1:06-cv-05377
Schindler Elevator Corp v. Otis Elevator Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Inventio AG (Switzerland)
- Defendant: Otis Elevator Company (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:06-cv-05377, S.D.N.Y., 12/03/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Compass with Seamless Entry" elevator destination control systems infringe a patent related to automated, hands-free elevator dispatch technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns destination dispatch elevator systems that use wireless identification to automatically recognize passengers, determine their destination floors, and assign an elevator car, a system designed to improve passenger convenience and building security.
- Key Procedural History: The '094 patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination requested shortly after the filing of this First Amended Complaint. The reexamination concluded with the issuance of a certificate that confirmed the patentability of several claims, amended independent claim 1, and added new claims. This post-complaint amendment to claim 1 will be central to the ongoing litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-08-30 | '094 Patent Priority Date |
| 1997-11-18 | '094 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-12-03 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,689,094, "Elevator Installation," issued November 18, 1997.
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art wireless elevator call systems as cumbersome. They required a passenger to manually handle a portable transmitter, press buttons to enter a destination, and view the device's screen to see which elevator was assigned, which is impractical for a user with no free hands ('094 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hands-free, contactless system. A passenger carries a passive "information transmitter" (e.g., a card or key fob). When the passenger enters an elevator lobby, a "recognition device" automatically activates the transmitter and reads data from it. This data, which can be a user ID, is sent to a central processing unit. The unit can use the ID to look up stored information about the user—such as their typical destination floor—to generate a proposed destination. The system then assigns an elevator and communicates the assignment (e.g., "Elevator A") to the passenger via a public display in the lobby ('094 Patent, col. 4:6-34; Abstract). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent.
- Technical Importance: This automated approach was designed to improve passenger convenience and building security by enabling elevator access and destination selection to be integrated with building access control systems ('094 Patent, col. 2:52-55).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint generally asserts infringement of the "'094 patent claims" without specifying which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶10, 11, 12). Claim 1, as the primary independent claim, is central to the patent. The analysis below is based on Claim 1 as amended during a subsequent reexamination, as this is the version of the claim that will be litigated.
- Amended Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An elevator installation with a plurality of elevators.
- A "recognition device" for recognizing elevator calls from an "information transmitter" carried by a user, which initializes the call's starting floor.
- A "control device" that receives the call and allocates an elevator using an algorithm.
- A "call acknowledging device" (e.g., a display or speaker) to communicate a "proposed destination floor" to the user.
- The recognition device must be mounted in an access area "spatially located away from elevator doors."
- The recognition device transmits either "proposed destination floor data" or "elevator user specific data" to the control device, where the user-specific data is "based upon individual features of the elevator user stored in the storage device." ('094 Patent, C1 col. 2:45-51).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Otis's elevator control systems, specifically including its "Compass with Seamless Entry" product (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the accused systems are "elevator control systems" that embody the inventions of the '094 patent (Compl. ¶10). The product name, "Compass with Seamless Entry," suggests a destination dispatch system ("Compass") that operates automatically ("Seamless Entry").
- The complaint further alleges that Otis designed these systems for integration with building security systems and that they are not staple articles of commerce suitable for non-infringing use (Compl. ¶11).
- Installations of the accused systems are alleged to be in prominent commercial buildings, including 7 World Trade Center in New York and the Goldman Sachs headquarters, suggesting significant commercial positioning (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not, however, provide specific technical details about the architecture or operation of the accused systems.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. It makes a general allegation that the accused systems "embody inventions claimed in the '094 patent" (Compl. ¶10). The following chart outlines the core infringement theory by mapping the elements of the representative amended claim 1 to the general allegations against the accused "Compass with Seamless Entry" system. The complaint alleges that the accused systems operate in a manner analogous to the system architecture depicted in the patent's Figure 1, where a user's credentials are used to automatically dispatch an elevator ('094 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶10). This figure shows an information transmitter (1), recognition device (5), processing unit (9), and display (18) interacting to manage an elevator call.
