Nostromo LLC v. Resideo Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Resideo Technologies, Inc. (Delaware); Ademco Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00121, E.D. Tex., 02/20/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically identifying a logistics and distribution facility in Fort Worth, and have purposefully directed infringing activities toward the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home products and associated software, which utilize geofencing to trigger alerts on a user's mobile device, infringe a patent related to providing customized, location-based information services.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a portable device's location to automatically push relevant, pre-configured information or alerts to a user, a foundational feature in the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart home automation markets.
• Key Procedural History: A provided Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the patent-in-suit, with a certificate date post-dating the complaint, indicates that the patentability of asserted claim 1, among others, was confirmed by the USPTO. This procedural event may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity during litigation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970 - Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device

Issued October 15, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art location-based services as requiring a user to actively request information. This model is described as impractical for receiving timely updates on emergent local events and often results in users receiving information that is not of interest or that covers an overly broad geographical area (’970 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system and method that automates the delivery of customized location-based information to a portable device. A user pre-defines preferences, such as categories of information (e.g., traffic, weather) and a geographic range (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-44). The system then monitors the device's location and, upon detecting that a pre-set condition has been met (e.g., the device enters a specified area), it automatically selects and transmits relevant information to the user based on their stored preferences, eliminating the need for a manual request (’970 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from a "pull" model, where the user initiates a request, to an automated "push" model, intended to improve the timeliness and relevance of location-based services for the end-user (’970 Patent, col. 7:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶¶32, 33).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Providing an information platform and a user preference database to receive and record a user's preferences for information categories and a location range.
  • Setting and storing at least one trigger condition in a condition database.
  • Receiving positioning information from the user's portable device.
  • Determining if a trigger condition has been met and, if so, selecting location information from a database "in accordance with the positioning information and the preference settings" and transmitting it to the portable device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Total Connect System," which includes products such as "Honeywell thermostats, alarm services, and security cameras" that are managed through software applications including the "Total Connect Application" and the "Resideo Application" (Compl. ¶¶28, 34).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Total Connect System provides location-based services, such as "geofencing," which uses a mobile phone's location data to trigger events (Compl. ¶36). For instance, when a user's phone crosses a pre-defined geographic boundary (a geofence), the system can trigger "custom alerts" or other actions related to the user's smart home devices (Compl. ¶¶35, 37). These features are part of Defendant's broader smart home ecosystem, which offers users remote control and automated alerts for security and home comfort (Compl. ¶¶5, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’970 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the "location information" selected and transmitted is, for example, the "Home location" (Compl. ¶37). The patent specification, however, consistently describes "location information" as dynamic content about a location, such as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-36). The litigation may raise the question of whether a static identifier like "Home location" falls within the scope of the term "location information" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires "selecting" information "in accordance with the positioning information and the preference settings." A technical question is whether the accused geofencing system performs this specific two-input selection process. The court may need to determine if crossing a geofence (the condition) simply triggers a pre-set, static alert, or if the system dynamically selects information from a database of multiple options using both the current location and user preferences as required by the claim. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to resolve this.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "location information"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. If construed narrowly to mean only dynamic, third-party data about a location (e.g., traffic, news), the infringement case against a system that sends simple status alerts (e.g., "you are home") could be more difficult to prove. If construed broadly to mean any data related to a location, the infringement argument may be stronger.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the type of "location information." A party could argue that any data identifying or relating to a location meets the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides repeated examples, such as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-36), "real-time local news information" (col. 5:26-27), and information about "typhoons or earthquakes" (col. 1:33-34). These examples could support an interpretation that "location information" is meant to be substantive content about a location, not merely an identifier for it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide products to customers and end-users with instructions on how to operate them in an infringing manner through "website, product literature and packaging, and other publications" (Compl. ¶40).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendants have knowledge of the ’970 Patent "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also pleads pre-suit willful blindness, alleging Defendants "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others" in their industry (Compl. ¶39).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions regarding claim interpretation and technical operation.

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "location information", which the patent repeatedly describes in the context of dynamic content such as traffic and weather, be construed to cover the static "custom alerts" and "Home location" identifiers allegedly transmitted by the accused Total Connect system?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system's geofencing feature perform the specific, multi-part process of "selecting" information from a database "in accordance with" both the user's real-time position and their stored preferences as claimed, or is there a functional mismatch where the system performs a simpler, pre-configured trigger-action function?