Mellaconic IP LLC v. Curb Mobility LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mellaconic IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Curb Mobility, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Nicholas Loaknauth, P.C.; Griffin Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-07089, S.D.N.Y., 08/31/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant transacting business and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district, including having an established place of business in Long Island City, NY.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ride-hailing platform, which includes the "Curb" and "Curb Driver" mobile applications, infringes a patent related to using a device's location information as a form of authentication to trigger autonomous, context-based actions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns enabling mobile devices to perform automated tasks without direct user interaction by determining a "service context" based on data like the user's geographical location.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit stems from a chain of continuation applications, with the earliest priority claim dating back to 2009. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,986,435 - “Autonomous, Non-Interactive, Context-Based Services for Cellular Phone,” issued May 29, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in contemporary cellular phones where services "generally require explicit interaction with the user," creating a need for more automated functionality ('435 Patent, col. 1:33-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a cellular phone can autonomously perform services for a user without interaction. This is achieved through "agents" and "data collection modules" that determine a "service context" based on user data, device status, and the external environment (e.g., location) ('435 Patent, col. 1:50-60, col. 3:20-34). Based on this context, the device can automatically service a received call or message. A key application is using the device's geographical location as a form of authentication to permit a requested action, such as a financial transaction or starting a vehicle ('435 Patent, col. 11:40-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for enabling secure, location-aware automated actions, reducing the need for explicit user input for context-dependent tasks.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 21 (Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 21 are:
  • A first device at a first location receives one or more messages from a second device at a second location.
  • The messages indicate the location information of the second device and include a request for a first action to be performed by the first device.
  • The location information of the second device "acts as authentication" to allow the first action.
  • The first device performs the "authenticated first action," which is "related to controlling a third device."
• The complaint states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" and the prayer for relief is similarly broad, suggesting the right to assert other claims is reserved (Compl. ¶15; Prayer for Relief ¶a).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Accused Systems" that support Defendant's "Curb app" (for riders) and "Curb Driver app" (for drivers) (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Systems constitute a ride-hailing platform. A rider uses the Curb app on their mobile device to request a ride. This sends the user's location data and a ride request to a Curb server (Compl. ¶¶18-20). The server then processes this information and notifies a nearby driver by sending a trip offer to the Curb Driver app on the driver's mobile device (Compl. ¶¶19, 22). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's privacy policy, which states that "Location data" is used to "facilitate and track trips" and "Usage data" is used to "connect passengers and drivers" (Compl. p. 4). Another screenshot shows the Curb Driver app displaying a "TRIP OFFER" with specific pickup and drop-off addresses (Compl. p. 5).
• The complaint alleges the service is offered in the judicial district, including New York City, but does not provide further detail on market positioning (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'435 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "authentication." The patent provides examples such as authorizing financial transactions or starting a motor vehicle ('435 Patent, col. 11:40-54, col. 12:1-6). The case raises the question of whether using a rider's location to dispatch the nearest driver, as is common in ride-hailing, constitutes "authentication" in the sense contemplated by the patent, or if the term requires a more explicit security or verification function.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes the conclusory statement that location "acts as authentication" (Compl. ¶21). A key technical question will be what evidence supports this assertion. Does the accused system perform an explicit check where location serves as a credential to authorize the dispatch action, or is location data simply an input used for logistical matching? The nature of the "control" over the third device may also be disputed—specifically, whether sending a notification that an application chooses to display constitutes "controlling a third device" as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "authentication"

• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation. The viability of the plaintiff's case may depend on whether the defendant's use of location data for ride-matching falls within the scope of "authentication."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the invention may be used for "validating or authenticating various activities," which could be argued to encompass a wide range of actions where certain criteria must be met ('435 Patent, col. 8:31-32). The claim language itself states the location information "acts as authentication," which may support an argument that any function where location is a prerequisite for an action qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discusses "security features to reduce the risk of unfriendly reverse engineering" and provides examples of authentication for sensitive actions like financial transactions and vehicle ignition ('435 Patent, col. 8:25-26, col. 11:53-54, col. 12:1-6). This context may support a narrower construction requiring a specific security or identity-verification purpose, rather than mere logistical matching.

• The Term: "controlling a third device"

• Context and Importance: The asserted claim requires that the action performed by the server be "related to controlling a third device" (the driver's phone). The definition of "controlling" will be important to determine if merely sending a trip offer, which the driver's app then displays, meets this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example of issuing a command to an audio system to "reduce in volume or mute in response to an incoming call," which is a form of control via messaging ('435 Patent, col. 7:6-11). This could support an interpretation where causing a device to change its state or display qualifies as control.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discusses "monitoring and/or controlled" medical devices ('435 Patent, col. 6:49-51). This context might suggest a more direct, commanding influence over the third device's operation, which a party could argue is distinct from simply providing data that an independent application on the third device decides how to process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to "induced infringement" in its jurisdictional allegations but does not plead a separate count for it or provide specific factual allegations, such as intent and active steps, to support such a claim (Compl. ¶5). The infringement count is titled "DIRECT INFRINGEMENT."
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support willful infringement, such as alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an exceptional case, but the basis for this is not detailed in the body of the complaint (Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "authentication," which the patent illustrates with security-sensitive examples like financial transactions and vehicle ignition, be construed to cover the use of location data to match riders and drivers in a commercial ride-hailing system?

2. A key evidentiary and functional question will be whether the Curb server’s act of sending a trip offer to a driver's phone—which prompts a UI display—constitutes "controlling a third device" as required by the claim, or if this interaction lacks the requisite level of command to meet the claim limitation.