DCT

2:24-cv-00134

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Brother Intl Corp

Key Events

Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fleet Connect Solutions LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Orkin, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00157, E.D. Tex., 05/28/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including facilities in Tyler and McKinney, and has committed acts of patent infringement from those locations.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of the Geotab fleet management and vehicle telematics system infringes eight patents related to mobile communication, vehicle tracking, and field asset management.
Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the field of vehicle telematics, which enables remote monitoring and management of vehicle fleets to optimize logistics, improve safety, and reduce operational costs.
Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows the service of Preliminary Infringement Contentions on the Defendant on May 15, 2024. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-09-10	Earliest Priority Date for ’926, ’715, ’968, ’291, and ’734 Patents
2000-09-18	Earliest Priority Date for ’044, ’565, and ’949 Patents
2006-10-17	U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 Issued
2009-10-06	U.S. Patent No. 7,599,715 Issued
2010-06-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968 Issued
2010-06-29	U.S. Patent No. 7,747,291 Issued
2013-10-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,565,734 Issued
2016-03-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,299,044 Issued
2017-01-01	Accused Product usage by Defendant alleged from at least 2017
2017-08-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,747,565 Issued
2020-06-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,671,949 Issued
2024-05-15	Preliminary Infringement Contentions Served on Defendant
2024-05-28	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926 - "System and Method For Providing Information to Users Based on the User's Location"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,123,926, "System and Method For Providing Information to Users Based on the User's Location," issued October 17, 2006. (Compl. ¶¶1, 24).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of conventional vehicle-to-vehicle communication methods, such as the inability to identify and contact nearby vehicles and the lack of privacy with CB radios, creating a need for improved automotive safety and warning systems. (’926 Patent, col. 1:21-49).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "mobile unit" installed in a vehicle uses a GPS receiver and a transceiver to determine its own location and status (e.g., speed, direction) and transmit this information to other nearby vehicles. This allows for location-aware alerts, such as warning a driver of an approaching emergency vehicle. (’926 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67).
Technical Importance: The technology sought to create a direct, location-based communication network between vehicles, enabling proactive safety warnings that were not possible with existing cellular or radio technologies. (’926 Patent, col. 1:43-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- determining a geographic location of the mobile unit;
- determining an identity of the vehicle based on a unique identification stored in the mobile unit;
- determining a priority level associated with the emergency situation;
- assembling a header of a communication that includes the location, identity, and priority level; and
- transmitting the communication to a second mobile unit to alert its user of the emergency situation.

U.S. Patent No. 7,599,715 - "System and Method For Matching Wireless Devices"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,599,715, "System and Method For Matching Wireless Devices," issued October 6, 2009. (Compl. ¶¶1, 34).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general limitations of inter-vehicle communication for safety and operational purposes, as described in its parent applications. (’715 Patent, col. 1:24-51).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for remotely tracking vehicle maintenance information. A mobile unit in a vehicle transmits a signal with a vehicle identifier and status information to a wireless system, which stores the data in a "first communication log," determines maintenance needs, constructs a new data packet, transmits that packet over the Internet, and stores it in a "second communication log." (’715 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-4:67).
Technical Importance: The invention facilitates the automation of fleet maintenance monitoring, allowing for centralized, data-driven management of vehicle health and service schedules. (’715 Patent, col. 11:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 31. (Compl. ¶40).
The essential elements of claim 31 include:
- receiving a signal from a vehicle's mobile unit containing a vehicle identifier and status;
- storing the signal in a first communication log with the identifier, time, date, and status;
- determining maintenance information by parsing the signal;
- constructing a communication packet containing the maintenance information, an address, and vehicle identification;
- forwarding the packet to a router for transmission over the Internet; and
- storing the communication in a second communication log.

U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968 - "System and Method For Navigation Tracking of Individuals in a Group"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968, "System and Method For Navigation Tracking of Individuals in a Group," issued June 22, 2010. (Compl. ¶¶1, 44, 45).
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for tracking a group of portable devices. A designated "master" device establishes and displays the geographical positions of selected "target" devices and can generate and send navigational instructions and ETAs to facilitate convergence between the devices. (Compl. ¶51).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶50).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Accused Products' functionality for tracking and managing fleets of vehicles, which are alleged to be the "portable devices," from a central "master" device or dashboard. (Compl. ¶¶18, 51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,747,291 - "Wireless Communication Method"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,747,291, "Wireless Communication Method," issued June 29, 2010. (Compl. ¶¶1, 70, 71).
Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for linking a vehicle, a mobile unit, and a website. The vehicle establishes a short-range communication link with an authorized mobile unit, receives information from it, uploads that information to a website via a second communication link, and sends a confirmation of the upload back to the mobile unit. (Compl. ¶77).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶76).
Accused Features: Infringement is alleged based on the Geotab system's use of a mobile unit (e.g., a phone with the Geotab Drive app) to connect with an in-vehicle device, which then uploads data to the MyGeotab web platform. (Compl. ¶¶18, 77).

