DCT

2:23-cv-00084

Connected Controls Inc v. DPS Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00084, D. Mont., 11/14/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Montana because Defendant is a Montana corporation that resides and has a regular and established place of business in Bozeman, Montana, where it also allegedly assembles its products and commits acts of infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital air-brake testing systems for the railway industry infringe patents related to wireless air brake testing, data analysis, and inspection reporting.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and software for automating federally mandated air brake tests on trains, aiming to replace error-prone manual testing and handwritten reports with a more efficient and accurate digital process.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and its infringement via a cease and desist letter on or before February 3, 2023, nearly nine months prior to filing the complaint. The U.S. Patent No. 11,479,230 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,814,857, suggesting a related inventive scope and a shared specification.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-09-12 Earliest Priority Date for '857 and '230 Patents
2020-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,814,857 Issues
2022-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 11,479,230 Issues
2023-02-03 Alleged date of pre-suit notice via cease and desist letter
2023-11-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,814,857 - "Wireless Air Brake Testing and Inspection"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,814,857, "Wireless Air Brake Testing and Inspection", issued October 27, 2020 (’857 Patent). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes traditional, manual air brake testing for trains as a process reliant on handwritten reports, which creates a "risk of accidental or purposeful misreporting of results, illegible results, and adds to the amount of time already used to perform an air brake test." (’857 Patent, col. 2:1-5; Compl. ¶¶24-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., software) containing instructions for a processor to automate the testing and reporting workflow. The software receives test data from a remote handheld device, transmits it to a database containing prior test information, compares current and prior results to determine changes and track leakage over time, and automatically generates a completed digital inspection form. (’857 Patent, Abstract, col. 6:8-31; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This technology sought to increase the speed, accuracy, and reliability of federally mandated safety inspections by replacing a manual, paper-based system with a digital, data-driven one. (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4. (Compl. ¶¶68-70).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’857 Patent recites the essential elements of:
    • A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions executable by a processor to:
    • receive information corresponding to an air brake test of a train from a remote handheld device;
    • determine a status of the air brake test;
    • transmit the received information to a database, wherein the database includes prior received information for the train;
    • compare the received information to the prior received information, which includes determining a change in a result of the air brake test and tracking an amount of leakage over time;
    • compile the received information into an air brake test summary that includes the comparison; and
    • generate an inspection form based on the received and compiled information.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, such as claim 3, pending discovery. (Compl. ¶31, fn. 3).

