DCT
9:21-cv-00063
Site 2020 Inc v. Superior Traffic Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Site 2020 Inc (Nova Scotia, Canada)
- Defendant: Superior Traffic Services, LLC (Montana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC
- Case Identification: 9:21-cv-00063, D. Mont., 07/27/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Montana because the Defendant's principal place of business is located within the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable traffic signal and Automated Flagger Assistance Device (AFAD) systems infringe patents related to systems for remotely managing traffic at worksites.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, wirelessly-controlled traffic management systems designed to replace or assist human flaggers at temporary worksites, aiming to increase safety and operational flexibility.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated via a First Amended Complaint. The asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,055,993 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 10,249,186. The complaint alleges that pre-suit attempts to resolve the dispute were dismissed by the Defendant.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-03-11 | Priority Date for ’186 and ’993 Patents |
| 2019-04-02 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 10,249,186 |
| 2021-07-06 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 11,055,993 |
| 2021-07-27 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,249,186, "System and Method for Managing Traffic at a Worksite," Issued April 2, 2019
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the significant safety risks faced by human flaggers who must stand in or near traffic to manage vehicle flow at worksites, as well as the high cost and operational limitations of this practice (’186 Patent, col. 1:11-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable traffic management system where an operator can use a wireless control device (e.g., a smartphone) to safely and remotely control one or more traffic signals. The operator's device communicates over a wide-area network (like cellular) to a local base station, which in turn commands the traffic signals over a local wireless network, allowing the operator to be positioned far from the roadway (’186 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). The system can function in a manual mode, responding to direct operator commands, or in a pre-programmed automatic mode (’186 Patent, col. 7:13-21).
- Technical Importance: The technology allows for the replacement of human flaggers with a remotely-operated system, which can enhance worker safety and provide more coordinated, flexible control over traffic at temporary sites (’186 Patent, col. 1:11-25).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 14, and 18, focusing on the system, method, and computer-readable medium, respectively (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).
- Independent Claim 1, a system claim, includes the following essential elements:
- A traffic control signal
- A wireless interface for the traffic control signal
- A mast and a support base
- A wireless control device for operator input
- A base station that communicates with the control device via a wide area network and with the wireless interface via a local area network
- The base station is configured to receive input, generate control signals, and transmit them to the traffic control signal
- The base station operates in either an automatic or a manual mode
U.S. Patent No. 11,055,993, "System and Method for Managing Traffic at a Worksite," Issued July 6, 2021
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The ’993 patent addresses the same safety and efficiency problems with human flaggers at worksites as its parent ’186 Patent (’993 Patent, col. 1:11-25).
- The Patented Solution: As a continuation, this patent refines the system by explicitly claiming a portable base station and adding a sensor, specifically a camera, mounted on the traffic signal's mast. This camera is configured to collect traffic data and transmit it to the base station, which can then automatically generate control signals in response to detected "traffic congestion" to allow vehicles to pass and alleviate the backup (’993 Patent, cl. 1).
- Technical Importance: This patent adds an explicit layer of "smart" automation, enabling the system not only to be remotely controlled but also to react autonomously to real-time traffic conditions detected by its own sensors (’993 Patent, col. 11:26-35).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12, covering the system and method, respectively (Compl. ¶42, ¶58).
- Independent Claim 1 builds upon the earlier patent and adds key elements, including:
- A portable base station supported by legs or a vehicle
- A sensor mounted on the mast, which is a camera
- The camera collects and transmits traffic data to the base station
- The base station, "in the event of traffic congestion," generates a further control signal to the traffic system "to allow vehicles to pass and thereby alleviate the traffic congestion"
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's Automated Flagger Assistance Devices ("AFADs"), Portable Traffic Signals ("PTSs"), and associated "TESS Controller" technology (Compl. ¶27, ¶42).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s AFAD is a trailer-mounted system with LED traffic lights, message boards, and gate arms (Compl. ¶30). The system is allegedly controlled by a "TESS Controller," which facilitates wireless communication using a "triple-redundant" system of 900 MHz radio, 2.4 GHz WiFi, and 4G LTE Cellular (Compl. ¶14). The complaint states that operators can use a "TESS app" for manual control or run the system in an automatic "pilot-car mode" (Compl. ¶13). An image provided in the complaint shows the accused AFAD product, a portable signal on a wheeled base with a breakaway gate arm (Compl. p. 11, Exhibit 2). The complaint positions these products as "makeshift" devices competing directly with Plaintiff's systems (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’186 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a traffic control signal | The accused AFAD system, which includes "12-inch LED lights" and "Mini message boards." | ¶30 | col. 5:50-54 |
| a wireless interface in communication with the traffic control signal... | The "TESS Controller," which is described as enabling communication with and operation of the signal lights. | ¶12-13 | col. 4:10-12 |
