DCT
0:22-cv-02749
Redmon Jeang LLC v. TurnSignl Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Redmon Jeang LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: TurnSignl, Inc. (Delaware) and TurnSignl Foundation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fox Rothschild LLP; Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
- Case Identification: 0:22-cv-02749, D. Minn., 05/09/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendants have a principal place of business in the state and have committed alleged acts of infringement, such as offering for sale and selling the accused products, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ TurnSignl mobile application and associated system infringe three U.S. patents directed to mobile systems for connecting a user with a lawyer via video during a traffic stop.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates on-demand, location-aware connections between drivers and attorneys during police encounters, aiming to provide real-time legal guidance and de-escalation through live video communication.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated via a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of two of the three patents-in-suit since at least the filing of a prior First Amended Complaint, a fact which may be relevant to the Plaintiff’s allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-19 | Priority Date for ’395, ’861, and ’862 Patents |
| 2022-09-13 | U.S. Patent No. 11,443,395 Issues |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,494,861 Issues |
| 2022-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 11,494,862 Issues |
| 2023-05-09 | Plaintiff Files Second Amended Complaint for Infringement |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,443,395 - "Mobile Legal Counsel System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11443395, issued September 13, 2022. (Compl. ¶8).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need to "defuse and de-escalate tense situations between the police and members of the general public" during encounters like traffic stops. (Compl. ¶12; ’395 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a mobile device application to connect a driver with a remote attorney. Upon a command from the driver, the system is configured to automatically determine the vehicle's location, use that location to identify a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction from a database, and automatically notify that lawyer. The system then establishes a bi-directional audio and video link, allowing the lawyer to serve as a "live observer, witness, and intermediary." (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-11).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to immediately introduce a neutral, legally-trained third party into a potentially volatile real-world event to provide guidance and serve as a moderating presence. (’395 Patent, col. 2:8-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A mobile device with a video camera and display screen for mounting in a vehicle.
- A remote server with a database of lawyers organized by jurisdiction.
- A mobile application that, upon command, communicates with the server, which in turn automatically determines the vehicle's location and jurisdiction, identifies a licensed lawyer, and automatically notifies that lawyer.
- The mobile device is configured to live-stream video of the lawyer to the driver and live-stream video from the vehicle's camera to the lawyer for viewing and storage.
- The mobile device is configured to enable "bi-directional audio and video communication between the at least one identified lawyer and the at least one passenger."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 11,494,861 - "Mobile Legal Counsel System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11494861, issued November 8, 2022. (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its related patent, the ’861 Patent addresses the problem of police encounters by providing a technological means to summon an attorney to "help to de-escalate and defuse the situation." (’861 Patent, col. 2:27-32).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a system for a "user subscriber" where a server, after identifying a suitable lawyer based on location, transmits a notification and then must "receive an acceptance of legal representation engagement" from the lawyer's device before it "automatically and immediately set[s] up a video communication session." (’861 Patent, col. 9:1-12). This two-step confirmation process appears to be a central feature.
- Technical Importance: The invention introduces a formal "acceptance" step into the automated connection workflow, which could serve to confirm the lawyer's availability and willingness to engage before the communication channel is established. (’861 Patent, col. 9:5-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶40).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system comprising a remote server, a database, a video camera, a display screen, and a mobile device executing an application.
- Upon user command, the mobile device communicates its current location to the remote server.
- The remote server is configured to search the database, identify a lawyer licensed for that location, and transmit a notification to that lawyer's computing device.
- The server is further configured to "receive an acceptance of legal representation engagement" from the lawyer's device.
- Following acceptance, the server automatically sets up a bi-directional video session between the lawyer and the user.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent. (Compl. ¶39).
U.S. Patent No. 11,494,862 - "Mobile Legal Counsel System and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11494862, issued November 8, 2022. (Compl. ¶10).
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes a similar mobile lawyer system initiated by a "one-click command" from a user. The invention focuses on the automated server-side process of searching for a lawyer, identifying one, sending a notification, receiving an "acceptance of engagement from a selected one" of the lawyers, and then establishing a bi-directional video session and enabling secure storage of the video data. (’862 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶58).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges the TurnSignl system infringes by providing a "one-click" method for users to connect with location-matched attorneys, establishing a video session, and enabling video from the interaction to be stored. (Compl. ¶¶60-63).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "TurnSignl mobile application system," which includes the TurnSignl App and associated backend infrastructure (collectively, the "Accused System"). (Compl. ¶¶15, 23).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused System as an "on-demand, real-time service that provides 24/7 legal guidance from an attorney to drivers" during events like traffic stops or car accidents. (Compl. ¶17). Users can initiate contact "at the press of a button or voice command" to access a live video chat with an attorney. (Compl. ¶17). The system is also alleged to create a recording of the interaction that is "immediately saved to your personal cloud." (Compl. ¶16). The service is offered as a subscription, with a free option available through a foundation partnership. (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Infringement Allegations: U.S. Patent No. 11,443,395
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile device executing a mobile application configured, upon command from the driver...to communicate with the remote server, wherein the remote server is configured to automatically determine a location of the vehicle, automatically identify a jurisdiction...automatically identify at least one lawyer...and immediately automatically directly notify the...lawyer for assistance | The Accused System includes a mobile app that, upon user command, communicates with a remote server configured to automatically determine vehicle location, identify the corresponding jurisdiction, identify a licensed lawyer, and notify that lawyer. | ¶26 | col. 6:1-11 |
