DCT
1:09-md-02050
IN re: Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: R&L Carriers, Inc. (Ohio)
- Defendant: Interstate Distributor Company (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
- Case Identification: 1:08-cv-00805, S.D. Ohio, 11/17/2008
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has used the accused infringing systems within the Southern District of Ohio, causing tortious injury in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for transmitting shipping documents from motor vehicles infringe a patent related to remotely processing bills of lading to generate advance loading manifests.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses logistical inefficiencies in the "less-than-a-load" (LTL) freight industry by enabling the electronic transmission of shipping data from a truck while in transit, allowing for load planning to occur before the truck reaches a terminal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on September 24, 2008, approximately two months before filing suit. Post-filing, the patent-in-suit underwent ex parte reexamination, resulting in the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate on March 21, 2014, which amended the language of independent claim 1. A Certificate of Correction was also issued on March 30, 2010, correcting a claim dependency reference.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-04-01 | ’078 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-04 | ’078 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-09-24 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice to Defendant |
| 2008-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078 - "Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System for Less Than a Load Carriers", issued June 4, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a significant operational bottleneck in the LTL shipping industry where truck drivers collect paper bills of lading throughout the day but only submit them upon returning to a terminal in the evening (ʼ078 Patent, col. 1:57-65). This delay in receiving shipping data prevents efficient, timely load planning, leading to underutilized trucks and increased costs (ʼ078 Patent, col. 2:5-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where a driver can scan shipping documents using a portable device in the truck and wirelessly transmit the document image to a remote processing center while the truck is still en route (ʼ078 Patent, col. 2:50-55; Fig. 4). This allows the central office to begin processing the information immediately, preparing advance loading manifests so that freight can be sorted and re-loaded onto other vehicles as soon as the initial truck arrives, thereby minimizing turnaround time (ʼ078 Patent, col. 2:50-68; col. 7:46-61).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to transform LTL logistics from a batch-processing model (end-of-day data entry) to a real-time, dynamic system where load plans could be optimized continuously throughout the day based on incoming freight data (ʼ078 Patent, col. 8:56-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not assert specific claims, but analysis centers on the sole independent claim, Claim 1, as amended by the 2014 Reexamination Certificate.
- Essential elements of amended Claim 1 include:
- Placing a package on a transporting vehicle
- Using a portable document scanner to scan an image of the documentation
- Providing a portable image processor to wirelessly transfer the image
- Wirelessly sending the image to a remote processing center
- Receiving the image at the remote center
- Prior to the package being removed from the vehicle, using the data at the remote center to prepare an advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle for further transport of the package.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint broadly identifies "certain infringing shipping document transmission and processing systems from a motor vehicle" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant uses an "onboard truck computer to remotely transmit shipping documents from a motor vehicle to a remote processing facility" (Compl. ¶9). At this remote facility, "loading documents are prepared for further transport on another vehicle" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the components or operation of Defendant's system, but alleges its use in commerce both within and outside of Ohio (Compl. ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint offers a high-level infringement theory without specific evidentiary support or claim mapping. The following table maps the core allegation from paragraph 9 of the complaint to the elements of the amended independent claim of the ’078 Patent.
’078 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as amended) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| using a portable document scanner to scan an image of the documentation data for the package... | The complaint alleges use of an "onboard truck computer to remotely transmit shipping documents," which suggests a data capture step. | ¶9 | col. 13:46-49 |
| providing a portable image processor capable of wirelessly transferring the image from the transporting vehicle; | This function is encompassed by the allegation of an "onboard truck computer." | ¶9 | col. 14:1-3 |
| wirelessly sending the image to a remote processing center; | The system is alleged to "remotely transmit shipping documents from a motor vehicle to a remote processing facility." | ¶9 | col. 14:4-5 |
| prior to the package being removed from the transporting vehicle, utilizing said documentation data at said remote processing center to prepare an advance loading manifest document...for further transport of the package on another transporting vehicle. | The complaint alleges the transmission is to a facility "where loading documents are prepared for further transport on another vehicle." | ¶9 | col. 14:9-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: What specific hardware constitutes Defendant's "onboard truck computer"? The complaint does not specify whether it is a dedicated scanner or a multi-function device. A key factual question will be whether the accused system's "loading documents" are prepared prior to the freight being removed from the inbound truck, a temporal limitation required by the claim.
- Scope Questions: Does the term "portable document scanner," as used in the patent, read on the specific data-capture technology used by the Defendant? The interpretation of this term may be a central point of dispute. Further, does the accused preparation of "loading documents" meet the claim requirement of preparing an "advance loading manifest document"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "portable document scanner"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement. The nature of the input device—whether it must be a dedicated scanner or could be a more general-purpose device with imaging capabilities—will likely be contested.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple embodiments, including a "portable scanner connected to a notebook computer" and suggests a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) could be used as part of the input system, potentially supporting a construction that is not limited to a single-function device (ʼ078 Patent, col. 4:8-24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific word "scanner." Patent figures depict a "SCANNER" as a distinct block from a "PERSONAL COMPUTER," which may support an argument that the term refers to a device whose primary purpose is scanning ('078 Patent, Fig. 2A).
The Term: "prepare an advance loading manifest document"
- Context and Importance: This limitation, added during reexamination, defines the ultimate output of the claimed method. Whether Defendant's system "prepares" such a "document" will be a key infringement question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary explains the system is for accomplishing "billing and load planning...while the freight is en route" (ʼ078 Patent, col. 2:50-53). This could support a reading where any generation of logistical planning data based on the transmitted information satisfies the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "advance loading manifests" as "documents generated by the load planning software" that "provide instructions to workers at a destination" (ʼ078 Patent, col. 8:49-53). This language, along with the term "document" itself, could support a narrower construction requiring the generation of a specific, tangible or electronic instructional file, rather than merely updating a database.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory and inducement infringement but does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge or intent for these claims, such as alleging Defendant instructs its drivers or provides specific software to perform the infringing method (Compl. ¶9).
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on September 24, 2008, identifying the ’078 Patent and its alleged infringement, and that Defendant did not respond (Compl. ¶10-11).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the Defendant’s accused system, in practice, perform the specific sequence required by amended Claim 1? This will require evidence demonstrating not only the transmission of data but also the subsequent preparation of an "advance loading manifest document" before the originating truck is unloaded.
- The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim term "portable document scanner" be construed to cover the specific data capture hardware used by the Defendant? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for infringement.
- A third central issue, arising from the reexamination, is whether Defendant’s logistical output constitutes the "prepar[ation of] an advance loading manifest document." The court will have to determine if this requires a formal, instructional document as suggested by some embodiments, or if any form of electronically generated plan for routing freight suffices.