DCT

1:24-cv-06056

Social Positioning Input Systems LLC v. Curb Mobility LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06056, S.D.N.Y., 08/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a "regular and established business presence" within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Curb mobile ride-hailing application and associated systems infringe a patent related to remotely programming and sharing location data with a positional information device.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for simplifying the entry of destination addresses into GPS devices by using a remote server to look up and transmit coordinates, a key feature in early telematics and vehicle navigation systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined by the USPTO, which considered numerous prior art references during prosecution. It also states the patent has been cited as relevant prior art in subsequent patent applications by major technology companies, an argument potentially aimed at establishing the patent's significance.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-04-28 Priority Date for ’365 Patent
2016-02-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365 Issues
2024-08-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365 - "DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY ENTERING, STORING AND SHARING ADDRESSES FOR A POSITIONAL INFORMATION DEVICE," issued February 16, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies several problems with early-generation GPS devices: the difficulty of inputting addresses due to inconsistent city names or formats; the inconvenience for users with multiple vehicles of having to program the same destination into each device individually; and the safety risk of a driver attempting to program a GPS while the vehicle is in motion (’365 Patent, col. 1:55-2:25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can communicate a desired location to a remote server, for example through a telematics service with a live operator or a web interface (’365 Patent, col. 10:7-14). This remote server resolves the location request into specific geographic coordinates and then transmits those coordinates directly to the user’s in-vehicle or handheld GPS device, which can then provide route guidance (’365 Patent, col. 2:46-54; Fig. 4). The system is also designed to allow a user to share stored addresses between their different GPS-enabled devices (’365 Patent, col. 11:1-6).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a safer, more user-friendly method for programming navigation devices, aligning with the rise of automotive telematics services that offered a live-person or automated link between a vehicle and a central support center (’365 Patent, col. 2:26-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • sending a request from a requesting positional information device to a server for at least one address stored in at least one sending positional information device, the request including a first identifier of the requesting positional information device;
    • receiving at the requesting positional information device, from the server, a retrieved at least one address to the requesting positional information device;
    • wherein the server determines a second identifier for identifying the at least one sending positional information device based on the received first identifier and retrieves the requested at least one address stored in the identified at least one sending positional information device.
  • The complaint’s reference to "one or more claims" preserves the option to assert other independent or dependent claims later in the litigation (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant’s "Curb application" and the associated back-end system (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Curb application as software for a user's smartphone that "connects a user with local taxi fleets registered on the Curb application for booking taxi rides and handling payments" (Compl. ¶27). From a technical perspective, the complaint alleges that when a user requests or books a taxi, "the location data of the nearby taxi drivers, along with the expected time to arrive... are displayed on the Curb application" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’365 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’365 Patent (Compl. ¶27). While the complaint states that a detailed claim chart is provided in "Exhibit B," that exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶27, ¶32). Based on the narrative allegations, the Plaintiff's infringement theory appears to map the elements of Claim 1 to the Curb ride-hailing service as follows:

The "requesting positional information device" is the user's smartphone running the Curb app (Compl. ¶27). When the user requests a ride, the app allegedly sends a request containing a user "identifier" to Curb's servers. This action is alleged to satisfy the "sending a request" limitation of the claim. The "address" is alleged to be the real-time "location data of the nearby taxi drivers," and the taxi's GPS-enabled device is alleged to be the "sending positional information device" (Compl. ¶27). Finally, Curb's server system allegedly receives the user's request, identifies a nearby taxi, "retrieves" its location data, and transmits it back to the user's smartphone for display, thereby meeting the claim's "receiving... a retrieved... address" limitation (Compl. ¶27).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may center on the definition of "address." The infringement theory equates the dynamic, real-time "location data" of a moving taxi with the term "address" (Compl. ¶27). The defense may argue that in the context of the patent, "address" refers to a static, user-selected destination waypoint (e.g., a street address) for route planning, not the transient coordinates of another vehicle (’365 Patent, col. 1:46-49). This raises the question of whether the claim term can be construed to cover the accused functionality.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's theory casts a third-party taxi driver's device as the "sending positional information device" from which an "address" is retrieved (Compl. ¶27). The patent specification, however, repeatedly frames the invention as a way for a single user to manage destinations across their own "multiple vehicles" or to program their device via a dedicated telematics service (’365 Patent, col. 2:9-14). This raises the question of whether the claimed system, seemingly designed for personal data management, can read on a system that connects two unaffiliated parties (a rider and a driver).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the server to "retrieve[] the requested at least one address stored in the identified... sending positional information device" (’365 Patent, col. 14:1-3). The infringement analysis may require evidence on whether the Curb server actively "pulls" or "retrieves" stored data from the taxi's device upon a user's request, or if the system operates differently, for example, by having the taxi's device continuously "push" or broadcast its location to the server.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "address"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends heavily on whether the real-time GPS coordinates of a nearby taxi can be considered an "address" within the meaning of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality (tracking a nearby car) is technically different from the patent's primary described embodiment (programming a destination).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly define "address," potentially leaving room for an interpretation that includes any form of location data, including raw coordinates.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and summary consistently use "address" in the context of a destination that a user would manually program, such as "19333 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles, Fla." or "destination information" (’365 Patent, col. 1:55-2:12). The specification also describes a process of "resolving an address... into latitude and longitude coordinates," suggesting "address" is the input (e.g., street name) and "coordinates" are the output, not that they are interchangeable terms (’365 Patent, col. 3:1-3).

The Term: "retrieves the requested at least one address stored in the identified at least one sending positional information device"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is critical for determining whether the technical operation of the Curb system matches the specific steps recited in the claim. The dispute will likely involve how information flows between the taxi, the server, and the user.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "retrieves" should be given a general meaning of "obtains," regardless of the specific "pull" or "push" mechanism used.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies that the address is "stored in" the sending device and is "retrieved" by the server. This may support a narrower construction requiring the server to actively query the sending device for a piece of stored data, as opposed to passively receiving a continuous stream of broadcasted location updates. The patent's description of a server polling devices for stored addresses may support this narrower view (’365 Patent, col. 12:1-4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Curb induces infringement by providing the Curb application and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use the system in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’365 Patent. The complaint specifically alleges that this inducement has continued even after Curb was notified of the patent via the lawsuit (Compl. ¶30-31).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving notice of the patent through the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶25, ¶30). This frames the allegation as one of post-filing willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "address," which in the patent’s context appears to mean a user-selected destination for navigation, be construed broadly enough to cover the real-time, transient GPS location of a third-party vehicle in a ride-hailing network?
  • A second central question will concern the architectural match: does the claimed method, described in the specification as a system for a single user to manage location data for their own convenience, read on the accused system's fundamentally different purpose of dynamically matching and connecting two independent, unaffiliated users (a rider and a driver)?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the Curb system performs the specific claimed step of having a server "retrieve" an address that is "stored in" a taxi's device, or does the accused system function on a different data-sharing principle, such as a continuous broadcast from the taxi to the server?