| the display screen of the mobile device configured to live-stream a video image of the at least one identified lawyer for presentation to the driver of the vehicle | The Accused System includes a mobile device with a display screen configured to live-stream a video image of the identified lawyer to the driver. | ¶27 | col. 6:12-15 |
| the at least one video camera is configured to automatically live-stream video captured by the at least one video camera for viewing by the at least one identified lawyer and for storage in the remote database | The Accused System’s video camera is configured to live-stream captured video for viewing by the lawyer and for storage in a remote database, described as a "personal cloud." | ¶¶16, 27 | col. 6:15-19 |
| the at least one mobile device being configured to automatically enable bi-directional audio and video communication between the at least one identified lawyer and the at least one passenger | The Accused System is configured to enable bi-directional audio and video communication between the lawyer and the user/passenger. | ¶27 | col. 6:20-23 |
Infringement Allegations: U.S. Patent No. 11,494,861
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile device executing a mobile application...configured, upon command from the user subscriber, to automatically and immediately communicate a current location of the mobile device to the remote server | The Accused System includes a mobile app that, upon user command, automatically communicates the user's current location to a remote server. | ¶43 | col. 8:56-61 |
| the remote server being configured to: automatically search...lawyers stored in the remote database; automatically identify at least one lawyer licensed in a jurisdiction that correspond to the current location...; automatically transmit at least one notification | The remote server of the Accused System is alleged to be configured to search a database of lawyers, identify one licensed in the user's jurisdiction, and transmit a notification to that lawyer's device. | ¶44 | col. 8:62 - col. 9:4 |
| receive an acceptance of legal representation engagement from the computing device associated with the at least one lawyer | The remote server is alleged to receive an acceptance of engagement from the lawyer's computing device. | ¶44 | col. 9:5-7 |
| automatically and immediately set up a video communication session between the computing device...and the mobile device, so that live video data of the user subscriber is automatically transmitted to the...lawyer and live video data of the...lawyer is automatically transmitted to the display screen | The Accused System is alleged to automatically set up a video session where live video is transmitted between the user and the lawyer. | ¶44 | col. 9:8-15 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A question for the court may be whether the term "the at least one passenger" as required by Claim 1 of the ’395 patent can be satisfied by a system that enables communication with the driver/user. The complaint alleges the system is configured for communication with a passenger (Compl. ¶27), but the factual support for a required configuration specific to a non-driver passenger is not detailed.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question regarding the ’861 patent is what evidence the complaint provides that the Accused System's server performs the specific function of "receiv[ing] an acceptance of legal representation engagement" before establishing the video session. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation to this effect (Compl. ¶44), but does not describe the technical mechanism by which this "acceptance" is received, distinguishing it from merely having a lawyer join a call.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "the at least one passenger" (’395 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’395 patent requires the mobile device to be configured to enable bi-directional communication between the lawyer and "the at least one passenger." The construction of this term is critical because if it is interpreted to mean only an occupant other than the driver, infringement would require proof that the Accused System is specifically configured for this purpose, not just for communication with the primary user/driver.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly discusses the system in the context of a vehicle containing occupants, stating the camera can capture "the actions of any passenger in the car" and "activities that occur around the vehicle." (’395 Patent, col. 4:32-34). This may suggest that "passenger" could be interpreted functionally to include any occupant, including the driver, who is a passenger in the legal sense of being in the vehicle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same claim separately recites "a driver of the vehicle" and "the at least one passenger," suggesting the patentee intended them to be distinct entities under the doctrine of claim differentiation. A defendant may argue that the term must refer to a non-driver occupant, and the system must be specifically configured to enable communication with such an individual.
Term: "receive an acceptance of legal representation engagement" (’861 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the sequence of steps performed by the remote server. The server must not only notify a lawyer but also "receive an acceptance" before setting up the video call. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a formal, two-step confirmation process rather than a simple one-step connection. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the Accused System's server performs this specific step.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart shows a sequence of "RECEIVE REPLY FROM LAWYER(S)" followed by "SELECT ONE LAWYER." (’861 Patent, Fig. 2, steps 44, 46). A plaintiff could argue that any affirmative reply from the lawyer that results in their selection and the initiation of a call functionally constitutes an "acceptance" as contemplated by the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the formal phrase "legal representation engagement" could support a narrower construction requiring more than a simple technical acknowledgment (e.g., clicking "accept call"). A defendant might argue it requires a specific signal from the lawyer's device that confirms the formation of a professional relationship, a feature for which the complaint provides no specific evidence in the Accused System.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants encourage and provide instructions for customers to use the Accused System in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶29, 47, 65). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the TurnSignl App is especially designed for practicing the patented inventions and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶30, 48, 66).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ knowledge of the patents. For the ’395 patent, knowledge is alleged from at least the filing of the lawsuit. For the ’861 and ’862 patents, knowledge is alleged from the earlier filing of a First Amended Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶35, 53, 71).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to several key questions:
- A core issue will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff produce evidence from discovery showing that the TurnSignl backend server operates in the specific manner recited in the claims, particularly whether it executes a discrete step of "receiv[ing] an acceptance of legal representation engagement" (’861 Patent) before establishing a connection?
- A second issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim limitation requiring communication with "the at least one passenger" (’395 Patent) be met by a system configured to enable communication with the driver, or does a court’s construction of this term require a specific configuration for a non-driver occupant that may be absent from the accused system?
- Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: Does the TurnSignl system’s workflow for connecting a user to a lawyer map directly onto the specific, multi-step logical processes claimed in the patents, or will discovery reveal a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that places the accused system outside the scope of the claims?