'094 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Amended Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a recognition device for recognizing elevator calls entered at an entry location by an information transmitter carried by an elevator user... | The "Seamless Entry" functionality is alleged to involve a device that recognizes calls from a user-carried credential. | ¶10 | col. 6:11-14 |
| a control device receiving the recognized elevator call and allocating an elevator to respond... through a predetermined allocating algorithm; | The "Compass" functionality is alleged to be a control system that receives call information and allocates an elevator. | ¶10 | col. 6:15-18 |
| a call acknowledging device comprising one of a display device and an acoustic device... to communicate a proposed destination floor to the elevator user; | The accused systems are alleged to communicate with the user to direct them to an assigned elevator. | ¶10 | col. 6:19-23 |
| the recognition device, mounted in the access area... and spatially located away from elevator doors... | Installations are alleged in lobbies of large buildings where such devices would be located away from the elevator doors themselves. | ¶10 | col. 6:24-27 |
| the recognition device... transmitting elevator user specific data, based upon individual features of the elevator user stored in the storage device, to the control device. | The accused systems are alleged to be integrated with building security systems, suggesting they use stored user data to control elevator access and destination. | ¶11 | col. 2:48-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks technical specifics on how the "Compass with Seamless Entry" system operates. A central issue for the court will be to determine, through discovery, the actual architecture of the accused system. Does it in fact use a recognition device that reads a transmitter and sends data to a separate control device as claimed?
- Scope Questions: A key dispute may arise over the final limitation of amended claim 1, which requires transmitting data "based upon individual features of the elevator user stored in the storage device." The litigation will likely focus on whether the accused system's method of determining a destination meets this specific requirement. For example, does the system use a stored user profile to infer a destination, as the patent describes, or does it use a simpler method, such as reading a pre-programmed destination directly from the user's card?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "information transmitter"
Context and Importance: This term defines the object carried by the user. Its scope will determine what types of credentials (e.g., cards, key fobs, smartphones) are covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the technology used in Otis's system falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, describing the transmitter as potentially being "executed as card of the credit card type format" ('094 Patent, col. 3:24-25) or as "coded key means" integrated into a building key ('094 Patent, col. 5:27-29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments consistently describe a distinct, portable object carried by the user. A defendant could argue the term is limited to such objects and does not, for example, cover a fixed biometric scanner.
The Term: "transmitting elevator user specific data, based upon individual features of the elevator user stored in the storage device"
Context and Importance: This language, added during reexamination, is at the heart of the invention's personalization aspect and is critical for distinguishing the invention from prior art. The definition of what it means for data to be "based upon" stored "individual features" will likely be a dispositive issue in the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue this language covers any system where a user's ID is sent to a controller, which then uses that ID to access any type of stored data (e.g., floor access rights) to process the call.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a more sophisticated process, where the system evaluates "usual destination floors of the passenger with the aid of the identified person, the time of day, the day of the week day and the starting floor" ('094 Patent, col. 4:46-49). A defendant may argue this requires a system that uses a stored behavioral profile to propose a destination, not merely a system that checks access permissions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Otis knowingly encouraged infringement by actively participating in the integration of its elevator control system with building security systems (Compl. ¶12). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused systems are "especially adapted for integration" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶11).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that "Otis has been, and presently is, aware of the '094 patent" and that its infringement is therefore "intentional, and deliberate" (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's answers to two fundamental questions:
A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "based upon individual features of the elevator user stored in the storage device," which was added during reexamination, be construed to cover the specific method by which the Otis "Compass" system determines a user's destination, or does the patent require a more complex, profile-based analysis than the accused system performs?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: given the complaint's general allegations, discovery will be required to establish the precise architecture and data flow of the accused "Compass with Seamless Entry" system. Does its operation, in fact, meet every element of the patent's claims, particularly the spatial separation of the "recognition device" and the specific data transmitted to the "control device"?