DCT

2:25-cv-18119

Autolocate System LLC v. Academy Bus LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-18119, D.N.J., 12/03/2025

  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant is incorporated there and maintains an established place of business in the district.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle tracking and passenger information systems infringe a patent related to wirelessly transmitting a vehicle's current location and estimated time of arrival to a requestor's mobile device.

  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses real-time vehicle tracking for public transportation, a domain critical for improving passenger experience and operational efficiency in transit systems.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-01-08 ’904 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/757,560)
2012-12-25 ’904 Patent Issued
2025-12-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,340,904 - Transmission of wireless messages of current vehicle location and estimated arrival time to requestors

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,340,904, “Transmission of wireless messages of current vehicle location and estimated arrival time to requestors,” issued December 25, 2012 (’904 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inconvenience and uncertainty faced by passengers waiting for public transportation, such as a bus. Posted schedules are often unreliable due to traffic, breakdowns, or other delays, leaving passengers with no information about a vehicle's actual location or arrival time (’904 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a communication device installed on a vehicle uses a GPS processor to determine its geographic location. This on-vehicle device is configured to receive a real-time request from a remote user's portable device (e.g., a cell phone) and, in response, automatically generate and transmit a message directly back to that user, providing the vehicle's current location and estimated time of arrival at various stops along its route (’904 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:8-21). The system is designed to operate without requiring the user to interact with a stationary communication device (’904 Patent, col. 9:18-21).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents an approach to providing dynamic, real-time transit information directly to passengers, moving beyond static, printed schedules to improve service predictability and user convenience (’904 Patent, col. 1:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’904 Patent without specifying particular claims (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is foundational and its elements include:

  • A wireless communication device disposed on a vehicle for public transportation scheduled to stop at a plurality of stops.
  • The device comprises a vehicle location processor for receiving GPS data to compute the vehicle's geographic location.
  • The device also comprises a request response subsystem for:
    • receiving a real-time wireless telephonic signal from a remote requestor carrying a portable communication device;
    • automatically generating and transmitting a real-time vehicle location message directly to the requestor's portable device;
    • doing so without requiring the use of a stationary communication device; and
    • indicating the time the vehicle will arrive at each of the plurality of stops.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products" (Compl. ¶11). Given the defendant is a bus operator, the accused instrumentality is presumably a system used by Academy Bus to provide passengers with real-time bus location and arrival time information.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '904 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It suggests these products involve providing vehicle location and schedule information to end-users, as it alleges Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on how the accused system operates or its specific features.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" but does not attach this exhibit (Compl. ¶16-17). In lieu of a chart, the complaint makes broad, narrative allegations that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). Without the specific product identification or claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant makes, uses, or sells a system that provides real-time vehicle location and arrival information to users in a manner covered by the ’904 Patent's claims (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • System Architecture: A central question will be whether the accused system transmits information "directly to the portable communication device of the remote requestor, without requiring to use a stationary communication device," as claim 1 requires. Many modern transit-tracking systems route requests and data through centralized servers, which could be characterized as "stationary communication devices," potentially creating a dispute over this negative limitation.
    • Nature of the Request: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system receives a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" from a user. The characterization of a data request from a mobile application versus a traditional SMS or voice call could become a point of contention.
    • Evidentiary Basis: The complaint offers only conclusory allegations of infringement. A key question for the case will be what evidence emerges during discovery regarding the specific functionality and architecture of the accused Academy Bus system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "real-time wireless telephonic signal"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed system's response. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether modern communication protocols, such as data requests from a smartphone app over an IP network, fall within the scope of a term that includes "telephonic." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the patent covers current mobile technology or is limited to older communication methods.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions sending "a short message or other type of message signals," which could support an interpretation that includes various forms of digital communication beyond traditional telephony (’904 Patent, col. 5:15-17).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of "telephonic" could be argued to limit the signal to one carried over a conventional telephone network. The specification also refers to a "cellular phone user" and charging for an "incoming call," which may suggest a context rooted in voice or SMS-based communication (’904 Patent, col. 5:13, 5:22-24).

  • Term: "without requiring to use a stationary communication device"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a potentially significant boundary on claim scope. The dispute will likely center on whether this limitation applies to the user's interaction (i.e., the user does not need a landline) or to the entire back-end system architecture (i.e., the system cannot rely on a central server). The viability of the infringement claim could depend entirely on this interpretation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff-favored): The claim language could be interpreted from the user's perspective, meaning the requestor is not required to use a stationary device. This reading would allow for intermediary servers as long as the user interaction is fully mobile.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant-favored): The language states the on-vehicle device generates and transmits the message "directly" to the user's device "without requiring" a stationary device. This could be read to preclude the use of intermediary servers, which are inherently stationary, for routing the communication (’904 Patent, col. 9:15-21).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since the filing of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly and intentionally encouraged infringement by selling the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on their infringing use (Compl. ¶14-15).

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the ’904 Patent. The basis for willfulness is constructive knowledge established by the service of the complaint itself, alleging that any continued infringement thereafter is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "real-time wireless telephonic signal," as used in a 2006-priority patent, be construed to encompass modern, app-based data requests over IP networks, or is its meaning confined to the SMS and voice-call context suggested elsewhere in the patent?

  2. The case will likely turn on a question of system architecture: Does the negative limitation "without requiring to use a stationary communication device" preclude a system architecture that relies on central servers to process requests and transmit information? The resolution will depend on whether this phrase is interpreted from the user's perspective or as a strict limitation on the back-end communication path.

  3. A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, the case will depend on evidence developed in discovery to establish precisely how the accused Academy Bus system functions, particularly how it receives user requests and generates and transmits location and arrival time data.