Social Positioning Input Systems LLC v. Pervasive Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Pervasive Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kluger Healey, LLC; Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01488, D.N.J., 03/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is deemed a resident of the District of New Jersey, having a place of business in Kearny, NJ, where acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MMGuardian Parental Control application infringes a patent related to remotely entering, storing, and sharing location data for positional information devices like GPS units.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for programming positional devices (e.g., GPS) by communicating with a remote server, which simplifies address entry and enables sharing of location information between devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit is a "pioneering patent" that has been cited as relevant prior art in subsequent applications by major technology companies. It also notes that the patent’s claims are enforceable for past damages through its statutory life, which the complaint asserts extends to at least April 2026.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365 - "Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365, "Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device", issued February 16, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes several problems with GPS devices circa 2006, including the difficulty of programming destination addresses due to inconsistent user interfaces and address recognition formats, the inefficiency of entering the same address into multiple vehicles' systems individually, and the safety risks of attempting to program a device while driving (Compl. ¶17; ’365 Patent, col. 1:54-2:25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user's device communicates with a remote server or service center. The user can provide a location request (e.g., via voice to a live operator), and the remote server determines the corresponding geographic coordinates and transmits them directly to the user's positional device. This automates the programming of the device and allows addresses to be shared between multiple devices registered to the same user via the central server (’365 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-65).
• Technical Importance: This method aimed to make GPS navigation safer and more user-friendly by offloading the complex and potentially distracting task of address entry to a remote service (’365 Patent, col. 2:38-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’365 Patent, col. 13:54-14:2).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Sending a request from a "requesting positional information device" to a server.
  • The request is for "at least one address stored in at least one sending positional information device."
  • The request includes a "first identifier" of the requesting device.
  • Receiving the retrieved address at the requesting device.
  • This occurs after the server uses the "first identifier" to determine a "second identifier" for the "sending positional information device" and retrieves the requested address from it.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The MMGuardian Parental Control application ("Product") (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is an application that "utilizes a tracking and management method for monitoring real-time GPS locations" (Compl. ¶27). This functionality allows a user (e.g., a parent) to receive real-time location information from one or more other positional devices (e.g., a child's mobile device) (Compl. ¶27). The system involves communication between devices, presumably through a central server, to facilitate this location tracking and management (Compl. ¶32).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶32, ¶37). The following analysis is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’365 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "address." The patent specification frequently discusses "address" in the context of a destination for route guidance (e.g., a street address) (’365 Patent, col. 1:61-63). The infringement allegation, however, appears to equate "address" with the real-time GPS coordinates of a tracked device. The question for the court will be whether the term "address" can be construed broadly enough to cover real-time location data in a tracking context, as opposed to a pre-defined navigational destination.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires retrieval of an "address stored in" the sending device. A technical question is whether the accused system's reporting of real-time GPS coordinates constitutes retrieval of "stored" information. The analysis may turn on whether the location data is held in memory on the child's device in a manner that qualifies as "stored" before being transmitted, or if it is generated and transmitted on-the-fly, which may not satisfy the "stored in" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "address"

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case may depend on this term's scope. If "address" is construed narrowly to mean only pre-programmed navigational destinations (e.g., street addresses), the infringement allegations concerning real-time location tracking might fail. If construed broadly to include any form of location information, including real-time coordinates, the plaintiff's position may be supported. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s examples differ from the accused functionality.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "address" without explicit limitation to street addresses or destinations. The patent also discusses receiving "location information" more generally, which could support a broader reading (’365 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and detailed description are replete with examples of traditional street addresses and navigational destinations, such as "19333 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles, Fla." (’365 Patent, col. 1:61-63). The problem solved by the invention is framed around the difficulty of programming such destinations into a GPS for route guidance, suggesting a narrower, context-specific meaning (’365 Patent, col. 1:54-2:25).

The Term: "stored in"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the accused real-time tracking function meets the claim limitation. The infringement theory requires that the location information be "stored in" the child's device before being retrieved. Whether transiently holding GPS coordinates in memory for immediate transmission meets this requirement will be a point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify a duration or type of storage (e.g., persistent vs. volatile). An argument could be made that any presence in device memory, however brief, qualifies as "stored."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses storing addresses and other information in "internal or removable memory" such as "memory cards, optical media," which implies a more permanent or user-initiated form of storage than simply holding real-time data in RAM for transmission (’365 Patent, col. 1:47-54; col. 4:38-40).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused product in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’365 Patent (Compl. ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim chart" (Compl. ¶36). The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself constitutes actual knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶34).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "address", which is described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of navigational destinations, be construed to cover the real-time GPS coordinates of a mobile device in the accused parental tracking application?

2. A second key issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused system's function of reporting a device's current location satisfy the claim requirement of retrieving an "address 'stored in'" that device, or does the claim require the retrieval of information that was more permanently or intentionally saved in the device's memory?

3. An evidentiary question will be one of inducement: Assuming direct infringement is found, what specific instructions in Defendant's product literature and website materials actively encourage users to perform the patented method, and does Defendant possess the requisite intent for its actions to constitute inducement?