DCT

2:24-cv-00141

PerdiemCo LLC v. Id Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00141, E.D. Tex., 02/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Frisco, Texas, within the judicial district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet tracking and electronic logging device (ELD) products and services infringe thirteen patents related to geofencing and vehicle data logging technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technologies involve geofencing for asset tracking and electronic logging devices for monitoring commercial vehicle driver activity, which are critical for logistics, fleet management, and regulatory compliance in the transportation industry.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff has engaged in extensive prior litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving the patents-in-suit and related patents, resulting in numerous licensing agreements. The complaint notes that the court has previously issued decisions on claim construction, patent eligibility, written description, and enablement for related patents. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant acquired a company, CarrierWeb, in January 2019, approximately six months after Plaintiff had sent CarrierWeb a notice of infringement letter identifying several of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-12-23 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application No. 60/752,879)
2016-09-01 Accused Product "FleetView" announced
2017-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941 Issued
2018-01-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 Issued
2018-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,021,198 Issued
2018-07-12 Plaintiff sent "Notice of Infringement Letter" to CarrierWeb
2019-01-01 Defendant acquired CarrierWeb (approximate date)
2019-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689 Issued
2019-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662 Issued
2019-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966 Issued
2019-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789 Issued
2020-01-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,602,364 Issued
2020-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,819,809 Issued
2021-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,064,038 Issued
2022-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,316,937 Issued
2022-11-30 Accused Product "Powerfleet Unity" launched
2023-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 11,622,237 Issued
2023-08-01 U.S. Patent No. 11,716,595 Issued
2024-02-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,680,941 - "Location Tracking System Conveying Event Information Based on Administrator Authorizations"

  • Issued: June 13, 2017
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the need for a system that can correlate events with the location of objects and convey information about such events to specific computing devices, overcoming the limitations of prior art systems where location information was conveyed without correlation to events or multi-level access controls (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 70; ’689 Patent, col. 1:55-60).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized, computer-implemented location tracking service where a system administrator can define groups of users and assign group administrators. These group administrators are given a second level of privilege to independently control event notifications (e.g., geofence alerts) within their own group, specifying who receives alerts via access lists, thereby enhancing privacy and control (Compl. ¶¶ 46-49, 64-65; ’689 Patent, col. 5:40-6:12). This structure creates a multi-level administrative hierarchy for managing location data and alerts.
    • Technical Importance: This approach provides a structured and secure method for managing location tracking services for multiple distinct customers or groups, solving technical problems of data segregation, user privilege management, and privacy that arise in computerized tracking systems (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 71).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶129).
    • The complaint references but does not include the claim chart (Exhibit B-1) that would detail the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶129).
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’941 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,871,874 - "A Multi-Level Database Management System and Method for an Object Tracking Service That Protects User Privacy"

