DCT

2:22-cv-02838

Pritchard v. Thompson

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02838, W.D. Tenn., 01/23/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Tennessee because he resides within the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misappropriated his trade secrets and infringed his utility and design patents for an AI-enabled dashcam system following confidential business discussions initiated by Defendants.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to integrated Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) within a vehicle dashcam, using multiple cameras and AI-driven server-side processing to provide real-time surveillance and safety alerts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details communications between Plaintiff and Defendant Thompson in December 2021 regarding a potential collaboration to develop Plaintiff's invention, which allegedly included the disclosure of proprietary information under the promise of a forthcoming Non-Disclosure Agreement that was never delivered. Plaintiff alleges he discovered Defendants' accused product in June 2022 and sent a cease-and-desist letter in August 2022. This alleged sequence of disclosure followed by the launch of a competing product forms the basis for the trade secret misappropriation and willful infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-05-20 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D904,258 S
2019-07-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,558,584 B2
2020-12-08 U.S. Design Patent No. D904,258 S Issues
2021-12-03 Plaintiff and Defendant Thompson engage in confidential phone call
2022-06-01 Plaintiff alleges discovery of accused product on Harman website
2022-08-11 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants
2023-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,558,584 B2 Issues
2023-01-23 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,558,584 - Systems and Methods for Providing Real-Time Surveillance in Automobiles

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that despite advances in vehicle safety, accident rates remain high, creating a need for a comprehensive surveillance solution that goes beyond passive incident recording to provide active monitoring and emergency support (’584 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a vehicle surveillance system, embodied as a client device that can replace a standard rearview mirror, which uses multiple camera sets to monitor both the vehicle's surroundings and its interior cabin (’584 Patent, col. 3:30-45). This device continuously captures and transmits images, audio, location, and speed data to a remote server, which uses machine learning to analyze the data in real-time to identify "primary" alerts (e.g., nearby dangerous vehicles), "secondary" alerts (e.g., driver drowsiness), and "adverse events" (e.g., a crash), and sends corresponding instructions back to the device or to emergency contacts (’584 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-14).
  • Technical Importance: The system integrates external environmental sensing, internal driver monitoring, and remote server-based AI analysis into a single cohesive platform, aiming to provide proactive safety warnings and automated emergency response capabilities.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. The analysis below focuses on independent Claim 1, which is representative of the invention's core system.
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’584 Patent recites a system with two main components:
    • A client device: Disposed as a rearview mirror replacement, comprising processors, two sets of cameras (for surroundings and cabin), microphones, a display, and sensors to continuously capture images, audio, location, and speed. It transmits this data to a server and receives instructions from it.
    • A server computer: Communicating with the client device, it is programmed to continuously receive the data; process images from the first camera set to determine "primary alert events" (related to surroundings); process images from the second camera set to determine "secondary alert events" (related to driver alertness); process all data to determine an "adverse event"; and transmit instructions to the client device or an "emergency dataset" to contacts upon detecting such events.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though such a reservation is common practice.

U.S. Design Patent No. D904,258 - Combined Multi-View Surveillance Camera Mirror

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents concern the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article. This patent addresses the aesthetic and industrial design challenges of integrating multiple cameras and sensors into the familiar form factor of a vehicle rearview mirror.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a vehicle mirror housing that incorporates surveillance features (’258 Patent, Claim). As illustrated in the patent's figures, the design consists of a generally rectangular housing with rounded corners, a mounting arm on the rear surface, and distinct circular elements on the front and rear faces, representing the visual appearance and placement of components such as camera lenses and sensors (’258 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
  • Technical Importance: The design's significance lies in packaging advanced surveillance technology into a form that is both aesthetically integrated with a vehicle's interior and familiar to the user.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
    • The overall elongated, rectangular shape with rounded borders.
    • The specific profile and contour of the housing.
    • The arrangement, size, and appearance of the circular elements (lenses/sensors) on the front and rear of the device.
    • The visual design of the mounting bracket extending from the rear.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "HARMAN ADAS Vision dashcam," also referred to as the "ADAS HARMAN Smart Vision Dashcam" (Compl. ¶¶43, 51).