U.S. Patent No. 8,565,734 - "Advanced Wireless Vehicle Services"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,565,734, "Advanced Wireless Vehicle Services," issued October 22, 2013. (Compl. ¶¶1, 80, 81).
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method performed by a network-connected vehicle computer unit. The method includes receiving vehicle maintenance and operation information over a cellular IP network, receiving instructions to remotely control vehicle functions like locks or a horn, and sending messages to a management system in the event of unauthorized access or an accident. (Compl. ¶87).
Asserted Claims: Claim 5 is asserted. (Compl. ¶86).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Geotab GO device functions as the claimed "network connected vehicle computer unit," performing the claimed methods of receiving and transmitting vehicle data over a cellular network. (Compl. ¶¶18, 87).

U.S. Patent No. 9,299,044 - "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,299,044, "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices," issued March 29, 2016. (Compl. ¶¶2, 90, 91).
Technology Synopsis: The patent details a method for managing mobile field assets. A user with a handheld device accesses a task template from a remote server at the start of a work shift, reports the status of tasks during the shift by synchronizing with the server, and the server updates the template with new or unfinished tasks. (Compl. ¶97).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶96).
Accused Features: Infringement is alleged through the use of the Geotab system by Orkin's field employees, who use handheld devices to access and update work orders and route schedules managed on the remote MyGeotab server. (Compl. ¶¶14, 18, 97).

U.S. Patent No. 9,747,565 - "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,747,565, "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices," issued August 29, 2017. (Compl. ¶¶2, 100, 101).
Technology Synopsis: A related invention to the '044 patent, this patent describes a method where a handheld device accesses a task template from a remote server, reports task status by synchronizing with the server, and the server updates the template with new tasks at the end of the work shift. (Compl. ¶107).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶106).
Accused Features: Similar to the allegations for the '044 Patent, infringement is alleged based on Orkin's field asset management practices using the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶¶14, 18, 107).

U.S. Patent No. 10,671,949 - "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices"

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,671,949, "System and Methods For Management of Mobile Field Assets Via Wireless Handheld Devices," issued June 2, 2020. (Compl. ¶¶2, 110, 111).
Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '044 and '565 patents, describes a method of accessing a template with a first set of tasks for a first time period, reporting status by synchronizing a handheld device to a server, and updating the template to include a second set of tasks for a second time period. (Compl. ¶117).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶116).
Accused Features: The infringement allegations parallel those for the '044 and '565 patents, focusing on the use of handheld devices by field employees to interact with task lists managed on a remote server. (Compl. ¶¶14, 18, 117).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The Accused Products are Geotab fleet management and tracking solutions, including Geotab GO telematics devices (e.g., GO7, GO8, GO9 models), Geotab Input Output Expanders ("IOX"), MyGeotab fleet management software, Geotab Drive, and related systems. (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products provide an end-to-end telematics solution for managing vehicle fleets. Hardware devices installed in vehicles collect data on location, vehicle health, and driver behavior (e.g., idling), and transmit this data to a cloud-based software platform, MyGeotab. (Compl. ¶¶18, 21). This platform allows fleet managers to track vehicles, analyze data, optimize routes, and monitor performance. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges Defendant Orkin uses this system for its fleet of approximately 10,000 vehicles to reduce emissions and costs by monitoring and managing vehicle idling. (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 2). Figure 1 is a promotional document showing an Orkin vehicle and describing the company's use of Geotab technology to reduce idling (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 1). Figure 3 displays a sample dashboard from the accused software, charting "Weekly Idle Cost," which illustrates the system's reporting capabilities. (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference Preliminary Infringement Contentions containing detailed claim charts, but these documents are not attached. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement summaries provided in the complaint body.