U.S. Patent No. 11,479,230 - "Wireless Air Brake Testing and Inspection"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,479,230, "Wireless Air Brake Testing and Inspection", issued October 25, 2022 (’230 Patent). (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’230 Patent addresses the inefficiencies and inaccuracies of manual air brake testing and reporting in the railway industry. (’230 Patent, col. 2:1-5; Compl. ¶¶24-25).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a complete system that combines physical hardware with the software logic from the parent patent. The claimed system includes a plurality of handheld devices, a control unit, end-of-train air devices with integrated chip sets, an air manifold, a controller, a processor, and a computer-readable medium with instructions to perform the automated test, comparison, and reporting functions. (’230 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:65-col. 8:36).
  • Technical Importance: By claiming the integrated hardware and software combination, the invention protects the entire operational apparatus that provides the automated testing solution, not just the software component. (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6. (Compl. ¶¶101-103).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’230 Patent recites the essential elements of a system comprising:
    • a plurality of handheld devices with transceivers;
    • a control unit coupled to a handheld device;
    • a plurality of end-of-train air devices coupled to air brakes, each with an integrated chip set to send pressure readings to the control unit;
    • an air manifold coupled to the air brakes;
    • a controller coupled to the control unit and air manifold to selectively supply air;
    • a processor coupled to the controller and control unit; and
    • a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions (substantially similar to those in claim 1 of the ’857 Patent) for data processing and form generation.
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis for other dependent claims. (Compl. ¶35, fn. 5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "DPS Electronics System," which are alleged to be created by combining various DPS Electronics Inc products, including but not to be limited to the DPS 9000-IB YAC, DPS 9000 YAC, DPS 9000-TIB (Mobile) YAC, DPS 9000-M (Multi) YAC, and the DPS 2020-He-LD ETD (End-of-Train Device). (Compl. ¶¶44-45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Systems are digital air-brake testing systems for the railway industry, competing directly with the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶4). They are alleged to include a central computer or PLC to conduct tests and communicate with end-of-train devices. (Compl. ¶79). The system allegedly allows users to employ electronic handheld devices, such as a tablet or smartphone, to remotely control test parameters, monitor status, and view results. (Compl. ¶¶55, 57). The complaint alleges the systems use a "cloud-based server" for communications and to receive "live-streamed air pressure data." (Compl. ¶¶60-61, 91). DPS allegedly promotes the systems as being able to use "historical data [to] easily analyze" measurements and compare changes over time. (Compl. ¶¶62, 96).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’857 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receive information corresponding to an air brake test of a train from a remote handheld device The Accused Systems allegedly use handheld electronic devices (e.g., tablet, computer, smartphone) to begin, monitor, and view the results of air brake tests. ¶¶55, 57, 66 col. 6:8-11
determine a status of the air brake test The Accused Systems allegedly analyze test measurements, including leakage, and display real-time test results. ¶¶58, 62, 66 col. 6:12-13
transmit the received information to a database, wherein the database includes prior received information for the train The Accused Systems allegedly use a "cloud-based server" to hold communications and are capable of exporting data to programs like Microsoft Excel for analysis. ¶¶60, 65, 66 col. 6:14-17
compare the received information to the prior received information for the train, wherein comparing...further comprises: determining a change in a result...and tracking an amount of leakage over time DPS allegedly promotes its products by stating they can use "historical data [to] easily analyze" and allow users to "see and store changes in results" and compare them to historical changes, including leakage over time. ¶¶62, 66 col. 6:18-24
compile the received information into an air brake test summary... The Accused Systems allegedly collect and allow analysis of test data, including time of test, train identification, pressures, and leakage in PSI over time. ¶¶62, 66 col. 6:25-29
generate an inspection form based on the received and compiled information An inspection form is allegedly generated from the collected data, and the results can be electronically recorded and printed. ¶¶63, 64, 66 col. 6:30-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's "cloud-based server" and data export capabilities (Compl. ¶¶60, 65) meet the claim requirement of a "database" that "includes prior received information for the train." The interpretation of "database" will be critical.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system's alleged function to "easily analyze" "historical data" (Compl. ¶62) performs the specific, two-part comparison required by the claim: "determining a change in a result" and "tracking an amount of leakage over time for the train"? The litigation may focus on whether the accused functionality is a mere presentation of historical data points or if it performs the specific comparative analysis claimed.

