DCT

2:22-cv-00507

Liberty Access Tech Licensing LLC v. ASSA ABLOY Ab

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00507, E.D. Tex., 12/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that because Defendants are not U.S. residents, venue is proper in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile access control systems, which use smartphones as hotel room keys, infringe patents related to using a portable device to activate a door lock based on a time-limited digital reservation certificate.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns secure, mobile-first access control systems for the hospitality market, replacing physical keys and keycards with digital credentials stored on a user's smartphone.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the '205 Patent underwent reexamination, with a Reexamination Certificate issued on February 25, 2022. This proceeding, which confirms the patentability of the claims post-issuance, may be raised by the Plaintiff to argue for the patent's strengthened presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-03-02 Earliest Priority Date for '205, '747, and '474 Patents
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,373,205 Issued
2020-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,657,747 Issued
2022-02-25 Reexamination Certificate Issued for '205 Patent
2022-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,373,474 Issued
2022-12-01 Alleged Date of Defendants' Knowledge of Patents
2022-12-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,373,205 - “Access Control System And Method For Use By An Access Device”

Issued June 21, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the inefficiencies of conventional access systems (e.g., for hotel rooms or vehicle chargers), where there is no convenient way to make a reservation, make payments, and securely receive access credentials on a single, common device. (’747 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an access device, such as a door lock, that contains a processor and a communication module. The device is configured to receive a digital "reservation certificate" from a user's portable terminal (e.g., a smartphone), compare the valid interval of the certificate to the current time, and activate the lock if the certificate is current. (’205 Patent, Abstract; ’205 Patent, as reexamined, claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach integrated a time-based reservation with the physical access mechanism, enabling a secure, keyless entry workflow based on credentials delivered wirelessly to a user’s personal device. (’747 Patent, col. 2:6-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 5. (Compl. ¶33). Note: The complaint was filed after a reexamination proceeding amended the patent's claims. The complaint’s infringement allegations for the '205 patent appear to track the elements of the reexamined claims.
  • Independent Claim 1 (as reexamined) Elements:
    • An access device comprising a processor controlling a door lock and a communication module.
    • The processor is configured to receive a reservation certificate from a portable terminal.
    • The processor is configured to compare the interval of the reservation to a current time accessible to the processor.
    • The processor determines if the current time is within the interval.
    • The processor activates the door lock to allow the terminal to unlock it during the interval.
  • The complaint does not identify other asserted claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,657,747 - “Access Control System And Method For Use By An Access Device”

Issued May 19, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a complete, end-to-end system that manages the entire lifecycle of a digital access credential, from its creation in response to a reservation to its use at a physical access point. (’747 Patent, col. 1:45-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a multi-component access control system. The system includes: (1) a secure reservation interface on a first device for making a booking; (2) a reservation server that receives the request and issues a reservation certificate; (3) the server's transmission of the certificate to a second, distinct device (e.g., a smartphone); and (4) an application on the second device that wirelessly presents the certificate to the physical access device to activate a door lock. (’747 Patent, Abstract; ’747 Patent, claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention defines the architecture and interaction pathways between the user interface, a central server, a portable device, and the lock itself, creating a comprehensive framework for mobile-based access. (’747 Patent, Fig. 7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1 Elements:
    • An access control system comprising: an access device (with door lock), a secure reservation interface, and a reservation server.
    • The reservation server receives a request for a location and interval.
    • The server issues a reservation certificate based on the request.
    • The server transmits the certificate and a communication setting to a second device.
    • An application on the second device wirelessly transmits the certificate to the access device.
    • The access device receives the certificate and its processor activates the door lock based on its receipt.
  • The complaint does not identify other asserted claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,373,474 - “Access Control System And Method For Use By An Access Device”

Issued June 28, 2022

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,373,474, “Access Control System And Method For Use By An Access Device,” issued June 28, 2022. (Compl. ¶67).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an access control system where the server provides a reservation certificate and a specific communication setting to an application on a portable terminal. The invention shifts a key piece of logic to the user’s device: the application on the terminal compares the reservation interval to the current time to determine if the certificate is current, and then communicates with the lock to activate it. (’474 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the ASSA ABLOY system where the Mobile Access app on a user's phone receives a mobile key, validates it, and communicates with the VingCard lock to grant access. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23, 74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities include the ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions Mobile Access Software Development Kit (SDK), the Mobile Access App, Mobile Services, VingCard electronic locks, and the Visionline and Vostio Access Management software platforms. (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities form a comprehensive system for mobile-based hotel room access. A flowchart diagram illustrates the six-step process, from a guest confirming a booking (1) to the cloud service delivering an encrypted key (3-4) to the guest's smartphone (5) and the lock decrypting the key (6). (Compl. p. 5, Fig. at ¶21). The system allows a hotel’s property management system to request a digital key from ASSA ABLOY’s cloud services, which then generates and securely delivers an encrypted key to a guest's smartphone app. (Compl. ¶21). The guest presents the smartphone to the door lock, which communicates via a short-range wireless protocol (e.g., Bluetooth) to receive and validate the key, thereby activating the lock. (Compl. ¶23, p. 8 Fig.). A screenshot from the reservation management interface shows a guest's reservation status as 'Key delivered to mobile device,' confirming the transmission of access credentials to the user's portable device. (Compl. p. 6, Fig. at ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’205 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as reexamined) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An access device...comprising: a processor having control of a door lock; and a communication module connected to the processor... The accused VingCard Electronic Locks are alleged to be access devices containing processors that control the lock mechanism and communication modules (e.g., Bluetooth/NFC) to connect with other devices. ¶¶20, 34 col. 5:31-37
the processor is configured to receive a reservation certificate presented by a portable terminal... The lock’s processor allegedly receives the "mobile key"—the purported "reservation certificate"—from the guest’s smartphone via the communication module. ¶¶23, 34 col. 2:18-21
the processor is configured to compare the interval of the reservation...to a current time accessible to the processor, [and] determine the current time is within the interval of the reservation... The complaint alleges the lock's processor determines if the mobile key is valid for the current time by comparing the reservation interval (e.g., check-in/out dates) with its internal clock. ¶34 col. 5:9-13
and activate the door lock to allow the portable terminal to unlock the door lock during the interval of the reservation. Upon successful validation of the mobile key, the lock's processor allegedly activates the lock mechanism, allowing the guest to enter. ¶¶23, 34 col. 4:42-46

