DCT

1:24-cv-00111

Facet Technology Corp v. TomTom Intl BV

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00111, D.N.H., 05/30/2024
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint was not provided, therefore the specific basis for venue as alleged by the plaintiff cannot be summarized.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s navigation and mapping products infringe a patent related to the automated assessment of reflective objects, such as road signs, along a roadway.
  • Technical Context: The patent addresses automated systems for evaluating roadway infrastructure, a technology critical for asset management, advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), and autonomous vehicle navigation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on May 30, 2024. A disclaimer for claims 12-14 and 17-23 of the patent-in-suit was filed by the assignee on December 9, 2024, post-dating the complaint. This post-filing disclaimer of an independent method claim (12) and an independent system claim (17) may significantly narrow the scope of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255 Priority Date
2016-05-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255 Issue Date
2024-05-30 Complaint Filing Date
2024-12-09 Disclaimer filed for claims 12-14 and 17-23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255 - "System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,335,255, "System and Assessment of Reflective Objects Along a Roadway," issued May 10, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that manual or semi-automated inspection of road signs to assess their physical condition (e.g., retroreflectivity) is expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to scale, particularly when managing a large inventory of traffic control devices ('255 Patent, col. 2:11-24). Existing techniques often required inspectors to manually position a device on the sign or target individual signs from a distance, limiting throughput and efficiency ('255 Patent, col. 3:4-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a vehicle-mounted system that automates this process. As a vehicle travels along a roadway, the system uses a light source to illuminate the roadside, captures data from reflective objects with a light intensity sensor, and employs a computer processing system to analyze the data ('255 Patent, Abstract). This analysis allows for the automated classification of the reflective sheeting material on signs by generating a "retroreflectivity profile" from the sensor data and comparing it to a database of known profiles, all without requiring an operator to target each object individually ('255 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:45-58).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable high-throughput, automated data collection for roadway asset management, a departure from the labor-intensive, single-point measurements that were common at the time ('255 Patent, col. 3:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint was not provided, so the specific asserted claims are unknown. The patent contains one independent claim that has not been disclaimed: Claim 1. The now-disclaimed claims 12 and 17 were also independent. Assuming Claim 1 is central to the dispute, its key elements are:
  • Independent Claim 1: An automated method for classifying a reflective road marker, comprising:
    • using a light source to illuminate at least a portion of the reflective road marker as the light source is traversed along a roadway;
    • collecting a plurality of light intensity measurements reflected from the marker, where the measurements correspond to "exemplary angular displacements of incident light from a reference position";
    • providing a database of "retroreflectivity profiles," with each profile associated with a known road marker type and color;
    • using a computer processing system to:
      • generate an "as-measured retroreflectivity profile" from the light intensity measurements;
      • select a profile from the database that "correlates to" the as-measured profile;
      • determine a road marker type from the selected profile; and
      • classify the marker based on the determined type and its associated color.
  • Complaints typically reserve the right to assert dependent claims at a later stage.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint was not provided. Therefore, the specific accused products, methods, or services, and their allegedly infringing functionalities, cannot be identified or analyzed.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, which would contain the detailed infringement allegations and any supporting claim charts, was not provided. Analysis of the infringement allegations is therefore not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific terms in dispute. However, based on the language of independent Claim 1, the following terms may be central to the case.

  • The Term: "as-measured retroreflectivity profile"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the case will likely turn on what constitutes a "profile" and how it must be "generated" from "light intensity measurements." The definition will determine whether the data structures and analytical models used in modern mapping systems fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses creating a "'best fit' performance curve" and correlating it, which might suggest that a "profile" is not limited to a raw data plot but could encompass a derived mathematical model or a correlated curve ('255 Patent, col. 7:11-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 13 explicitly depicts a graph of "RETRO VALUE" plotted as a function of "ENTRANCE ANGLE," which could support an argument that a "profile" must be a curve representing this specific physical relationship ('255 Patent, Fig. 13).

  • The Term: "correlates to"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the critical matching step between the measured data and the patent's reference database. The required degree of similarity or the specific method of comparison (e.g., statistical, best-fit, threshold-based) will be a key point of contention.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's use of phrases like "best correlates" and establishing a "'best fit' performance curve" could support a construction where any reasonable method of finding the closest match in the database satisfies the limitation ('255 Patent, col. 7:11-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent Claim 9 requires calculating a "degree of correlation" and determining if it "lies between an acceptable range of predefined values," language that could be used to argue that the term "correlates to" in Claim 1 implies a similarly rigorous, quantitative comparison rather than a qualitative match ('255 Patent, col. 19:25-33).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint was not provided. Therefore, no analysis of any allegations of indirect or willful infringement is possible.

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

  1. Impact of Post-Filing Disclaimer: A primary issue will be the legal and strategic effect of the Plaintiff's decision to disclaim two of the patent's three independent claims after filing suit. The court will likely need to evaluate why claims directed to a broader assessment method (Claim 12) and system (Claim 17) were surrendered, thereby focusing the dispute entirely on the more specific marker classification method of Claim 1.
  2. Scope of "Profile Correlation": A central evidentiary question will be one of definitional scope and functional equivalence. Can the "as-measured retroreflectivity profile" of Claim 1, which the patent describes as being derived from a vehicle's optical sensor measurements of physical signs, be construed to read on the data structures and analytical methods used in modern digital mapping systems, which may rely on different data sources and processing techniques?
  3. Applicability to Modern Technology: The case will likely turn on a fundamental question of technical applicability: is the method of Claim 1, rooted in early-2000s technology for assessing the physical properties of road sign sheeting, applicable to the complex data ecosystems of a modern navigation company? The court will have to consider potential mismatches between the patent's specific teachings and the technology allegedly used by the Defendant.