DCT
2:23-cv-00073
OBD Sensor Solutions LLC v. Allstate Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: OBD Sensor Solutions LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Allstate Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00073, E.D. Tex., 02/24/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain established and regular places of business in the district and have committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Drivewise" and "Milewise" usage-based insurance programs, which use on-board diagnostic devices, infringe a patent related to monitoring and processing motor vehicle operating data.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns on-board devices that connect to a vehicle's internal network to collect and analyze driving data, a field central to usage-based insurance and fleet management.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patent as of September 3, 2015, because they cited it during the prosecution of their own, unrelated patent application, a fact which may be central to allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-06-18 | ’346 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-14 | ’346 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2006-12-05 | ’346 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-09-03 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of the ’346 Patent |
| 2023-02-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,146,346 - "Fuzzy-Logic On Board Device For Monitoring And Processing Motor Vehicle Operating Data", issued December 5, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for on-board vehicle systems that can collect and process operating data to optimize vehicle design, monitor component aging, and provide information for risk analysis by insurance companies (’346 Patent, col. 1:15-22; col. 2:2-17). Prior solutions were described as having low processing capability, requiring dedicated sensors, and lacking full autonomy or compatibility with existing vehicle networks (’346 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronic device that connects to a vehicle’s existing on-board diagnostic systems and inner network (e.g., via an OBD connector) (’346 Patent, col. 5:21-30). It is described as a "stand-alone device" that can cooperate with the vehicle's existing electronic control units (ECUs) to process data using fuzzy-logic principles, creating a statistical profile (a "DNA") of the vehicle's usage patterns without requiring modification to the vehicle's core systems (’346 Patent, col. 1:56-62; col. 6:20-33). The device comprises a central processing unit, data storage, and connectors for both the vehicle's internal network and external peripheral devices (’346 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a method for sophisticated, autonomous data analysis by leveraging a vehicle's existing sensor network, rather than requiring a costly and complex installation of new, dedicated sensors (’346 Patent, col. 1:48-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an electronic device with the following essential elements:
- a central processing unit (CPU);
- an integrated data storage connected to the CPU;
- a network connector for connecting to a motor vehicle's inner network via a standard diagnostic connector (e.g., OBD/EOBD);
- the device being a "stand-alone device" that cooperates with the vehicle's electronic control units;
- the device processes data received from the vehicle's sensors via the inner network, stores the analysis, and provides for connection to an external radio transmitter or wireless unit;
- a front-end device and bus connecting the network connector to the CPU;
- a further bus connecting the CPU to the storage.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief is general, seeking judgment that "one or more claims" have been infringed (Compl. ¶46a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Allstate's "Drivewise®" and "Milewise®" programs, including their associated software, applications, and hardware (Compl. ¶24).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are usage-based insurance programs that utilize a "telematics device" provided to the customer (Compl. ¶27). This device is described as plugging into the vehicle's On-Board Diagnostic (OBD-II) port to collect and record driving performance data related to the vehicle's operation (Compl. ¶26-27). This data is then presumably used by Allstate to adjust insurance rates or provide feedback to drivers. The programs are advertised as being available in Texas and are promoted through Allstate's website and agent network (Compl. ¶15-16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’346 Patent. The core allegations are outlined in paragraph 36, which recites the functionality of the accused products in language that closely tracks the elements of the claim.