Functionality and Market Context

  • According to a description allegedly taken from the Harman website, the accused product's key features include "high definition dual cameras w/night vision, secure live streaming, a speaker and mic for voice controls, touch display... built in sensors and AI for ADAS, and LTE connectivity" (Compl. ¶43).
  • The functionality is further alleged to support cameras for both "front view and driver facing view," enable "remote vehicle surveillance," and include GPS and a G-sensor to "sense a crash and preserve the footage" (Compl. ¶43).
  • The complaint alleges that this product allowed Defendants to achieve an "accelerated entry into the AI enabled dashcam market" by using Plaintiff's allegedly stolen trade secrets and infringing his intellectual property (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’584 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide an element-by-element infringement analysis. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory by mapping the description of the accused product (Compl. ¶43) to the elements of independent Claim 1.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
at least one client device disposed as an accessory replacing rearview mirror... comprising... a first set of cameras, a second set of cameras... The HARMAN ADAS Vision dashcam, which allegedly has a "rear-view mirror shape" and supports "onboard cameras for both front view and driver facing view" ¶¶43, 51 col. 11:19-24
continuously capture images from the surroundings... and... the interior of the cabin... The product's alleged "high definition dual cameras" for "front view and driver facing view" ¶43 col. 12:8-13
continuously capture audio from the cabin... using the microphones; The product is alleged to include "a speaker and mic for voice controls" ¶43 col. 12:14-16
continuously capture location... and speed... using the plurality of sensors; The product is alleged to include "GPS (global positioning system) and gravity sensor (G-sensor)" ¶43 col. 12:17-19
transmit the captured images... location information, and... speed information to a server; The product's alleged "secure live streaming," "LTE connectivity," and "cloud storage" capabilities ¶43 col. 12:20-23
[a server computer to] process the captured images... to determine primary alert events... [and] secondary alert events... The product's alleged "built in sensors and AI for ADAS" ¶43 col. 12:35-49
[a server computer to] process the... data to determine an adverse event including an accident or a vehicle breakdown; The product's alleged ability for the "vehicle to sense a crash and preserve the footage taken immediately before and after the incident" ¶43 col. 12:50-55
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "client device disposed as an accessory replacing [a] rearview mirror." A potential issue is whether the accused product, described as a "dashcam," is designed to replace the vehicle's existing mirror or is an add-on device mounted elsewhere. The complaint's allegation that the accused product has a "rear-view mirror shape" may support an argument for equivalence, but the method of attachment will be a key factual question (Compl. ¶51).
    • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's "AI for ADAS" operates within the specific client-server architecture required by Claim 1. The claim requires a remote "server computer" to perform the crucial processing steps of determining primary, secondary, and adverse events. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product performs its AI processing locally on the device itself or relies on remote cloud-based processing that meets the "server computer" limitation.

’258 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused product appropriates the patented design through its "rectangular, smooth and rounded bordered exterior shell," "rear-view mirror shape," "round mounting bracket," and "strategically placed camera lens, microphone and speaker design" (Compl. ¶¶51-52).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The controlling legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. As the complaint provides no images of the accused product, the central dispute will be a direct visual comparison between the physical HARMAN product and the drawings in the ’258 patent. The verbal descriptions in the complaint are placeholders for this essential visual analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "server computer" (from ’584 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the claimed system architecture. The patent allocates the core analytical tasks—determining primary, secondary, and adverse events—to the "server computer." If the accused product performs all AI processing locally within the dashcam unit, its architecture may fall outside the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused system's distributed or local processing meets this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a restrictive definition. The specification describes a "surveillance management system 102" that is functionally separate from the in-vehicle "client device 130," which could support a construction covering various remote computing resources, including modern cloud-based services (’584 Patent, Fig. 1).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "at least one server computer," and diagrams show the "surveillance management system" as a singular, centralized block (’584 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 6). This could be argued to require a more traditional, discrete server architecture rather than a distributed set of cloud functions.

  • The Term: "disposed as an accessory replacing rearview mirror" (from ’584 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase in the claim preamble appears to define a structural characteristic of the "client device." The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused "dashcam" is physically installed in a way that "replaces" the vehicle's original mirror.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the client device "may be disposed inside the vehicle and may replace rear-view mirrors," arguably presenting replacement as an exemplary, non-limiting embodiment (’584 Patent, col. 4:65-67). This could support construing the term more broadly to cover devices that occupy the same general space or perform the same function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is more definitive than the specification's "may replace" language. A defendant may argue that "replacing" requires the removal of the original factory mirror and installation of the client device in its place, making it a clear structural limitation that add-on dashcams would not meet.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for indirect or induced infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful, seeking exemplary and punitive damages (Compl. ¶¶46, 54). The allegations are based on purported pre-suit knowledge arising from confidential discussions between Plaintiff and Defendant Thompson in December 2021, where Plaintiff allegedly disclosed his invention (Compl. ¶¶12, 33). The complaint also notes a cease-and-desist letter was sent in August 2022, which may serve as a basis for ongoing willfulness after that date (Compl. ¶20).

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

  1. A threshold issue connecting the patent and trade secret claims will be one of causation and independent development: Can the plaintiff's evidence demonstrate that Defendants' "HARMAN ADAS Vision dashcam" was derived from the specific proprietary information disclosed in the December 2021 discussions, or can Defendants establish that their product was the result of independent development predating or separate from those conversations?
  2. A core utility patent issue will be one of system architecture: Does the accused product's "AI for ADAS" functionality rely on a remote "server computer" to perform the claimed analytical steps of determining alerts and events, as required by Claim 1, or is it a self-contained device that performs these functions locally, potentially placing it outside the claim's scope?
  3. The central design patent issue will be one of visual comparison: Once visual evidence is presented, will an ordinary observer, acquainted with the prior art, perceive the overall ornamental design of the accused HARMAN dashcam to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’258 patent?