DCT
2:19-cv-03444
Lexidine LLC v. Movin' On Sounds Security Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lexidine, LLC (Oklahoma)
- Defendant: Movin' On Sounds and Security, Inc. d/b/a Movin' On GPS Fleet Management (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-03444, E.D.N.Y., 06/11/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aftermarket brake light cameras infringe a patent related to vehicle cameras integrated into vehicle light housings.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of aftermarket vehicle cameras that are integrated into existing light fixtures, such as third brake lights, to provide a more aesthetically seamless and less obtrusive alternative to conventional add-on cameras.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,609,961, which was subject to an ex parte reexamination requested after the complaint was filed. The reexamination concluded with the issuance of a certificate that amended asserted independent claim 1 by adding new limitations, confirmed the patentability of other claims, and cancelled several claims. The narrowing of claim 1 during reexamination may significantly impact the scope of the infringement analysis.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-04-11 | ’961 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-10-27 | ’961 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-06-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-02-20 | Reexamination of '961 Patent Requested |
| 2022-08-22 | Reexamination Certificate Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,609,961 - “VEHICLE CAMERA”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,609,961, “VEHICLE CAMERA,” issued October 27, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies issues with prior art vehicle cameras that are retrofitted to vehicles. It describes them as being "obtrusive in appearance," creating a risk of theft due to their conspicuous nature, and often requiring drilling holes into the vehicle body for installation (’961 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by integrating a camera assembly inside a standard vehicle light housing, such as a marker or brake light. The camera is concealed within the light’s colored, translucent lens and views the outside through a small opening, making the device less noticeable (’961 Patent, col. 1:51-55). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates this with an exploded view showing the camera assembly (110) designed to fit within the vehicle lens (120), which in turn attaches to a base (130) mounted on the vehicle (’961 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The described approach offers a method for installing aftermarket cameras in a manner that is better integrated with the vehicle's original design, thereby preserving its aesthetic and potentially reducing the likelihood of theft (’961 Patent, col. 1:36-44, 1:53-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims of the '961 Patent, including at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶21).
- Independent claim 1, as originally issued and asserted in the complaint, requires:
- A vehicle lens for an external vehicle light with a translucent colored area and an opening in that area.
- A camera body located within the vehicle lens, having a viewing axis that passes through the opening.
- A base attached to the vehicle lens.
- The viewing axis is at an angle between about 15 and 75 degrees relative to a plane of the base.
- The complaint’s assertion of "one or more claims" suggests Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "Brake Light Cameras," including model numbers MOSS-NV-CAM, MOSS-GMC01, and MOSS-SPRINTER-CAM (Compl. ¶8). Exhibit B is described as an offer for sale of the "MOSS-NV-CAM – Nissan NV Brake Light Backup Camera Model" and provides an image of the product (Compl. p. 10, Ex. B).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as aftermarket camera systems designed to be installed in the external third brake light assembly of specific commercial vans (Compl. ¶8, ¶21). They are alleged to consist of a camera integrated into a red, translucent brake light lens, which serves as a replacement for the vehicle's original factory-installed light (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’961 Patent. The core allegations are summarized below.
’961 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a vehicle lens of an external light for a vehicle light, the vehicle lens having a translucent area of a predetermined color for allowing light transmission therethrough of the predetermined color and having an opening in the translucent area of the vehicle lens; | The Accused Products provide a "vehicle lens for an external third brake light that has a translucent red vehicle lens" and "an opening in the vehicle lens." | ¶21 | col. 3:9-14 |
| a camera body within the vehicle lens having a viewing axis through the opening; and | The Accused Products have a "camera lens within the vehicle lens and having a viewing axis through the opening." | ¶21 | col. 3:28-30 |
| a base attached to the vehicle lens, | The Accused Products "include a base attached to the vehicle lens." | ¶21 | col. 2:60-61 |
| wherein the viewing axis is at an angle between about 15 to 75 degrees with respect to a plane of the base. | The viewing axis "is at an angle of between about 15 to 75 degrees with respect a plane of that base." | ¶21 | col. 3:30-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue arises from the ex parte reexamination of the ’961 patent, which concluded after the complaint was filed. Claim 1 was amended to include new limitations, such as "an internal reflector surface" and "a slanted surface in close proximity to the opening" (Reexam Cert., col. 2:25-31). This raises the question of whether Plaintiff's infringement allegations, based on the original claim, can be sustained against the narrowed, amended claim.
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s allegations are stated in a conclusory manner, closely tracking the claim language. A key technical question for the court will be what evidence is provided to prove that the accused products meet specific limitations. For instance, what objective measurement demonstrates that the camera's "viewing axis" is angled "between about 15 to 75 degrees" relative to the "plane of the base," as required by the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a plane of the base"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining infringement of the claim’s final angular limitation. The base (130) is a three-dimensional part, and the orientation of its "plane" is not explicitly defined, making it a potential focus of claim construction. The method of defining this plane will directly impact the measurement of the camera's viewing angle and whether it falls within the claimed 15-to-75-degree range.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the "plane of the base" refers to the largest, flat mounting surface of the base that contacts the vehicle body, as this represents the primary interface with the vehicle (’961 Patent, Fig. 3, item 140).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show a complex, non-planar base structure (’961 Patent, Fig. 2). A party could argue the "plane" refers to a different surface, such as the plane where the base and lens housings meet, which could alter the resulting angle measurement. The lack of an explicit definition in the specification creates ambiguity.
The Term: "camera body within the vehicle lens"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical relationship between the camera and the light housing, central to the invention's goal of being "unobtrusive" (’961 Patent, col. 1:55). Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it means "partially within" or "completely within"—could be determinative if any portion of an accused camera body is found to be outside the lens housing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes creating an "unobtrusive" appearance, which may not strictly require the camera body to be 100% concealed. An argument could be made that having the substantial portion of the camera body "within" the lens achieves this goal.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also uses the phrase "mounted completely within the vehicle lens" in a different claim (Claim 16, now cancelled) and in the detailed description, suggesting the patentee knew how to use more restrictive language (’961 Patent, col. 3:19-20). The figures also depict the camera body (111) as fully enclosed by the lens (120), which could support a narrower construction (’961 Patent, Fig. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant intentionally "encouraged, instructed, enabled, and otherwise caused" its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. The alleged acts of inducement include providing "information brochures, promotional material, and contact information" on its websites (Compl. ¶22).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it does allege that Defendant continues to infringe despite having knowledge of the ’961 patent from the date of service of the complaint, which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶22). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be the impact of intervening claim amendments: Given that asserted Claim 1 was narrowed during a reexamination that concluded after the complaint was filed, can the Plaintiff prove that the accused products meet the newly added limitations, such as the "internal reflector surface" and "slanted surface"? The viability of the infringement case may depend on this.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric conformance: What technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused camera's viewing axis falls within the specific "15 to 75 degrees" angular range relative to "a plane of the base"—a term whose definition is itself a potential point of dispute?