| a mast for supporting the traffic control signal; and a support base for supporting the mast on a surface | An "adjustable 105" to 147" operating height" mast supported by an "Easy to tow" trailer that serves as the support base. | ¶13 | col. 4:36-44 |
| a wireless control device configured to receive input, the input for controlling the traffic control signal | The "TESS app," which is used to "manually control traffic from a safe vantage point." | ¶13 | col. 4:45-48 |
| a base station in communication with the wireless control device via a wide area network and the wireless interface via a local area network... | The "TESS Controller," acting as the base station, allegedly communicates using 4G LTE Cellular (WAN) and 900 MHz radio/2.4 GHz WiFi (LAN). | ¶14 | col. 6:61-65 |
| wherein the base station operates in one of an automatic mode or a manual mode... | The system is alleged to operate manually via the TESS app or automatically in modes such as "pilot-car mode." | ¶13-14 | col. 7:13-21 |
’993 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a portable base station... supported by one of either base station legs or a vehicle to elevate the base station to improve reception | The "TESS base station" is described as portable and mounted on a trailer (a vehicle). An annotated image shows the "Elevated 'TESS' base station" on the signal mast. | ¶31; p. 15 | col. 4:38-42 |
| a sensor mounted on the mast, the sensor configured to collect traffic data... wherein the sensor is a camera mounted on the mast | The accused system is described as having "Redundant Communication, Cameras, & Detection Systems," with a camera mounted on the mast. | ¶32; p. 15 | col. 9:1-11 |
| [the base station] which in the event of traffic congestion... generates a further control signal for transmission to the traffic control system to allow vehicles to pass and thereby alleviate the traffic congestion | The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that Defendant's AFAD systems are configured to generate control signals automatically in response to traffic data from cameras. | ¶33 | col. 9:12-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Mapping: A central question for the ’186 Patent is whether the Defendant's integrated "TESS Controller" and app architecture maps onto the claim limitations of a "base station," "wireless control device," "wide area network," and "local area network." The defense may argue that the patent's consistent depiction of a physically separate, tripod-mounted base station (’186 Patent, Fig. 1) suggests a different architecture than the accused product's integrated controller.
- Evidentiary Burden for Automation: For the ’993 Patent, the infringement allegation for the automated congestion-response feature rests on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶33). A critical issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused system performs the specific function of detecting "congestion" and responsively generating signals "to alleviate" it, as the complaint does not cite public-facing material for this specific functionality.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "base station"
- Context and Importance: This term is the system's central hub. The plaintiff’s infringement theory requires this term to read on the accused "TESS Controller." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent figures consistently show a distinct, tripod-mounted unit, whereas the accused product appears to integrate this component into the main signal mast, a factual distinction that could be leveraged during claim construction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad functional definition, stating the base station is "generally configured to receive the data from the wireless control device... and to generate control signals" (’186 Patent, col. 4:6-9). This could support an interpretation where any component performing this central processing role qualifies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment, depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 4, shows the base station (80) as a physically separate component from the traffic signal system (55). A defendant could argue this consistent depiction limits the term to a non-integrated unit.
- The Term: "in the event of traffic congestion ... generates a further control signal ... to allow vehicles to pass and thereby alleviate the traffic congestion" (from '993 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the "smart" functionality of the ’993 patent. Infringement hinges on proving the accused system performs this specific, purpose-driven logic.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a processor can analyze camera images to "determine the number of cars," and if it indicates "a large number of vehicles lined up," the system generates a control signal "to allow vehicles to pass to alleviate the traffic congestion" (’186 Patent, col. 9:12-22, incorporated by reference into the ’993 patent). This could support a reading on any system that reacts to a vehicle queue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "traffic congestion" is a specific condition beyond the mere presence of vehicles, and that the system must generate a signal for the explicit purpose of "alleviating" that condition. This could require a more complex analysis than simple vehicle detection, potentially narrowing the claim scope away from a basic presence-detection feature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing a website and instructions that guide customers to set up and operate the accused AFAD systems in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶53, ¶64). The complaint also notes that pre-suit outreach to the Defendant was met with a "brusque dismissal of Plaintiff's inquiry," which may be used to argue that any post-suit infringement is willful (Compl. ¶8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Architectural Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "base station", as understood in light of a specification that consistently depicts it as a physically separate, tripod-mounted unit, be construed to read on the allegedly integrated "TESS Controller" of the accused system?
- Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, beyond its "information and belief" pleading, that the accused AFADs actually perform the intelligent, congestion-alleviating logic recited in claim 1 of the ’993 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed function and the accused product's operation?