DCT
2:10-cv-00032
EMS Tech LLC v. General Electric Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EMS Technologies, LLC. (Texas)
- Defendant: General Electric Company (New York), and 12 other related entities and companies in the energy and automation sectors.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Spangler Law P.C.
- Case Name: EMS Technologies, LLC. v. General Electric Company
- Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00032, E.D. Tex., Filed 11/02/2010
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each defendant has transacted business in the district and has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that computer-implemented sales systems made, used, or sold by the Defendants for the utility industry infringe a patent related to computer-assisted systems for generating customized utility cost-saving proposals.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses computer systems designed to analyze a customer's specific energy consumption data and model the financial impact of different utility rates and conservation programs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,169,979, is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,758,331.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-08-15 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6169979 ('979 Patent) |
| 2001-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 6,169,979 Issued |
| 2010-11-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,169,979, “Computer-Assisted Sales System for Utilities,” Issued Jan. 2, 2001
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge faced by utility companies needing to encourage customers to reduce consumption to avoid costly infrastructure expansion. Traditional sales methods relied on generic, pre-printed materials and manual calculations, which were inefficient and failed to address the specific needs of individual customers. (’979 Patent, col. 1:21-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-based system, potentially on a laptop, that allows a salesperson to provide on-site, customized analysis. The system receives and stores data specific to a customer (e.g., usage history, equipment inventory) along with available utility rates and conservation programs. It then processes this information to generate tailored reports demonstrating how a customer can reduce utility costs, thereby providing a dynamic and persuasive sales tool. (’979 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to standardize and automate the process of creating utility sales proposals, enabling salespersons to provide immediate, data-driven feedback to customers on the financial impact of energy conservation efforts. (’979 Patent, col. 2:58-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claims.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented sales system comprising:
- A receiver configured to receive data representative of customer utility usage, utility rates, and utility costs saving programs;
- A memory arrangement coupled to the receiver and configured to store the received data;
- A processor coupled to the memory arrangement and configured to:
- process the stored data to select a utility service rate and a utility costs saving program for the customer, and
- generate customized reports illustrating revised utility costs based on applying the customer’s usage to the selected rate and cost-saving program.
- The complaint’s broad allegation suggests it may reserve the right to assert other independent claims (e.g., 20, 24) and dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It generally accuses "one or more computer implemented sales systems for assisting with the sale of utility products and services" made, used, or sold by each of the thirteen defendants (Compl. ¶¶19-31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused systems perform functions that directly track the language of the '979 Patent's claims. Specifically, the systems are alleged to generate customized reports, receive customer usage and rate data, store that data in memory, use a processor to select a service rate and cost-saving program, and generate reports based on that selection (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the accused systems operate or any information regarding their market context or commercial importance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are conclusory and mirror the language of the patent claims without providing specific factual support or identifying accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'979 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver configured to receive data representative of customer utility usage, utility rates, and utility costs saving programs; | The complaint alleges Defendants make, use, or sell systems "configured to receive data representative of customer utility usage, utility rates, and utility costs saving programs". | ¶19 | col. 20:62-64 |
| a memory arrangement coupled to the receiver and configured to store the data... | The systems are alleged to possess "a memory arrangement to store the data". | ¶19 | col. 20:65-68 |
| a processor coupled to the memory arrangement and configured to: process the data... in order to select a utility service rate and a utility costs saving program for the customer... | The systems are alleged to contain "a processor to select a utility service rate and a utility costs saving program for the customer". | ¶19 | col. 21:3-7 |
| ...and generate customized reports illustrating revised customer utility costs based on applying the customer utility usage to the data representative of the selected utility service rate, and the selected utility costs saving program. | The systems are alleged to "generate customized reports illustrating revised customer utility costs based on applying the selected utility costs saving program covered by one or more claims of the ‘979 patent". | ¶19 | col. 21:7-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Specificity: A primary issue for the court will be the complaint's lack of factual detail. The allegations are largely a recitation of the claim elements without identifying any specific products or explaining how their actual operation meets the claim limitations. This raises the question of whether Plaintiff can produce evidence to substantiate its infringement theory.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused systems technically operate. It is unclear, for example, what specific software or hardware constitutes the alleged "receiver," "memory arrangement," and "processor," or how the accused systems perform the claimed "selection" and "generation" steps.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "select a utility service rate and a utility costs saving program"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the core function of the processor. Its construction will determine the degree of automation required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused systems perform an autonomous selection or merely facilitate a human user's choice.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as a tool that "allows the system to, for example, dynamically calculate and then display how different rates can result in cost savings," which could be interpreted as presenting options for a user to select, not an automated selection by the processor itself (’979 Patent, col. 4:42-45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the "processor" to be configured to "select." The patent's flowchart also depicts a discrete system step labeled "Select Utility Rate and Utility Cost Savings Program" (504), which follows the "Process all data" step (502), suggesting an automated function performed by the system. (’979 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 8:36-39).
The Term: "customized reports"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the claimed system. Its scope is central to determining whether the output of an accused system meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states proposals can be generated in various formats, including "paper, electronic..., optical, or other format," and can include "graphs to show the effect of different rates on cost," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific structure. (’979 Patent, col. 3:12-14; col. 2:62-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description enumerates several specific components that can be included in a proposal, such as a "cover letter (89); proposal summary (90); customer profile (91); service rates (92); inventory (93); conservation (94); finance (95); and services (96)." A defendant could argue that a "customized report" must contain a combination of these specific, enumerated sections to meet the limitation. (’979 Patent, col. 5:50-54).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement against all defendants (e.g., Compl. ¶19). It does not, however, allege any specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as identifying user manuals or marketing materials that instruct customers on how to use the accused systems in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 14, Prayer ¶1). The body of the complaint lacks any factual allegations that would support a finding of willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’979 Patent or egregious conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can connect its broad, claim-mirroring allegations to the specific functionalities of any of the Defendants' unidentified "computer implemented sales systems." The complaint's lack of factual specificity regarding accused products presents a significant threshold issue for the litigation.
- The case may also turn on a key claim construction dispute: does the processor's function to "select a utility service rate and a utility costs saving program" require an automated, algorithmic choice performed by the system, or is it sufficient for the system to merely process data and present ranked or filtered options for a human user to make the final selection?
- A third question relates to the scope of "customized reports." Will the court construe this term to mean any user-specific output, or will it require the reports to contain the specific, multi-part structure detailed in the patent’s preferred embodiments?