DCT
2:17-cv-00494
Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. Phillips 66 Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Geographic Location Innovations LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Phillips 66 Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00494, E.D. Tex., 06/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, citing a Conoco gas station in Marshall, Texas, and because acts of infringement allegedly occur in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Station Finder mobile website and service infringes a patent related to remotely programming location-based information into a positional device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow a user to look up a location on a remote server, which then sends coordinates to the user's device for navigation, aiming to simplify address entry for GPS-style devices.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-04-28 | ’285 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-03-29 | ’285 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-06-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,917,285 - "Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,917,285, "Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device," issued March 29, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty and potential danger of manually programming addresses into then-current GPS devices, particularly while driving ('285 Patent, col. 2:4-13). It also notes problems arising from different devices using different address formats and the inefficiency of entering the same address into multiple devices ('285 Patent, col. 1:42-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user's device communicates with a remote server. The user requests a location, and the server resolves the address into coordinates, which are then transmitted to the user's device. This automates the entry process, allowing the device to provide route guidance without manual input by the user ('285 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-65). The system architecture, involving a user device, a communications network, and a server, is illustrated in Figure 3 ('285 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide a safer and more user-friendly method for programming navigation devices, a significant usability concern as in-vehicle telematics and portable GPS units became more widespread ('285 Patent, col. 2:26-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 13 requires a system comprising:
- A server configured to receive a request for an address, determine the address, and transmit it.
- A positional information device, which includes a locational module, a communication module, a processing module, and a display module.
- A communications network coupling the server and the device.
- A specific limitation wherein the server receives a time and date associated with the requested location, transmits that time and date with the address, and the device displays the address at the associated time and date.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Station Finder service," which the complaint defines as a "mobile website with associated hardware and software" (the "System") (Compl. ¶13-14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The System allows users to find Phillips 66, Conoco, or 76 gas stations via a mobile device like a smartphone or tablet (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the service automatically loads nearby stations based on the user's current location, as determined by the device's GPS hardware (Compl. ¶14, ¶17). A user can select a station, and the service will determine its address and provide route guidance on a map display (Compl. ¶16, ¶19). A screenshot in the complaint shows a map interface displaying multiple nearby "Conoco" locations (Compl. p. 4). Another screenshot shows a turn-by-turn route guidance interface (Compl. p. 5). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the product's market share or commercial importance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’285 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for remotely entering location information into a positional information device, the system comprising: a server configured to receive a request for an address of at least one location not already stored in the positional information device, to determine the address of the least one location and to transmit the determined address to the positional information device; | The System includes "one or more servers that receive a request for an address of at least one location...which is not already stored in the positional information device" and "transmits the determined address(es) to the positional information device." | ¶15, ¶16 | col. 13:38-42 |
| the positional information device including a locational information module for determining location information of the positional information device; | The System uses a "locational information module (e.g., GPS hardware)...which determines the location of the positional information device." | ¶17 | col. 4:1-15 |
| a communication module for receiving the determined address of the at least one location from the server; | The System uses a "communications module (e.g., cellular or WiFi components in the positional information device)...which receives the determined address(es) from the server(s)." | ¶18 | col. 4:26-32 |
| a processing module configured to receive the determined address from the communication module and determine route guidance based on the location of the positional information device and the determined address; | The System uses a "processing module (e.g., mapping software and the mobile website)...[which] determines route guidance based on the location of the positional information device and the determined address(es)." | ¶19 | col. 4:38-43 |
| a display module for displaying the route guidance; | The System uses a "display module (e.g., screen on the positional information device) for displaying the route guidance." | ¶20 | col. 4:16-24 |
| and a communications network for coupling the positional information device to the server, | The System uses a "communications network (e.g., cellular network) for coupling the positional information device to the server(s)." | ¶21 | col. 8:11-17 |
| wherein the server receives a time and date associated with the requested at least one location and transmits the associated time and date with the determined address to the positional information device and the positional information device displays the determined address at the associated time and date. | The server allegedly receives a time and date of the request to "determine traffic conditions" and then transmits it to the device for display. The complaint provides a screenshot of javascript code containing the function new Date().getTime() as evidence for this feature. |
¶22, p. 6 | col. 10:55-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the javascript snippet shown in the complaint (Compl. p. 6) actually performs the function required by the final limitation of claim 13. The complaint alleges the server receives and transmits a time and date to determine traffic conditions. However, the provided code
new Date().getTime()is a standard client-side javascript function that retrieves the local system time, often for purposes like analytics or session tracking (as suggested by the "googletagmanager.com" URL in the code). The evidence presented raises the question of whether this shows the server receiving a time and date and transmitting it back to the device for display, as the claim requires, or if it shows an unrelated client-side operation. - Scope Questions: The patent was filed in 2006, with a focus on dedicated "GPS device" hardware common at the time. The accused instrumentality is a "mobile website" running on a modern smartphone. A central dispute may be whether the term "positional information device" as described in the patent (e.g., '285 Patent, Fig. 1) can be construed to read on a general-purpose smartphone executing a web application.
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the javascript snippet shown in the complaint (Compl. p. 6) actually performs the function required by the final limitation of claim 13. The complaint alleges the server receives and transmits a time and date to determine traffic conditions. However, the provided code
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "positional information device"
Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical because the patent's specification and figures heavily feature dedicated, vehicle-mounted or handheld GPS units. The accused system, however, is a website operating on a multi-function smartphone. The case may turn on whether a smartphone running a specific application is equivalent to the "device" contemplated by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. The specification states the invention can be applied to "any type of navigation or positional information device including but not limited to a vehicle-mounted device, a GPS receiver coupled to a desktop computer or laptop, etc." ('285 Patent, col. 4:5-9). It also contemplates use with a "personal digital assistant (PDA)" ('285 Patent, col. 4:29-31).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Problem Addressed" section and figures focus on the specific context of dedicated GPS units of that era ('285 Patent, col. 1:15-24; Fig. 1). An argument could be made that the invention is directed at solving problems unique to that class of hardware, not general-purpose computers like smartphones.
The Term: "the server receives a time and date...and transmits the associated time and date with the determined address"
Context and Importance: This is a highly specific functional limitation that Plaintiff must prove. The complaint's only direct evidence is a screenshot of client-side javascript. Practitioners may focus on this term because there appears to be a potential mismatch between the evidence provided and the function described in the claim. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this specific data transaction is actually occurring between the server and the device.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the purpose for which the time and date are sent, only that the server receives it and transmits it. The patent also discusses transmitting a time and date for future use of an address, such as for a planned trip itinerary ('285 Patent, col. 10:51-61).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires a specific sequence: server receives time/date, server transmits time/date, and device displays the address at that time/date. This suggests a coordinated system, not just an incidental timestamp. The complaint's own allegation that the purpose is for determining "traffic conditions" (Compl. ¶22) could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a functional link between the transmitted time/date and a feature like route calculation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶13). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing user manuals, advertisements, or other materials that allegedly instruct users to perform the infringing steps.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of functional evidence: Does the client-side javascript function
new Date().getTime(), presented as evidence of the server receiving and transmitting a time and date, actually perform the specific, multi-step data transaction required by claim 13? Or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused system's technical operation for analytics and the claimed server-side functionality?The case will also involve a question of technological scope: Can the term "positional information device", which is described and illustrated in the patent in the context of dedicated GPS hardware from the mid-2000s, be construed to cover a modern, general-purpose smartphone running a web application?