’230 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system, comprising: a plurality of handheld devices including a plurality of transceivers The Accused Systems are used with handheld electronic devices like tablets and smartphones, which inherently contain transceivers for communication. ¶¶80, 82 col. 2:21-26
a control unit coupled to a handheld device... The Accused Systems allegedly include a "central computer or PLC" that connects to handheld devices to conduct tests. ¶¶79, 80 col. 2:38-44
a plurality of end-of-train air devices...wherein...each...comprises an integrated chip set to send a pressure metric reading to the control unit The Accused Systems allegedly use the DPS 2020-He-LD as an end-of-train device, and it is alleged that "most end-of-train devices contained an integrated chip set." ¶¶85, 87 col. 2:49-54
an air manifold coupled to the plurality of air brakes The air brakes used with the Accused Systems are alleged to be "typically coupled with an air manifold." ¶90 col. 3:11-12
a controller coupled to the control unit and to the air manifold, wherein the controller selectively supplies air The Accused Systems allegedly contain a central computer/PLC and allow users to "remotely control all parameters of the brake test," including brake application, which implies a controller function. ¶¶79, 92, 95 col. 3:19-24
a processor coupled to the controller and the control unit The Accused Systems are alleged to contain "a processor coupled to the controller and the control system." ¶92 col. 3:48-49
a non-transitory computer readable medium... [with instructions to receive, determine, compare, compile, and generate] The complaint makes the same allegations regarding historical data analysis, storing changes, and generating reports as it does for the ’857 Patent. ¶¶96-98 col. 8:1-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether DPS "makes," "uses," or "sells" the complete claimed "system." The complaint alleges that DPS sells components that "when combined...create an infringing system" (Compl. ¶45), raising the question of whether direct infringement can be proven against DPS, or if the case will rely on theories of divided and indirect infringement.
    • Technical Questions: What is the nature of the "central computer or PLC" (Compl. ¶79) in the accused system, and does it meet the claim limitations of both a "control unit" and a "controller" as distinct elements coupled in the manner required by the claim? Further, does the accused DPS 2020-He-LD ETD in fact contain the claimed "integrated chip set"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’857 Patent: "database"

  • The Term: "database"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the limitations for transmitting and comparing information. The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused "cloud-based server" or data export functionality (Compl. ¶¶60, 65) qualifies as the claimed "database" that "includes prior received information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could determine whether a simple data log or a structured, queryable information repository is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term generally, referring to "a collection of information that is kept together in a particular location for easy access and reference" and states it "may include previous air brake test results over a period of time." (’857 Patent, col. 6:18-23). This could support a broader definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the database in a more specific context, where "each train on a rail yard may have its own train's particular database" and is accessible to an "overseer of a rail yard or a company employee." (’857 Patent, col. 6:23-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more formally structured and managed data store.

’230 Patent: "control unit"

  • The Term: "control unit"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "control unit" coupled to the handheld device and also coupled to the "controller" and "processor." The complaint alleges a "central computer or PLC" (Compl. ¶79) satisfies this role. The construction of "control unit" and how it is differentiated from the "controller" will be critical to the system claim analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting that a single control unit is shown but "multiple control units 104 may be used" and that it "may be coupled to handheld unit 102 wirelessly." (’230 Patent, col. 2:45-48). This may support a broad interpretation covering various computing devices that coordinate communications.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description depict the "control unit" (104) as a distinct architectural component that communicates with the handheld devices (102) on one side and the "controller" (110) on the other. (’230 Patent, Fig. 1). An argument could be made that it must be a structurally separate or logically distinct module from the controller itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that DPS provides customers with "product descriptions and instructions that explain in detail how to use DPS Electronics Inc' products to create and use" the infringing systems. (Compl. ¶46). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming that DPS sells "YAC Products," which are a "material part" of the invention, know they are "especially made or adapted for use in infringement," and are not a "staple article or commodity of commerce." (Compl. ¶¶47, 70, 103).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that DPS had "knowledge and notice of the Asserted Patents, as well as of its own infringement thereof, since at least February 3, 2023, by written notice via a cease and desist letter." (Compl. ¶49). The infringement is alleged to have been and to continue to be willful. (Compl. ¶¶75, 108).

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's findings on several central questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of system infringement: For the ’230 Patent, does DPS directly infringe by making, using, or selling the entire claimed combination of hardware and software, or will the case depend on proving indirect infringement, where DPS's liability arises from its customers combining the sold components to form the complete infringing system?
  • A second issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "database" from the ’857 Patent, which the specification describes as a collection of prior test results for a specific train, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused system's alleged "cloud-based server" and general-purpose data export functions?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused software's advertised ability to "analyze historical data" perform the specific, multi-part logical functions required by the claims—such as "tracking an amount of leakage over time"—or does this represent a functional mismatch between marketing language and the technical operation recited in the patent?