Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Allstate Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises, Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • Defendant: The Allstate Corporation and Allstate Insurance Company (Delaware/Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00090, E.D. Tex., 03/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district, including multiple physical office locations, and have committed acts of patent infringement there by offering and selling the accused products and services to customers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Drivewise" application, a smartphone-based driver-behavior monitoring tool, infringes six patents related to using mobile device sensor data to identify human activities and trigger responsive actions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors embedded in modern smartphones, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to analyze a user's motion and infer specific activities like walking, running, or, most relevantly, driving behavior for use in telematics-based insurance programs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 - Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD), issued December 31, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for the "next generation" of electronic messaging systems to be based upon the accurate identification of a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking or driving, using sensor data from a portable device. (’846 Patent, col. 2:40-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims systems and methods that use sensors in a wireless communication device (WCD), like a smartphone, to determine a user's motion activity (e.g., driving). (’846 Patent, Abstract). This determination is then used as a basis for selecting and delivering a targeted advertisement to the user's device. (’846 Patent, col. 2:50-57). The system analyzes sensor data by comparing it to stored "reference MTMA signatures" to calculate the likelihood of various activities and select the most probable one. (’846 Patent, col. 23:25-35).
• Technical Importance: The technology addresses the challenge of identifying user movement when the sensor-equipped device has no fixed or known orientation relative to the user's body, a critical requirement for practical applications where a phone may be in a pocket or bag. (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 12 (device), 17 (system), and 23 (means-plus-function system). (Compl. ¶¶26, 37, 42, 48).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) from sensor data produced by a wireless communication device (WCD).
  • The determination process includes storing reference MTMA signatures, determining a normalizing mathematical relationship for the sensor data, analyzing the data in frequency and time domains, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
  • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶27-36, 38-41, 43-47).

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 - Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions, issued June 2, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Related patents in the same family describe the technical difficulty of accurately identifying a person's activity with an accelerometer when the device's orientation is unknown and can change dynamically. (’273 Patent, col. 2:1-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for processing sensor data by first establishing the device's orientation in a coordinate system. This is achieved by "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference," which corresponds to the constant force of Earth's gravity. (’558 Patent, Claim 1; ’273 Patent, col. 7:4-7). Once this gravity-based reference orientation is established, subsequent movement data can be accurately calculated and normalized, allowing for the determination of the user's specific motion activity (MTMA). (’558 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This gravity-based normalization technique provides a solution to the problem of sensor orientation, enabling reliable motion analysis from a device that may be freely moving in a user's pocket, purse, or vehicle. (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 17 (method), 27 (method), 36 (system), 42 (system), and 52 (system). (Compl. ¶¶53, 69, 79, 88, 94, 104).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Receiving at least three streams of data sample values from WCD sensors.
  • Recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD.
  • Computing reference data based on that recognition.
  • Calculating movement data based on the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA based on the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶54-68, 70-78, 80-87, 89-93, 95-103, 105-112).

U.S. Patent No. 8,977,230 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," issued March 10, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a computer system that communicates with a remote wireless device to receive sensor data. The system compares the sensed data to reference data to determine if the activity relates to a user's need for assistance, an accident, or a crime, and communicates a message to the device accordingly. (Compl. ¶¶117, 7).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶117, 118, 119).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Allstate's "crash detection" feature, alleging it receives and compares sensor data to reference data to identify an accident and communicate a message to the user. (Compl. ¶¶117, 60). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface for the "introducing car crash detection" feature. (Compl. p. 60).

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," issued May 27, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a wireless device with computer code that enters a "first mode of operation" to capture initial sensor data, determines if that data indicates a potential need for assistance, and if so, enters a "second mode of operation" involving different sensors to capture further data. (Compl. ¶¶124, 7).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶124, 132).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Drivewise application's process of monitoring accelerometer data during normal driving (first mode) and, upon detecting a potential accident, using algorithms to analyze further data to verify the crash (second mode). (Compl. ¶124).

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," issued October 15, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: The patent covers a system comprising a computing device and an application with logic to determine a user's activity, determine a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitate a user-defined response, and communicate surveillance information to a remote computer. (Compl. ¶¶137, 7).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶137, 141).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges Drivewise determines the user is driving (the activity), activates a monitoring mode, allows user responses (e.g., confirming they are a passenger), and communicates driving habit data to Allstate's remote servers. (Compl. ¶¶137, 141).

