DCT
2:16-cv-01173
Forward Thinking Tracking LLC v. Teletracking Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Forward Thinking Tracking, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: TeleTracking Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP; Berger & Hipskind LLP
- Case Identification: Forward Thinking Tracking, LLC v. TeleTracking Technologies, Inc., 2:16-cv-01173, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, has transacted business, and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Real-Time Locating System (RTLS) for asset and personnel tracking infringes a patent related to multi-frequency object tracking systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a combination of low and high-frequency radio signals to locate tagged objects across different ranges or "zones," from a single container to a larger area.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-07 | ’741 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2006-01-24 | ’741 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-10-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,989,741 - "Object Tracking", Issued January 24, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of prior art tracking technologies like barcode scanners and simple Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) systems (Compl. ¶¶3-4; ’971 Patent, col. 1:11-40). These systems were often limited by short range, line-of-sight requirements, or an inability to provide precise, real-time location data without the tagged object passing through a specific "interrogator" (Compl. ¶4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a base station and electronic tags ("E-Tags") that communicate using multiple frequencies to create distinct tracking "zones" (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-35). A low-frequency (LF) signal is used for very short-range detection (e.g., within a desk drawer, defined as "zone 1"), while a higher-frequency (HF) signal enables longer-range detection (e.g., within a room, or "zone 2") and communication back to the base station (’971 Patent, col. 3:33-41, col. 5:1-16). This dual-frequency approach allows the system to determine not just the presence of a tag, but its approximate location with greater resolution than previously possible (Compl. ¶5).
- Technical Importance: The use of multiple technologies, including distinct LF and HF signals, was designed to extend the effective range and resolution for tracking objects beyond what single-technology systems of the time could provide (’971 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 4, 5, 6, and 7, of which Claim 4 is the sole independent claim asserted (Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 4 requires:
- A base station adapted to transmit a Low Frequency (LF) carrier signal with a unique ID and receive a higher frequency response signal.
- A plurality of "E-tags," each with a unique ID, attached to objects.
- Each E-tag is adapted to receive the LF carrier signal.
- Each E-tag is adapted to determine if a received LF signal contains its own unique ID.
- Each E-tag is adapted to transmit a response signal indicating whether it received an LF signal.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "TeleTracking Asset Tracking and Management system ('TeleTracking RTLS')" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the TeleTracking RTLS includes electronic tags such as "Asset Tags, Patient Tags, Infant Tags and Staff Tags," which have unique IDs and are attached to objects or people (Compl. ¶15).
- These tags are alleged to be "capable of interacting with, for example, low frequency (e.g. infrared or IR), and high frequency (e.g. 900Mhz) signals" (Compl. ¶15).
- The signals allegedly originate from "RTLS Infrastructure Components such as Room Beacons and Collectors" (Compl. ¶15).
- The complaint cites Defendant’s marketing materials to suggest the system provides "real-time data into proactive and predictive workflow information" (Compl. p. 5, n.1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’741 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base station adapted to transmit a LF carrier signal containing a unique ID, the base station also adapted to receive a response signal having a higher frequency and longer range than the LF carrier signal; | The TeleTracking RTLS includes "Infrastructure Components such as Room Beacons and Collectors" that transmit low frequency (e.g., IR) and high frequency (e.g., 900Mhz) signals. | ¶15 | col. 2:9-18 |
| a plurality of E-tags, each object having an E-tag attached to it, each E-tag having a unique ID associated with the object to which the E-tag is attached, | The system uses "Asset Tags, Patient Tags, Infant Tags and Staff Tags," which "each have unique IDs, which can be associated with objects to which the tags are attached." | ¶15 | col. 3:13-20 |
| each E-tag adapted to receive a LF carrier signal transmitted by the base station, | The tags are "capable of interacting with, for example, low frequency (e.g. infrared or IR)... signals from TeleTracking's RTLS Infrastructure Components." | ¶15 | col. 3:39-41 |
| each E-tag adapted to determine whether a received LF carrier signal contains the E-tag's unique ID, | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, but this function is implicitly alleged by the overall claim of infringement. | N/A | col. 4:21-24 |
| and each E-tag adapted to transmit a response signal indicating whether or not a LF carrier signal was received. | The tags are "capable of interacting with... high frequency (e.g. 900Mhz) signals," which constitutes the response signal. | ¶15 | col. 4:37-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "LF carrier signal," which the patent describes in the context of radio frequencies like 125 kHz (col. 4:16-18), can be construed to read on the "infrared or IR" signals the complaint alleges are used by the accused system (Compl. ¶15).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system infringes, but does not specify how the accused tags perform the claimed step of "determin[ing] whether a received LF carrier signal contains the E-tag's unique ID" (Claim 4). A key technical question will be what evidence shows this processing occurs on the tag itself, as required by the claim, rather than at a central server or base station.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "E-tag adapted to determine whether a received LF carrier signal contains the E-tag's unique ID"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines where a key logical operation occurs—on the tag itself. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused tags perform this specific comparison or if they function differently (e.g., by simply responding with their own ID to a generic broadcast, with the base station performing the comparison). Practitioners may focus on this term because it allocates intelligence to the distributed tags rather than a centralized controller.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the functional language "adapted to," which parties may argue does not require a specific circuit but covers any structure capable of performing the function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the present invention, to the contrary, requires the E-tag to do the decoding" (’971 Patent, col. 4:27-29). This language suggests a specific operational sequence where the tag itself must decode the incoming signal and match the ID, potentially excluding systems where a central server performs this logic.
The Term: "LF carrier signal"
Context and Importance: The complaint's infringement theory appears to rely on equating "infrared or IR" with an "LF carrier signal" (Compl. ¶15). The construction of this term is critical to determining if the accused system’s alleged use of IR falls within the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "low frequency" is a relative term and could, in the context of the patent, encompass any signal type used for short-range communication, as distinct from the "higher frequency" response signal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific frequency ranges for the "LF carrier signal", such as "greater than about 30 kHz and less than about 15 MHz" and a preferred embodiment of "about 125 kHz" (’971 Patent, col. 4:5-7, 4:16-18). This evidence strongly suggests the term refers to radio frequencies, not infrared light, raising the question of whether the accused IR-based system can meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that TeleTracking provides "documentation and training materials that cause customers and end users" to operate the RTLS system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). It alleges Defendant "specifically intended" for this infringing use to occur (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’741 patent "since at least service of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶19). This is an allegation of post-filing willfulness, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "LF carrier signal", which the patent specification firmly grounds in the context of low-frequency radio waves, be construed broadly enough to encompass the "infrared or IR" technology allegedly used in Defendant's system?
A key evidentiary question will be one of locus of operation: does the accused TeleTracking tag perform the specific function of "determin[ing] whether a received LF carrier signal contains the E-tag's unique ID," as required by Claim 4, or does this critical matching logic occur at the "Room Beacons and Collectors" or a central server, potentially creating a mismatch with the claim's requirements?