DCT

2:20-cv-10287

Inventergy LBS LLC v. Fleetilla LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-10287, E.D. Mich., 02/04/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Michigan and maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Michigan.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet tracking products and services infringe three patents related to the remote communication with and configuration of tracking devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for remotely managing the operational parameters of asset tracking devices, a key feature for optimizing battery life and data usage in the fleet management and logistics industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit share a common specification and priority date, descending from the same provisional application. U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of its parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,154,401.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-02-08 Priority Date for ’286, ’978, and ’558 Patents
2014-06-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,760,286 Issues
2015-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,219,978 Issues
2017-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,781,558 Issues
2020-02-04 Complaint Filed

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 describes prior art tracking systems as having "very limited" communication capabilities, often restricted to transmitting only a device ID and location data. This rigidity presents challenges for power consumption and network access costs, which are critical limiting factors for mobile tracking devices (’286 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a tracking device and system that allows a remote system (e.g., a central server) to provide "configuration data" to the device over a wireless network. This allows for dynamic, over-the-air modification of the device's functionality, such as changing the interval for reporting location data or the criteria for buffering data when out of communication range (’286 Patent, col. 2:5-16; Fig. 5). This provides "functional access" to the device from a remote system, enhancing flexibility and efficiency (’286 Patent, col. 2:15-16).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables sophisticated, on-the-fly management of deployed tracking devices, allowing for optimized performance based on changing conditions or user needs without requiring physical access to the device (’286 Patent, col. 2:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '286 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶15, 21). Analysis is based on representative independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A tracking device comprising: a location detector;
    • a communication device operative to communicate with a plurality of remote systems including a tracking service system... and a device of a user;
    • memory for storing data and code, including location data and configuration data;
    • a processor to execute the code; and
    • a configuration routine to modify the configuration data responsive to communication from any of the remote systems.
    • The claim further requires that the configuration data determines an interval for buffering location data when the device is unable to communicate.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 this patent shares its specification with the ’286 Patent, it addresses the same problem of limited configurability in prior art tracking devices (’978 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’978 Patent claims a method for communicating with a tracking device. The method involves a remote system sending initial configuration data to the device, receiving processed data back from the device, and then sending new configuration data to change the device's operation to a different configuration (’978 Patent, col. 45:46-64). This iterative process of configure, receive, and re-configure is the core of the claimed method, as illustrated in the process flow of Figure 5 (’978 Patent, Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This claimed method provides a framework for adaptive, closed-loop control over a tracking device's behavior, allowing a remote server to intelligently manage device resources based on the data it receives.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '978 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶25, 31). Analysis is based on representative independent claim 21.
  • Independent Claim 21:
    • A method for communicating with a tracking device, comprising:
    • communicating with the device via a wireless network;
    • providing configuration data to the device to operate in a first configuration;
    • receiving processed data generated by the device in the first configuration;
    • providing new configuration data to the device to change it to a different configuration; and
    • receiving additional processed data generated in the different configuration.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,781,558, “System and method for communication with a tracking device,” issued October 3, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’558 Patent shares a specification with the other patents-in-suit and relates to the remote configuration of tracking devices. Its claims are directed to a tracking device where the remotely modifiable configuration data specifically determines the power state of the location detector (e.g., turning a GPS receiver on or off), directly addressing the power consumption problem (’558 Patent, col. 42:47-52).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint refers to "Exemplary '558 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶35, 41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's Fleetilla products practice the technology claimed by the ’558 patent, implying they feature remote control over the power state of their location-determining components (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Fleetilla products" and does not name specific product models (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific technical details about the operation of the accused Fleetilla products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22, 31, 41). The infringement allegations rest on claim chart exhibits which were not provided with the complaint, and it is in these exhibits that the specific functionality is purportedly described (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 31, 41). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the products' specific commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations for all three patents-in-suit are incorporated by reference from external exhibits (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6), which were not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 32, 42). The complaint states that these charts compare the "Exemplary Patent Claims" to the "Exemplary Fleetilla Products" and concludes that the products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22, 31, 41). Without these exhibits, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the face of the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’286 Patent System Architecture: A potential point of contention for claim 1 of the ’286 Patent is the requirement for a "plurality of remote systems" that includes both "a tracking service system" and "a device of a user." The litigation may turn on whether Fleetilla's system architecture can be shown to include these two distinct types of remote systems both communicating with the tracking device as claimed.
    • ’978 Patent Method Steps: For method claim 21 of the ’978 Patent, the dispute will likely focus on the evidence. The question will be whether the accused method can be shown to perform the specific sequence of providing initial configuration data, receiving processed data, and then providing new configuration data to create a different configuration, as opposed to merely sending routine commands.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "configuration data" (’286 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central object of the invention; it is the data that is modified by the "configuration routine" to change the device's functionality. Its definition is critical because if the commands sent to the accused device do not qualify as "configuration data," there can be no infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether simple commands (e.g., "report now") meet the definition, or if it requires a more complex set of operational parameters.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides numerous examples of what the configuration data can determine, including intervals for communication, intervals for data buffering, power states, and geofence parameters, suggesting the term covers a wide range of functional settings (’286 Patent, col. 2:17-41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description includes extensive tables defining a specific communication protocol, with defined structures, fields, and values (e.g., "SET_REPORTING_INTERVAL"). A defendant could argue that "configuration data" should be limited to data conforming to these specific, structured command formats rather than any general instruction (’286 Patent, cols. 9-28).

  • The Term: "a plurality of remote systems" (’286 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the tracking device to be able to communicate with more than one remote system, and specifically names two types: "a tracking service system" and "a device of a user." Infringement of this claim requires proving that the accused system possesses this specific architecture.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties could argue this language simply requires communication with a central server and a user's computer or phone, a common architecture. The specification shows a server ("104") and a subscriber system ("118") as distinct entities communicating through a network (’286 Patent, Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the claim requires proof that both types of remote systems have the capability to perform the claimed functions, such as sending configuration data. If, for example, only the central "tracking service system" can configure the device, and the "device of a user" is for viewing data only, this limitation might not be met.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 28, 38). It also makes conclusory allegations of contributory infringement, stating the products are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 30, 40).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint. The complaint asserts that despite this "actual knowledge," Defendant continues to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 27-28, 37-38). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint's infringement theory is contained entirely within unprovided exhibits, a primary question is whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence (e.g., source code, technical manuals, expert testing) to demonstrate that the accused Fleetilla products perform the specific functions required by each element of the asserted claims.
  • A key question of claim scope will be the construction of "configuration data." The outcome may depend on whether the term is interpreted broadly to mean any command that alters device behavior, or narrowly to require a specific data structure for setting operational parameters as detailed in the patent’s specification.
  • An architectural question of infringement for the ’286 patent will be whether Fleetilla’s system constitutes "a plurality of remote systems" that includes both a "tracking service system" and a "device of a user," both capable of communicating with the tracking device as claimed. The precise roles of the server and the end-user interface in the accused system will be critical.