DCT
2:15-cv-00976
Open Parking LLC v. Parkme Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Open Parking, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: ParkMe, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stanley M. Stein, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-00976, W.D. Pa., 07/29/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, as it allegedly transacts business, offers products for sale, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile and web-based smart parking applications infringe four patents related to systems and methods for communicating real-time parking lot occupancy information over the Internet.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the collection and dissemination of real-time parking availability data, a component of the smart city and mobile navigation application market.
- Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents constitute a single family, with each subsequent patent being a continuation of the prior one. The patents from the '786 patent onward are subject to terminal disclaimers, which may limit their effective term and prevent double patenting issues from arising. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-08-28 | Earliest Priority Date Asserted for '974 Patent |
| 1999-09-28 | Earliest Priority Date Asserted for '391, '786, and '283 Patents |
| 2002-12-31 | '391 Patent Issued |
| 2004-06-15 | '786 Patent Issued |
| 2005-09-20 | '974 Patent Issued |
| 2009-02-17 | '283 Patent Issued |
| 2015-07-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,501,391 - INTERNET COMMUNICATION OF PARKING LOT OCCUPANCY
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background identifies the "ordeal that causes frustration for many commuters" when attempting to locate a vacant parking space, especially in crowded areas like airports and shopping malls where time is critical (U.S. Patent No. 6,501,391, col. 1:11-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication network where a central server retrieves status information from one or more parking lots, processes it into occupancy data, and transmits this data over the Internet to a user's remote device ('391 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16). This allows a user to view a "real-time representation of the parking lot indicating vacant parking spaces" and decide where to park ('391 Patent, col. 2:3-9; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes leveraging the Internet to create a centralized system for distributing real-time parking data, moving beyond localized, single-garage solutions ('391 Patent, col. 2:45-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without specification (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a parking system comprising:
- a server that is accessible over the Internet by a subscriber using a wireless communications device; and
- a software application that instructs the server to transmit parking data over the Internet to the wireless communications device of the subscriber, wherein
- the parking data can be rendered by the subscriber using the wireless communications device as a substantially real-time representation indicating an occupancy condition of an available parking lot, and
- the occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces within the available parking lot.
- The complaint does not foreclose the assertion of other independent or dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,750,786 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATION OF PARKING LOT INFORMATION
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent reiterates the problem of commuter frustration in finding parking and notes that prior art had not utilized "the capabilities of the Internet to display a real-time representation of a parking lot indicating vacant parking spaces" (U.S. Patent No. 6,750,786, col. 1:19-29, col. 2:6-9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system focused on the user's end device, claiming a wireless communications device with a software application for receiving and rendering parking data transmitted over the Internet ('786 Patent, Abstract). The core concept remains providing a "substantially real-time representation" of a parking lot's "occupancy condition," which dynamically changes based on available spaces ('786 Patent, col. 2:12-23).
- Technical Importance: As a continuation of the '391 patent, this patent refines the claimed invention, with claims directed more specifically to the user-side components (the wireless device and receiving application) of the overall system ('786 Patent, col. 1:7-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" without specification (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a parking system comprising:
- a wireless communications device capable of accessing the Internet; and
- a software application for receiving parking data transmitted over the Internet to the wireless communications device, wherein
- the parking data can be rendered by the wireless communications device as a substantially real-time representation indicating an occupancy condition of an available parking lot, and
- the occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces within the available parking lot.
- The complaint does not foreclose the assertion of other independent or dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,946,974 - WEB-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY REAL-TIME PARKING DATA
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,946,974, "WEB-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY REAL-TIME PARKING DATA," issued September 20, 2005 (Compl. ¶22).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a parking system centered on an Internet-accessible Web server that communicates with detectors or terminals at a parking facility to collect and store real-time occupancy data ('974 Patent, Abstract). The solution to the problem of finding parking is to make this data available to a user's display device running a browser application in response to a request from that browser ('974 Patent, col. 2:12-22).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" from the patent (Compl. ¶24). Independent claims include 1, 20, 30, 36, 41, 43, 45, and 48.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "mobile and/or web-based smart parking applications" of infringement (Compl. ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 7,492,283 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATION OF PARKING INFORMATION
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,492,283, "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNICATION OF PARKING INFORMATION," issued February 17, 2009 (Compl. ¶28).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where an Internet-accessible Web server communicates with a plurality of detectors at a parking lot, with each detector having a wireless device for transmitting occupancy data ('283 Patent, Abstract). This collected data is then made available to a user's browser-equipped display device, addressing the problem of locating available parking by creating a direct data pipeline from on-site sensors to the end-user via a Web server ('283 Patent, col. 2:15-30).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" from the patent (Compl. ¶30). Independent claims include 1, 20, and 21.
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "mobile and/or web-based smart parking applications" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "mobile and/or web-based smart parking applications," specifically including the "ParkMe™ real-time parking guidance application for smartphones" (Compl. ¶5).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused applications "communicate real-time parking data" and enable users to "quickly locate and evaluate nearby parking options" (Compl. ¶5). The pleading does not provide specific technical details about the application's architecture, data sources (e.g., sensors, third-party aggregators, predictive models), or data update frequency.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. The analysis below constructs a potential infringement theory based on the complaint's general allegations and the language of representative independent claims.
