or news updates) to end-user devices. (’388 Patent, col. 2:2-4)

II.A.2. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims of the ’388 Patent. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method for a telephone comprising the steps of:
    • Receiving a first announcement item with a first item identity and first audio data.
    • Receiving a second announcement item with a second item identity and second audio data.
    • Determining if the second item identity matches the first.
    • If they match, updating the first audio data with the second audio data.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

II.B. U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982, "Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone," Issued December 22, 2015

II.B.1. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of users having to "navigate through many menu displays in order to find a desired service," especially when the relevance of services changes based on context like time of day or location. (’982 Patent, col. 1:29-41)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a telephone that automatically refreshes its display to show services relevant to a user's current context. A "function selector" on the device selects a pre-defined "function" from a local datastore based on current information (e.g., location from a location server, or time from a clock). This selected function is associated with a set of "commonly used communication services" which are then displayed on the screen. (’982 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-45)
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables a context-aware user interface that anticipates user needs, aiming to reduce navigation friction and make devices more intuitive. (’982 Patent, col. 2:3-8)

II.B.2. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims of the ’982 Patent. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a telephone system comprising:
    • A display panel, processor, and a datastore containing at least one "function" related to the telephone's current location.
    • The processor is operable to connect to a location server to get the current location.
    • The processor then selects a "function" from the datastore and refreshes the display to show a communication service associated with that function, based on the current location.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶12, ¶21) The specific products are purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits which were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27)
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by" the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Defendant, Here North America, LLC, is a prominent provider of digital mapping, navigation, and location-based data and services. Such services commonly include features that deliver dynamic, location-sensitive information to users, such as real-time traffic alerts, and user interfaces that adapt based on the user's location or context (e.g., suggesting nearby restaurants or gas stations).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not available for this analysis. (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the allegations in the complaint body.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

For the ’388 Patent, the infringement theory appears to be that Defendant’s applications receive data packets (the "announcement items") containing information like traffic or news alerts ("audio data"). These packets allegedly contain a unique identifier ("item identity"). When a new packet arrives with an identifier that matches a previous one, the application updates the information presented to the user.

For the ’982 Patent, the infringement theory appears to be that Defendant’s applications change the information or service shortcuts displayed on the screen based on the user's context. This allegedly involves the application on the user's phone ("telephone") obtaining its current location from a server, using that location to select a "function" from a local "datastore," and then "refreshing" its screen to display services relevant to that location-based function.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Locus of Infringement: A central technical question for both patents is likely to be whether the critical processing steps occur on the user's device ("telephone") as claimed, or on Defendant's servers. For instance, for the '388 patent, does the telephone perform the identity matching and data update, or does a server simply push a fully formed, updated view to the device? Similarly, for the '982 patent, does the telephone's processor select the "function" from a local "datastore," or does a server determine the contextually relevant content and instruct the application what to display?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of claim terms. For the '388 patent, a key question is whether the data structures used by Defendant's services constitute an "announcement item" containing a discrete "item identity," as opposed to more generic data stream identifiers. For the '982 patent, a question is whether the accused application's method of changing its display constitutes "refreshing a screen" based on a locally stored "function."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’388 Patent:

    • The Term: "item identity" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed updating mechanism. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an identifier within the accused data stream can be classified as an "item identity." Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent covers modern data-streaming protocols or is limited to the specific data structures disclosed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides varied examples of what an "item identity" can be, such as "Wimbledon-men-singles" or "News-Item-108," suggesting it can be any unique character string used for identification. (’388 Patent, col. 5:26-32)
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the "item identity" as a discrete, formally-defined element within a larger, structured "announcement item" element. (’388 Patent, col. 5:53-54, Eq. 1.10). A party could argue this requires a specific, labeled field, not just an implicit identifier in a data stream.

  • ’982 Patent:

    • The Term: "function" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: The definition of "function" is critical because the claim requires the processor to select this "function" from a datastore on the telephone. The case may turn on whether this "function" must be a discrete, locally-stored set of rules or if it can be a more abstract representation of a state determined by a server.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a function broadly as representing "a given set of conditions associated with a user," which could include variables like time and location. (’982 Patent, col. 4:31-33)
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims a system where the "processor is operable to... select a function from the datastore." (’982 Patent, col. 8:31-32). This language, combined with descriptions of the datastore being on the telephone, suggests the "function" is a tangible data object stored and selected locally, not a set of conditions evaluated on a remote server.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes. (Compl. ¶15, ¶24)
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks to establish a basis for willful infringement by alleging that Defendant has had actual knowledge of its infringement at least since the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts. (Compl. ¶14, ¶16, ¶23, ¶25). No specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  • A foundational issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products, a primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to establish through discovery that any of Defendant’s complex, server-driven services actually practice the specific, device-centric methods recited in the claims.
  • The case will likely center on a technical question of architectural locus: Do the accused services perform the core claimed functions—such as matching an "item identity" ('388) or selecting a "function" ('982)—on the end-user's device as the patent claims require, or are these logical operations performed on Defendant's remote servers, with only the results being transmitted to the device?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: Can the terms "item identity" and "function," which are described in the patents with specific structural characteristics, be construed broadly enough to encompass the potentially different data architectures used in modern, cloud-based navigation and information services?