U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - "Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device," issued May 28, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of processing three streams of accelerometer data by recognizing a reference set in a 3D coordinate system to define a relationship with a 2D coordinate system. It then computes reference data and calculates movement data within that 2D system to determine the motion activity. (Compl. ¶¶148, 7).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶148, 159, 168).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Drivewise of using 3D accelerometer data, establishing an orientation using gravity to define a 2D measurement framework (vertical and horizontal), and then calculating and matching movement data within that 2D framework to determine driving styles. (Compl. ¶¶148, 159).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Allstate "Drivewise" application and its associated backend systems and services. (Compl. ¶¶14, 25).

Functionality and Market Context

• Drivewise is described as a "smartphone-deployed driver-behavior monitoring and reporting solution." (Compl. ¶25). The application uses a smartphone's internal sensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope) to automatically detect when a user is taking a trip and to monitor driving events such as "hard braking, fast cornering," speed, and phone activity while driving. (Compl. ¶¶10, 26). This collected data is used to calculate "performance rewards" and provide "personalized driving insights," which are marketed as a way for users to save money on insurance. (Compl. ¶10, p. 11). The system also includes a "crash detection" safety feature. (Compl. p. 29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention (’846 Patent):
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether an insurance discount, a rewards point balance, or a policy credit, as provided by Drivewise, constitutes an "advertisement" within the meaning of the patent claims. The defense may argue these are elements of the service itself, not advertisements, which the patent specification exemplifies as promotions for third-party goods like running shoes. (’846 Patent, col. 78:44-48).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges detailed backend processing steps, such as storing and comparing "MTMA signatures" and performing normalization and likelihood analysis. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Drivewise system actually performs these specific algorithmic steps, as opposed to using a different, proprietary method to analyze sensor data.

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention (’558 Patent):
  • Technical Questions: What evidence shows that Drivewise performs the discrete step of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" before computing other data? A potential dispute is whether the accused system performs this claimed sequence or uses a more integrated algorithm that accounts for gravity without a distinct "recognition" step.
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "recognizing ... as a reference." The question for the court will be whether this requires a specific algorithmic flag or identification step, or if any use of a gravity vector to establish an initial orientation meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "advertisement" (’846 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’846 Patent hinges on construing Allstate's policy discounts, rewards points, and cash-back offers as "advertisements." A narrow construction limited to third-party commercial offers could render the claims not infringed. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the primary connection between the technical function (motion detection) and the accused business model (insurance rewards).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a method comprising "receiving a payment for or otherwise monetarily benefiting from causing the advertisement to be communicated," (’846 Patent, col. 90:38-41) which could support an argument that any communication that benefits Allstate monetarily (e.g., by promoting safer driving that reduces payouts) is an advertisement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of an advertisement as a promotion for "running runners to nearby running stores," suggesting a traditional commercial context involving goods or services separate from the primary service offered by the system provider. (’846 Patent, col. 78:44-48).

The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" (’558 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the foundational step of the patented method for orienting the device. The infringement question will likely be whether the Drivewise algorithm performs this specific "recognizing" step or simply uses a different method to account for gravity.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A related patent in the family describes finding these reference points by "selecting data points with magnitude sufficiently close to 1," which corresponds to the force of gravity. (’273 Patent, col. 7:4-7). This may support an argument that any process that isolates and uses the gravity vector to establish orientation performs the "recognizing" step.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites "recognizing" and then "computing" as distinct steps. This sequence may support an argument that the claim requires a discrete software function that first identifies and flags a specific data set as "the reference" before any subsequent computation, a specific implementation the accused product may not use.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants commit acts of induced infringement by educating customers on how to use the Drivewise application and through the end-users' subsequent use of the accused features. (Compl. ¶¶15, 16).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all asserted patents but does not plead specific facts in the main body of the complaint to establish pre-suit knowledge by the Defendants. (Compl. p. 84).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can financial incentives integral to an insurance product, such as "policy credit" or "rewards points," be construed as an "advertisement" under the claims of the ’846 patent, or is the term constrained to third-party commercial promotions?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic functionality: does the Drivewise application's method for analyzing sensor data perform the specific, sequential steps required by the asserted claims—particularly the '558 patent's step of "recognizing" a data set as a reference before calculating movement—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• A central question for the "interactive personal surveillance" patents ('230, '951, '914) will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused "crash detection" feature operate by entering distinct "investigation modes" and generating messages about a "need for assistance" in the manner claimed, or does it employ a different logic that falls outside the claim scope?