'391 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a server that is accessible over the Internet by a subscriber using a wireless communications device | The ParkMe service allegedly operates using servers that provide data over the Internet to users of its smartphone application. | ¶5 | col. 2:32-38 |
| a software application that instructs the server to transmit parking data over the Internet to the wireless communications device of the subscriber | ParkMe’s backend software allegedly instructs its servers to send parking information to the user's smartphone. | ¶5 | col. 6:46-51 |
| the parking data can be rendered...as a substantially real-time representation indicating an occupancy condition of an available parking lot | The ParkMe application allegedly displays "real-time parking data" to the user, indicating parking availability. | ¶5 | col. 6:55-61 |
| the occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces within the available parking lot | The "real-time" nature of the data allegedly implies it is updated to reflect actual changes in parking space occupancy. | ¶5 | col. 6:62-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint does not allege that ParkMe operates on a "subscriber" model as required by claim 1, raising a question about whether this limitation is met.
- Technical Questions: A central question is whether the "real-time parking data" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶5) is functionally equivalent to a "substantially real-time representation" where the "occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces." The complaint provides no factual allegations regarding how the accused system's data is sourced or updated, which will be necessary to determine if it meets these limitations.
'786 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a wireless communications device capable of accessing the Internet | A smartphone running the ParkMe application, which accesses the Internet to function. | ¶5 | col. 6:1-3 |
| a software application for receiving parking data transmitted over the Internet to the wireless communications device | The ParkMe smartphone application itself, which allegedly receives data from ParkMe’s servers. | ¶5 | col. 6:3-6 |
| the parking data can be rendered...as a substantially real-time representation indicating an occupancy condition of an available parking lot | The ParkMe application allegedly displays "real-time parking data" to users on their smartphones. | ¶5 | col. 6:12-16 |
| the occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces within the available parking lot | The data presented by the ParkMe application is alleged to be "real-time," implying it reflects actual occupancy changes. | ¶5 | col. 6:19-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory may depend on whether ParkMe is alleged to directly infringe by using the system itself, or indirectly infringe by providing the application to end-users. The complaint is ambiguous on this point (Compl. ¶18).
- Technical Questions: As with the '391 patent, the complaint lacks factual support to establish that the accused application's data is "substantially real-time" or that its "occupancy condition changes according to" the actual physical status of parking spaces, as opposed to being based on historical data, user reports, or predictive modeling.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint's sparse allegations suggest that the definitions of the following terms, which appear in the independent claims of both the '391 and '786 patents, will be central to the dispute.
The Term: "substantially real-time representation"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's data, which may be subject to latency or be predictive in nature, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical and evidentiary burden to prove "real-time" data is high.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a rigid definition, which may support an interpretation that the data need only be updated frequently enough to be useful to a commuter, not necessarily instantaneously ('391 Patent, col. 2:3-9).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a system based on "detectors" at the parking lot that ascertain "whether a parking space is occupied or not," which could support a narrower definition tied to low-latency, sensor-driven data ('391 Patent, col. 3:5-15).
The Term: "occupancy condition changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces"
- Context and Importance: This limitation requires a causal link between the data shown to the user and the actual physical state of the parking lot. The case may turn on whether the accused product's functionality meets this requirement or if it uses methods (e.g., algorithms) that are disconnected from the direct detection of vacant spaces.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "according to" could be argued to mean "related to" or "based in part on," which might encompass systems that use predictive models seeded with some actual data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of the phrase suggests a direct, deterministic relationship. This is supported by the specification's disclosure of a system that "retrieves status information" directly from parking lots to "convert" into occupancy data, implying a direct reflection of ground truth ('391 Patent, Fig. 3, S10-S20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of contributory and induced infringement for all four patents (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 24, 30). It alleges inducement by "inducing others to use" the infringing services but provides no specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that allegedly instruct users to perform the claimed steps.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has been aware of" each patent and "has known or should have known of the risk of its actions" (Compl. ¶¶14, 20, 26, 32). These allegations of willfulness are not supported by any specific factual assertions of pre-suit knowledge, such as a prior notice letter or citation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold procedural issue is whether the complaint's conclusory infringement allegations, which lack specific facts mapping accused product features to claim elements, satisfy the plausibility standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Twombly and Iqbal.
- Claim Scope and Data Sourcing: A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "substantially real-time," as disclosed in a patent family that describes on-site vehicle detectors, be construed to cover the data provided by the accused ParkMe application, which may be sourced from algorithms, historical trends, or third-party aggregators rather than direct, instantaneous lot sensing?
- Evidentiary Proof of Functionality: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce in discovery to demonstrate that the accused application’s displayed "occupancy condition" in fact "changes according to presence and absence of vacant parking spaces," as required by the claims, rather than operating on a less direct or predictive basis?