DCT

2:25-cv-05178

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Forward Thinking Systems LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05178, E.D.N.Y., 09/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the District and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement from those locations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management platforms, vehicle-mounted cameras, and tracking solutions infringe a portfolio of nine U.S. patents related to wireless communication, mobile data management, and navigation tracking.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for managing wireless communications in congested environments and systems for collecting, processing, and transmitting data from mobile devices, which are foundational to the vehicle telematics and fleet management industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-17 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586
2001-09-21 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040
2002-11-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,206,837
2003-04-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153
2005-07-20 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388
2005-10-31 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,593,751
2005-11-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586
2006-04-11 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845
2006-06-06 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040
2007-04-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,206,837
2007-08-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153
2008-06-20 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968
2009-08-25 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
2009-09-29 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,593,751
2010-02-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845
2010-06-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968
2010-06-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388
2013-07-23 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581
2025-09-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 - Channel Interference Reduction

Issued June 6, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of radio frequency (RF) interference that occurs when different wireless communication systems, such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi, operate simultaneously in the same unlicensed frequency band (e.g., 2.4 GHz) (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, col. 1:11-32). This co-channel operation can lead to data packet destruction and degraded network performance (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, col. 1:33-36). Note: The '040 patent was not provided; this analysis relies on the specification of U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, which is a continuation of the '040 patent application, shares the same title, and is also asserted in the complaint.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for managing data transmission over these overlapping media by using a time-division multiple access (TDMA) approach. The system computes and allocates distinct time-slot channels to each medium, instructing their respective transceivers to communicate only within their assigned slots (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, Abstract; col. 3:41-57). This time-based separation prevents the systems from transmitting at the same time and interfering with each other (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, col. 3:1-4).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provided a framework for enabling the coexistence of multiple, distinct wireless protocols within the increasingly crowded unlicensed radio spectrum, a critical development for the proliferation of consumer and enterprise mobile devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 of the '040 patent (which corresponds to claim 1 of the '845 patent) include:
    • A base station allocating at least one data channel to a first medium for transmission via a wireless device.
    • The base station allocating at least one remaining data channel to a second medium for transmission.
    • The base station dynamically adjusting the number of assigned data channels during transmission to maintain a desired level of service.

U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 - Packet Generation Systems and Methods

Issued June 22, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the persistent demand for higher data rates in wireless communication networks, such as those based on the IEEE 802.11 standards ('388 Patent, col. 1:1-5). Existing protocols have defined data rates that may become insufficient for modern applications.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to increase the data rate of a wireless protocol by modifying the structure of the data packet. Specifically, it involves increasing the standard size of a packet by "adding subcarriers" to a training symbol within the packet's preamble to create an "extended data signal" ('388 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:15-24). This allows more data to be encoded and transmitted within a single packet, thereby increasing the overall throughput of the communication link ('388 Patent, col. 2:15-20).
  • Technical Importance: This technology offers a way to enhance the performance of established wireless standards by extending their packet structures, potentially allowing for backward compatibility with legacy devices while enabling higher data rates for new devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Generating a packet with a size corresponding to a network protocol, where the packet has a preamble with a first and second training symbol.
    • Increasing the packet's size by adding subcarriers to the second training symbol, creating an extended packet where the second training symbol has more subcarriers than the first.
    • Transmitting the extended packet from an antenna.

U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 - Channel Interference Reduction

Issued Feb. 2, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '040 patent, addresses RF interference between co-located wireless systems (e.g., Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) by allocating distinct transmission time slots to each system and dynamically adjusting these allocations to maintain service quality (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses FleetCam devices, which allegedly utilize multiple wireless technologies, of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 - Multi Input Multi Output Wireless Communication Method and Apparatus...

Issued Aug. 21, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: Based on its title, this patent relates to Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless communication, a technology that uses multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver to improve communication performance, such as range and data rate.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses FleetCam devices of infringing this patent, suggesting their wireless transceivers employ MIMO techniques (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 7,206,837 - Intelligent Trip Status Notification

Issued Apr. 17, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The title suggests a system for providing users with trip status information and alerts, likely based on processing data such as location, time, traffic, and weather to estimate metrics like time-of-arrival.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The FleetCam fleet management software, IoT gateway devices, and dashcams are accused of infringing this patent, implicating their trip monitoring and notification features (Compl. ¶66).

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,751 - Conducting Field Operations Using Handheld Data Management Devices

Issued Sep. 29, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes systems and methods for using handheld devices to conduct field operations. The technology involves using the device to obtain client-specific information, identify an assessment problem, and compile data, with the ability to provide that data to a remote computer for analysis ('751 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 6 is asserted (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses FleetCam's fleet management software and mobile applications, including the Electronic Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR), of infringement (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 - Field Assessments Using Handheld Data Management Devices

Issued Nov. 1, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the '751 patent, this invention relates to using handheld devices to execute field assessments. It enables assessors to access industry-specific programs and synchronize data with remote systems, facilitating two-way communication for real-time assistance and information access ('586 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The FleetCam fleet management software, mobile apps, and DVIR solutions are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 8,494,581 - System and Methods for Management of Mobile Field Assets via Wireless and Held Devices

Issued July 23, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The title indicates a system for managing mobile assets (such as vehicles in a fleet) using wireless handheld devices. This likely involves collecting, communicating, and processing field data based on the geographical location of the assets.
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 21 and 22 are asserted (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The FleetCam fleet management software, mobile apps, and DVIR solutions are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶96).

U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968 - System and Method for Navigation Tracking of Individuals in a Group

Issued June 22, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for "permissive navigational tracking," where a sending device selectively transmits its navigation data to a receiving party over a period of time ('968 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The system allows a master device to establish a communication link and display the geographic positions of other devices in a group ('968 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 4 is asserted (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: FleetCam's full suite of hardware and software for fleet tracking is accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶106).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are collectively identified as the "FleetCam fleet management platform and tracking solutions" (Compl. ¶15). This includes a range of hardware and software products such as FleetCam devices (e.g., FC-PRO-NA-22), FleetCam dashcams, IoT gateway devices, and associated software applications like the IntelliHub Real-Time Fleet Management Software and Field Warrior Mobile Workforce Management App (Compl. ¶15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products constitute an integrated system for commercial vehicle and asset tracking. The hardware components, installed in vehicles, are alleged to capture and transmit data wirelessly (Compl. ¶15, ¶106). The software components provide a platform for dispatching, routing, and real-time management of a fleet of mobile assets (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges these products are advertised and sold through Defendant's website (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent (e.g., Exhibit A, B, C); however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Accordingly, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

7,058,040 Infringement Allegations Summary

  • Narrative Theory: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '040 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶24-25). A potential infringement theory is that the FleetCam devices, which may employ multiple wireless radios (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi), manage co-channel interference by allocating and adjusting communication channels between these different wireless media in a manner that practices the claimed method.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether any component of the accused system functions as a "base station" that performs the active "allocating" and "dynamically adjusting" steps as required by the claim.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence demonstrating that the accused products perform dynamic channel adjustments during transmission specifically to maintain a "desired level of service," a key functional limitation of the asserted claim.

7,742,388 Infringement Allegations Summary

  • Narrative Theory: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '388 patent (Compl. ¶34-35). An infringement theory could be that the wireless transmitters within the FleetCam devices use a communication protocol (e.g., a proprietary or extended version of 802.11) that "adds subcarriers" to training symbols in the packet preamble to achieve higher data rates than a baseline standard.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what specific wireless communication protocol the Accused Products employ. Infringement will depend on whether this protocol achieves higher data rates by "adding subcarriers to the second training symbol" as claimed, or by other means such as different modulation schemes, channel bonding, or frame aggregation, which may not be covered by the claim.
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes a bare assertion of infringement without providing technical evidence, such as packet captures or protocol analysis, to show that the accused devices actually generate or transmit the claimed "extended packet."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 (as proxy for '040 patent): "base station"

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of claim 1 hinges on whether a component of the accused FleetCam system can be defined as a "base station." Defendant may argue its products are client devices that operate within networks controlled by third-party base stations (e.g., cellular towers), and do not themselves perform the claimed allocating function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites "a base station allocating," which could be argued to cover any network element that performs the claimed function of channel allocation, not just a traditional cellular base station (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, col. 9:15-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description and figures primarily illustrate the invention in the context of a traditional wireless communications system, depicting a "base station" (BTS) and "Base Station Controller" (BSC) as distinct network infrastructure components, which may support a narrower construction limited to that context (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, Fig. 3; col. 4:41-45).

Term from U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388: "adding subcarriers to the second training symbol"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will turn on the technical mechanism by which the accused products achieve high data rates. Practitioners may focus on this term because many methods exist to increase wireless throughput, and infringement requires this specific technique.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the concept generally as "adding subcarriers to the packet to produce an extended data signal," which could support a construction covering any addition of subcarriers to the preamble that results in an extended packet ('388 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description illustrates specific embodiments, such as adding subcarriers into the DC-offset gap or at the spectral edges of an existing 802.11-style OFDM packet structure ('388 Patent, Fig. 7; col. 6:34-40). A defendant could argue the term is limited to these disclosed methods of addition.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For the '388 patent, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶37, ¶39). The inducement allegation is based on Defendant providing the Accused Products along with instructions, advertising, and support that allegedly guide customers to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38). The contributory infringement allegation claims the products have "special features" that are material to the invention and not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶40).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the '388 patent (Compl. ¶42). This allegation is based on knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date Defendant was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶36) and, on "information and belief," a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others, constituting alleged willful blindness (Compl. ¶40).

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

  • A central issue for this multi-patent case will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint asserts infringement of nine patents across a range of technologies but supports these allegations with conclusory statements and references to un-filed exhibits. A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce the specific technical evidence required to show that the accused FleetCam system performs the precise functions claimed in each patent, such as the dynamic channel allocation of the '040 patent or the specific packet modification method of the '388 patent.
  • The case will also present a key question of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can claim terms rooted in the context of earlier wireless standards (e.g., "base station" in a 2001-priority patent) be construed to read on the distributed, cloud-based architecture of a modern fleet management system? The outcome may depend on whether the court views the accused system as a new, non-infringing paradigm or as an evolution that incorporates the foundational, patented technologies.