’346 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electronic device for monitoring and processing information data...comprising: a central processing unit (3); an integrated data storage (4) connected to the central processing unit; | The Accused Instrumentalities... provide an electronic device for monitoring and processing information data... said device comprising, a central processing unit; an integrated data storage connected to the central processing unit; | ¶36 | col. 6:11-15 |
| a network connector (8) operatively connected to the central processing unit and configured to be connected to an inner network of a motor vehicle through a connector (40) used by motor vehicle makers for accessing a vehicle on-board electric system with a diagnostic unit, | and a network connector operatively connected to the central processing unit and configured to be connected to an inner network of a motor vehicle through a connector used by motor vehicle makers for accessing a vehicle on-board electric system with a diagnostic unit, | ¶36 | col. 6:16-20 |
| said device being a stand-alone device cooperating with the vehicle electronic dedicated control units, via said network connector and through said inner network, | said device being a stand-alone device cooperating with the vehicle electronic dedicated control units, via said network connector and through said inner network, | ¶36 | col. 6:20-23 |
| and processing information data related to use and functioning of the motor vehicle received through said network connector and the inner network from connected vehicle sensors, said data received through said inner network being processed by said central processing unit and performed analysis being stored into said storage (4); | and processing information data related to use and functioning of the motor vehicle received through said network connector and the inner network from connected vehicle sensors, said data received through said inner network being processed by said central processing unit and performed analysis being stored into said storage; | ¶36 | col. 6:23-29 |
| an interface connector (2) providing connection to one of a radio transmitter (6) and a wireless unit; | an interface connector providing connection to one of a radio transmitter and a wireless unit; | ¶36 | col. 6:30-32 |
| a front-end device (6) and a bus (13) connecting said network connector (8) to said central processing unit; and a further bus (14) connecting said central processing unit to said storage (4), | and a front-end device and a bus connecting said network connector to said central processing unit; and a further bus connecting said central processing unit to said storage, | ¶36 | col. 6:33-37 |
| wherein said device is coupled, through said on-board network connector (8), with one of an OBD- and an EOBD connector (40) for interfacing the motor vehicle inner networks with an outside network of said motor vehicle. | wherein said device is coupled, through said on-board network connector, with one of an OBD- and an EOBD connector for interfacing the motor vehicle inner networks with an outside network of said motor vehicle. | ¶36 | col. 6:38-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will concern the interpretation of "stand-alone device." The court may need to determine if a device that is part of a larger, cloud-connected service (the Drivewise/Milewise programs) and reliant on that service for its ultimate purpose still qualifies as "stand-alone" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the device to be "cooperating with the vehicle electronic dedicated control units." The complaint alleges this element is met but does not specify the nature of the "cooperation" performed by the accused devices. A key factual question will be whether the Allstate devices merely read data passively from the vehicle's data bus or engage in a more interactive form of cooperation as might be described in the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stand-alone device"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the physical and operational nature of the claimed invention. Defendant may argue its device is merely a component of a larger, integrated system and not "stand-alone." Plaintiff will likely argue the term distinguishes the device from being a factory-installed, deeply integrated ECU. The construction of this term will be critical to determining if the accused hardware falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the device can be "coupled in a fixed manner... to become an integrating portion of the on-board electronic system" (’346 Patent, col. 5:32-35), which could support a view that "stand-alone" does not require complete operational independence from a larger system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself contrasts the "stand-alone device" with the "vehicle electronic dedicated control units," suggesting "stand-alone" implies it is an add-on, separate from the vehicle's native control modules (’346 Patent, col. 6:20-22). The abstract also describes the invention as a "device," not a system, which may support a narrower construction focused on the hardware unit itself.
The Term: "inner network"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory relies on the accused device connecting to the vehicle's OBD-II port to access this "inner network." Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of "inner network" (e.g., CAN, TTP, K-line as mentioned in the specification) must be shown to read on the specific network architecture accessed by the accused devices through the OBD-II port.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly refer to interfacing with the vehicle's network via standard connectors like "OBD- and an EOBD connector" (’346 Patent, col. 6:39-40), suggesting "inner network" is intended to broadly cover the standard data networks accessible through such ports.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of network types, such as "CAN, TTP, or a direct connection type, for example a K-line" (’346 Patent, col. 3:29-31). A defendant could argue that "inner network" should be limited to these specific disclosed protocols or architectures if the accused system uses a different method of communication.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Allstate takes active steps to cause its customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. These steps allegedly include distributing instructions and promoting the use of the devices (Compl. ¶38).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’346 Patent. The complaint specifically alleges that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company cited the ’346 Patent in an information disclosure statement during the prosecution of its own U.S. Patent 10,109,014, and that this knowledge dates back to at least September 3, 2015 (Compl. ¶37, ¶41). This allegation of actual, documented knowledge is a significant factor in a willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the application of a 2001-priority patent to modern telematics-based insurance products. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "stand-alone device," as used in the patent, be construed to cover a telematics dongle that is a component of a larger, networked insurance service, or is its meaning limited to a device that operates more independently?
- A second key issue will be one of technical function: what level of interaction is required by the term "cooperating with" the vehicle's control units? The case may turn on whether the accused devices' passive data collection meets this claimed functional requirement.
- A third major question will be one of intent: does the allegation that Allstate cited the patent-in-suit during its own patent prosecution in 2015 constitute sufficient pre-suit knowledge to support a finding of willful infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages?