DCT

2:11-cv-00056

Levine v. Casio America Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-08-12 Priority Date for ’943 and ’030 Patents
2000-10-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,140,943 Issued
2001-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,030 Issued
2012-02-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,243,030, “Electronic Wireless Navigation System,” issued June 5, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty travelers face navigating in unfamiliar areas, particularly at night when street signs may be unlit or obscured. It also identifies a deficiency in then-existing electronic maps (e.g., on CD-ROM) which often lacked current information on road repairs, detours, and new streets (Compl. ¶18; ’030 Patent, col. 1:10-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "cellular system" of localized, ground-based wireless transmitters, where each transmitter covers a specific "zone" of a city. These transmitters wirelessly send enlarged, detailed "video maps" of their zone to a traveler's mobile receiver. As the traveler moves from one zone to another, the map displayed on the receiver updates to show the map for the new zone, ensuring the user has relevant, localized, and potentially up-to-date information (’030 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:30-41; col. 2:52-59).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide dynamic, location-specific map data that could be updated more frequently than the static, pre-loaded maps common in early digital navigation devices (’030 Patent, col. 1:20-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A "wireless tranmitter means" for generating video maps covering different geographic zones.
    • The transmitter means generating "displaced wireless beams" directed to each corresponding zone.
    • A "wireless receiver" with a visual display that is responsive to the transmitted map for its current location and displays that map.

U.S. Patent No. 6,140,943, “Electronic Wireless Navigation System,” issued October 31, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its divisional child, the '943 patent addresses the challenges of navigating with outdated maps and poorly visible landmarks such as street signs (’943 Patent, col. 1:10-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for wirelessly transmitting map data and adds a feature for displaying a sequential list of upcoming streets or highway exits. A key aspect is the "automatic erasure" of a street name from the list as the traveler passes it. This is achieved via a novel mechanism where an ultrasonic pulse from the traveler's receiver is reflected by a "retroreflector" at the street corner, with the reflected signal triggering the erasure on the receiver's display (’943 Patent, col. 5:6-12; col. 5:37-6:4).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to create a more interactive, context-aware navigation experience by not only displaying a map but actively helping a traveler track progress along a route by updating a list of upcoming maneuvers (’943 Patent, col. 5:26-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" without further specification (Compl. ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A wireless transmitter that generates video images including the names and locations of streets in a cellular zone.
    • A receiver with a display for showing the street images.
    • The receiver has "means that responds to the traveler becoming proximate any of said streets to change the display to remove that street name from the visual display."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are broadly identified as "wireless navigation systems and/or devices" and more specifically as "cellular handsets with navigation capabilities" that are manufactured, sold, or imported by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these devices provide navigation functions and are made available to consumers through major U.S. wireless carriers (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused handsets and their associated navigation systems operate (e.g., whether they use vector or raster maps, how they receive data, or the specific software involved). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a high-level, generalized theory of infringement without detailed element-by-element mapping.

'030 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
wireless tranmitter means generating a plurality of video maps covering different geographic zones of an extended area... The complaint alleges infringement by "wireless navigation systems," which may implicate the cellular network infrastructure (e.g., cell towers and servers) as the "transmitter means" providing map data (Compl. ¶14). ¶19 col. 9:58-62
said transmitter means generating displaced wireless beams each directed to a different geographic zone corresponding to the video map of that zone The complaint does not specify how this element is met but may theorize that a cellular network's handover of a device between different cell sites constitutes generating "displaced wireless beams" (Compl. ¶14). ¶19 col. 10:1-4
a wireless receiver having a visual display accessible to a traveler...and responsive to the transmitted video map...to display said video map This element is alleged to be met by Defendants' "cellular handsets with navigation capabilities," which contain a screen to display map information received over the cellular network (Compl. ¶14). ¶20 col. 10:4-9

'943 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
said wireless transmitter generating additional video images including the names and relative locations of a plurality of streets within said cellular zone... Modern navigation applications on cellular handsets commonly display lists of upcoming turns and street names, a feature the complaint appears to accuse by targeting "cellular handsets with navigation capabilities" (Compl. ¶14). ¶26 col. 10:54-57
said receiver having a visual display screen...and having means that responds to the traveler becoming proximate any of said streets to change the display to remove that street name... Navigation applications on the accused handsets are alleged to infringe, which may refer to the common function where a turn-by-turn instruction is updated or removed from a list after the maneuver is completed, based on the device's GPS-determined location (Compl. ¶14). ¶27 col. 10:58-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the patent term "wireless transmitter means," which the specification describes as localized ground units broadcasting "video maps," can be interpreted to cover a modern cellular data network that transmits vector-based map data from centralized servers in response to specific requests from a handset.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how a modern cellular network performs the function of "generating displaced wireless beams" as described in the ’030 patent, which may raise questions about the technical mechanism of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "wireless transmitter means" (from ’030 patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case may depend on this term being construed broadly enough to read on a modern cellular network. Practitioners may focus on this term as its scope—whether limited to the patent's specific architecture or broad enough to cover modern networks—is critical.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and is not facially limited to a specific technology.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention in the context of "localized ground transmitters" (’943 Patent, col. 1:32) located at "a major street intersection" (’943 Patent, col. 2:18-20) and providing coverage for a limited "zone" (’943 Patent, col. 2:37-46). This may support a narrower construction limited to the disclosed distributed architecture.

  • The Term: "means that responds to the traveler becoming proximate any of said streets to change the display to remove that street name" (from ’943 patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing the function, and their equivalents.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent discloses two corresponding structures: (1) manual erasure using a keyboard, and (2) an automatic system using an "ultrasonic generator," a "retroreflector" at the street corner, and a "detector transducer" on the receiver to process the reflected signal (’943 Patent, col. 5:30-33, col. 5:37-6:4). The infringement analysis will question whether a modern smartphone's use of GPS and software algorithms to determine proximity is an equivalent to the disclosed ultrasonic-and-reflector hardware.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations that Defendants contribute to and induce infringement by "end users and/or cellular service providers" (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 26). This is presumably based on the sale and marketing of the accused handsets with instructions for using the allegedly infringing navigation features.
  • Willful Infringement: A specific claim for willful infringement is made against Defendant Nokia, based on the allegation that Nokia was "previously notified" of the ’030 and ’943 patents but continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 28).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "wireless transmitter means," rooted in the patent's disclosure of localized units broadcasting "video map images," be construed to cover modern cellular networks that deliver vector-based map data on demand from centralized servers?
  • A key infringement question will be one of structural equivalence: for the ’943 patent, is a modern smartphone's software-driven, GPS-based system for updating a turn-by-turn list a legal equivalent to the specific ultrasonic pulse-and-reflector hardware system disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the same function?
  • An early evidentiary question will concern the factual basis for infringement: what evidence will the plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused systems, which rely on fundamentally different technology (e.g., client-side rendering of vector data) than that described in the 1999-era patents, perform the functions required by the claims as those claims would have been understood at the time of the invention?