’747 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An access control system comprising: an access device comprising a communication module connected to a processor having control of a door lock; The system includes accused VingCard locks, which are the access devices. ¶20 col. 9:1-4
a secure reservation interface to receive a reservation request from a first device... The system includes the hotel's property management system (PMS), which serves as the reservation interface to make bookings. ¶21, p. 5 Fig. col. 9:5-9
a reservation server...to receive the reservation request...[and] issue a reservation certificate... The cloud-based ASSA ABLOY Mobile Services and Visionline software act as the reservation server, receiving requests from the PMS and issuing a digital mobile key. ¶21, p. 5 Fig. col. 9:10-17
[and to] transmit, via the network, from the reservation server to a second device...the reservation certificate and a communication setting... The server transmits the encrypted mobile key over a network to the guest's smartphone (the second device). ¶¶21, 22, p. 5 Fig. col. 9:18-23
an application installed on the second device to...wirelessly transmit[] the reservation certificate to the access device... The ASSA ABLOY Mobile Access App on the guest's smartphone transmits the mobile key to the lock via Bluetooth upon the guest's action. ¶23, p. 8 Fig. col. 9:24-29
wherein the access device receives the reservation certificate...and the processor activates the door lock based on at least the receipt of the reservation certificate. The VingCard lock receives the mobile key from the app, and its internal processor validates the key and activates the lock mechanism. ¶23, p. 5 Fig. col. 9:30-34

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over whether the accused "mobile key" falls within the scope of the claimed "reservation certificate." The defense may argue that the patent's "certificate" requires a specific data structure (e.g., with explicit start/end time fields as shown in patent Figure 2) that is distinct from the data structure of the accused mobile key.
  • Technical Questions: The patent family distributes validation logic differently across claims. The '205 patent claims a system where the lock's processor compares the reservation interval to the current time. The '474 patent claims a system where the smartphone application performs this comparison. A key factual question for the court will be to determine the precise locus of this time-validation logic in the accused system—does it occur primarily in the lock, on the phone, or both? The answer could determine which patents, if any, are infringed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "reservation certificate"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of all asserted patents and is the core of the inventions. Whether the accused "mobile key" meets the definition of a "reservation certificate" will be a dispositive issue for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in general terms as transferring a "digital token or certificate" to a portable terminal to authorize access, which may support a functional definition not tied to a specific data format. (’747 Patent, col. 2:18-21).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 and the accompanying text describe a specific embodiment of a certificate with distinct fields for "DEVICE ID," "START TIME," and "SERVICE TYPE." A party could argue this disclosure limits the term to a data structure containing such specific, discrete information. (’747 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:27-41).

  • The Term: "processor is configured to compare the interval of the reservation... to a current time" ('205 Patent, reexamined claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it places the critical function of validating the "currentness" of the certificate on the processor within the access device (the lock). This limitation is a key distinction between the '205 patent and the '474 patent, where the validation logic resides on the portable terminal.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that as long as the lock's processor performs a final validation check before unlocking, this element is met, even if some pre-processing occurs on the phone. The claim requires the processor be "configured to" perform the comparison, not that it must be the only component to do so.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that if the "reservation time approximately agrees with the time of day read from its internal time-of-day/date clock," the device then allows access. (’747 Patent, col. 5:9-13). This suggests a direct comparison performed by the access device itself, supporting a narrower interpretation where a simple "unlock" command from a phone that has already performed the check would not meet the limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendants providing marketing materials, user guides, and a Software Development Kit (SDK) that instruct and enable hotel customers and guests to use the accused system in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 55, 75). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products have special features designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 56, 76).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint claims that on December 1, 2022, Defendant ASSA ABLOY sent a letter to Plaintiff "demanding a license to Liberty Access's patents," which allegedly constitutes actual knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 43, 63, 83). The complaint further alleges willful blindness through a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others." (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 61, 81).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "reservation certificate," which is described in the patents with specific fields for time intervals and device IDs, be construed to read on the proprietary "mobile key" data structure generated and used by the accused ASSA ABLOY system?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern the locus of operation: Where in the accused system does the critical step of comparing the credential's valid time interval against the current time actually occur? The answer—whether in the lock's processor (implicating the '205 patent) or in the smartphone's application (implicating the '474 patent)—will be fundamental to determining which, if any, of the asserted patents are infringed.
  • The allegation of willfulness will turn on the specific content of the alleged pre-suit communication between the parties. The complaint's assertion that Defendants initiated contact to demand a license to the asserted patents, if substantiated, raises a significant question of whether Defendants' continued conduct was objectively reckless.