’926 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a method for alerting a remote user to an emergency situation via a mobile unit installed in a vehicle, comprising: determining a geographic location of the mobile unit;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products perform a method that includes determining the geographic location of the in-vehicle mobile unit.	¶31	col. 2:54-55
determining an identity of the vehicle based on a unique identification stored in the mobile unit;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products determine the vehicle's identity based on a unique identification stored in the mobile unit.	¶31	col. 2:63-65
determining a priority level associated with the emergency situation;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products determine a priority level associated with an emergency situation.	¶31	col. 5:37-44
assembling a header of a communication, the header including the geographic location of the mobile unit, the identity of the vehicle and the priority level...; and	The complaint alleges the Accused Products assemble a communication header containing the location, identity, and priority level.	¶31	col. 3:52-64
transmitting the communication to the second mobile unit.	The complaint alleges the Accused Products transmit the communication to a second mobile unit.	¶31	col. 4:1-4

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the routine operational alerts generated by the Geotab fleet management system (e.g., idling, speeding, or maintenance alerts) meet the claim limitation of an "emergency situation." The patent's specification primarily describes safety-critical events like approaching emergency vehicles or accidents.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products determine a "priority level" specifically associated with an "emergency situation" as required by the claim, rather than a general data-tagging or event-logging priority?

’715 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving a signal transmitted by a vehicle comprising a mobile unit, the signal comprising a vehicle identifier and a status of the vehicle;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products receive a signal from the in-vehicle mobile unit containing a vehicle identifier and status.	¶41	col. 18:7-10
storing the signal in a first communication log...including the vehicle identifier, a transmission time, a transmission date, and the status;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products store this signal in a first communication log with the required data fields.	¶41	col. 18:11-14
determining maintenance information associated with the vehicle, the determining comprises parsing the signal to determine the vehicle identifier and the status;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products determine maintenance information by parsing the received signal.	¶41	col. 18:15-18
constructing a communication comprising at least one communication packet...comprising the maintenance information, an address, and an identification of the vehicle;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products construct a communication packet with maintenance information, address, and vehicle ID.	¶41	col. 18:19-22
forwarding the at least one communication packet to a router;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products forward this packet to a router.	¶41	col. 18:23-23
transmitting the at least one communication packet over the Internet...; and	The complaint alleges the Accused Products transmit the packet over the Internet.	¶41	col. 18:24-26
storing the communication through the Internet in a second communication log.	The complaint alleges the Accused Products store the transmitted communication in a second communication log.	¶41	col. 18:27-29

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the meaning of "first communication log" and "second communication log." The question is whether these terms require two structurally distinct and separate logs, or if they can be read on different tables, states, or entries within a single, integrated database system as may be used by the accused cloud-based platform.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system's data flow follows the specific sequence recited in the claim: storing in a first log, then transmitting over the Internet, then storing in a second log?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’926 Patent

The Term: "emergency situation" (from claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement case for the '926 Patent may depend on the construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples relate to acute safety events, while the infringement allegations are based on a general-purpose fleet management system whose alerts may be operational rather than emergencies.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples beyond traditional emergencies, stating the advisory communication can relate to "an accident scene, road conditions, a traffic signal, traffic conditions, or weather conditions." (’926 Patent, col. 4:6-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract frames the invention in the context of "an approaching emergency vehicle," and the background repeatedly emphasizes improving safety and developing warning systems to minimize accidents, suggesting a focus on immediate hazards. (’926 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:43-49).

’715 Patent

The Term: "first communication log" and "second communication log" (from claim 31)
Context and Importance: The claim recites a sequence of storing data in a first log, transmitting it over the internet, and then storing it in a second log. Practitioners may focus on this term because the architecture of the accused cloud-based system may not map directly onto a two-log structure, raising questions of whether it meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific, restrictive definition of "log." A plaintiff may argue that any data repository qualifies and that "first" and "second" can refer to different logical states of the data (e.g., pre- and post-transmission) within a unified database system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's sequential structure ("storing...in a first...log;...transmitting...; and storing...in a second...log") may imply two physically or temporally separate storage actions and locations. The patent also depicts a "vehicle communication log," which could be argued to represent a specific, required data structure. (’715 Patent, Fig. 4B).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for U.S. Patent No. 7,741,968. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing the Accused Products to its employees and distributing instructions that guide their infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶53-55). Contributory infringement is alleged based on the Accused Products having "special features" with no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the '968 Patent, based on knowledge of the patent from at least the date of notification of the lawsuit. (Compl. ¶63). The complaint also alleges a policy of willful blindness to the patent rights of others. (Compl. ¶64).

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

Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "emergency situation," rooted in the '926 patent's context of on-road vehicle safety warnings, be construed to cover the operational alerts (e.g., excessive idling, route deviation) generated by the accused fleet management system?
Structural Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional equivalence: does the accused Geotab system's data architecture, likely a unified cloud-based platform, practice the specific, sequential method of the '715 patent, which requires storing data in a "first communication log" before internet transmission and a "second communication log" after?
Intent for Indirect Infringement: For the '968 patent, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant, by deploying a third-party commercial fleet management system to its employees, possessed the specific intent to induce them to perform the patented method of group navigation tracking, as opposed to merely providing a tool for general operational efficiency.