  • Issued: January 16, 2018
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As with the related patents, the technology addresses the need for a more sophisticated way to manage location tracking and event notifications beyond simply reporting an object's coordinates (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 70; ’198 Patent, col. 1:51-57).
    • The Patented Solution: This patent, sharing a common specification with the other patents-in-suit, discloses a location tracking service that uses a multi-level database structure to manage users, objects, and access rights. The system uses various identification codes (for users, groups, objects, and devices) to associate data correctly and enforces access rules, ensuring that event notifications are sent only to authorized recipients on a specified access list (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62; ’198 Patent, col. 7:44-8:35). This architecture allows for granular control over data access and privacy.
    • Technical Importance: The claimed system improves upon conventional tracking systems by providing a reliable and efficient computer-based method for service subscribers to track assets and securely convey event notifications only to authorized individuals, which is a specific solution to problems arising in computerized location tracking (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 72).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 11, 44, and 45 (Compl. ¶146).
    • The complaint references but does not include the claim chart (Exhibit B-2) that would detail the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶146).
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’874 Patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,021,198: Titled “Software-Based Mobile Tracking Service with Video Streaming When Events Occur,” issued July 10, 2018 (Compl. ¶28). The patent is part of the "Geofencing Claims" portfolio, directed at systems for defining location-based events and managing the conveyance of event information, including video, among users with different access levels (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 44; ’198 Patent, Abstract). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 163).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,397,789: Titled “Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Information About Carriers of Mobile Device Based on Location Information Received from Location Information Sources Used by the Mobile Devices,” issued August 27, 2019 (Compl. ¶29). The patent is asserted as part of both the "Geofencing Claims" and "ELD Claims," directed at methods for defining location-based events and controlling how event information is conveyed to interested parties based on multiple levels of administrative privilege (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 44, 74). The complaint asserts claims 12 and 17, accusing both geofencing and ELD products (Compl. ¶¶ 109-110, 180).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,602,364: Titled “Method for Conveyance of Event Information to Individuals Interested Devices Having Phone Numbers,” issued January 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶30). The patent is asserted as part of both the "Geofencing Claims" and "ELD Claims," directed at systems for conveying event notifications based on administrator-defined privileges and access controls (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 44, 74). The complaint asserts claims 3 and 12, accusing both geofencing and ELD products (Compl. ¶¶ 109-110, 197).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,819,809: Titled “Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Notifications in Sub-Groups Defined Within Groups Based on Multiple Levels of Administrative Privilege,” issued October 27, 2020 (Compl. ¶31). This patent, part of the "Geofencing Claims" group, focuses on the hierarchical control structure where sub-groups within larger groups can have independent control over event notifications, a key feature of the alleged inventive concept (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 46-48). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 214).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,064,038: Titled “Method for Tracking Mobile Objects Based on Event Conditions Met at Mobile Object Locations,” issued July 13, 2021 (Compl. ¶32). This patent is part of the "Geofencing Claims" portfolio, describing methods for tracking objects where an event is triggered by the satisfaction of a defined relationship between the object's location and a user-defined zone (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 57). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 231).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,622,237: Titled “A Method That Logs Locations of a Mobile Computing Device in a Log File,” issued April 4, 2023 (Compl. ¶33). This patent, part of the "Geofencing Claims" group, is directed at methods for logging location data, presumably in connection with the occurrence of defined events within the tracking system (Compl. ¶8). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 248).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,316,937: Titled “Method for Tracking Mobile Objects Based on Event Conditions Met at Mobile Object Locations,” issued April 26, 2022 (Compl. ¶34). This patent is part of the "Geofencing Claims" portfolio and appears to be a continuation of the same subject matter as the '038 Patent, focusing on triggering events based on object locations relative to user-defined zones (Compl. ¶8, 57). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 265).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,716,595: Titled “A Method for Conveying Event Information Based on Roles Assigned to Users of a Location Tracking Service,” issued August 1, 2023 (Compl. ¶35). Part of the "Geofencing Claims" portfolio, this patent concerns methods for conveying event information based on roles assigned to users, tying into the multi-level administrative privilege structure (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 46-47). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's geofencing products (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 282).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,284,662: Titled “An Electronic Logging Device (ELD) For Tracking Driver of a Vehicle in Different Tracking Modes,” issued May 7, 2019 (Compl. ¶36). This patent is part of the "ELD Claims" portfolio, directed at ELD devices that can log driver user accounts, record driving events, and allow drivers to edit log files (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 74-76). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's ELD products (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 299).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,277,689: Titled “Method For Controlling Conveyance of Event Information by An Administrator of a Plurality of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs),” issued April 30, 2019 (Compl. ¶37). This patent, part of the "ELD Claims" portfolio, focuses on an ELD system administrator managing privileges for authorized users and drivers within a tracking service, improving administrative efficiency over prior art manual logs (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 77, 92). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's ELD products (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 316).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,382,966: Titled “A Computing Device Carried by A Vehicle for Tracking Driving Events in a Zone Using Location and Event Log Files,” issued August 13, 2019 (Compl. ¶38). This patent, part of the "ELD Claims" group, is directed at in-vehicle computing devices that log driving events, such as movement between zones, after detecting that the vehicle is powered on, which is alleged to improve accuracy over conventional paper logs (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 75, 82). The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses PowerFleet's ELD products (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 333).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused instrumentalities:
    • Geo-fencing Accused Instrumentalities: Vista Cloud Software, Unity, FleetView, and Trailer Tracking Software Track & Trace (Compl. ¶109).
    • ELD Accused Instrumentalities: The Compliance and Workflow Management solution integrated with Unity, PowerFleet LV-9000, PowerFleet MDT5700, PowerFleet MDT7000, and the associated HOS Application (Compl. ¶110).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused geofencing products are described as fleet management platforms and software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions that provide users with visibility of their assets and allow for tracking and monitoring (Compl. ¶¶ 109.c, 109.d). The complaint provides an image of the Vista Cloud Software login portal (Compl. p. 25, ¶109.a). The "Unity" platform is described as a fleet intelligence platform that unifies people, assets, and data (Compl. ¶109.b).
  • The accused ELD products are described as in-cab systems that comply with Electronic Logging Device (ELD) regulations, providing electronic logbooks, Hours of Service (HOS) management, and navigation (Compl. ¶110.e). A screenshot shows a "Compliance and Workflow Management" solution that integrates with a transportation management system (TMS) to reduce duplicate driver input (Compl. p. 27, ¶110.e). These products are registered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (Compl. ¶111).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that it attaches claim charts as Exhibits B-1 through B-13, detailing the infringement of each asserted patent (e.g., Compl. ¶129, ¶146). However, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document. As a result, this analysis summarizes the narrative infringement theory provided in the body of the complaint.

The core of the infringement theory for the "Geofencing Claims" (including the ’941 and ’874 Patents) is that the accused Geo-fencing Instrumentalities implement a computerized tracking system with a multi-level administrative structure (Compl. ¶¶ 46-47, 63-64). The complaint alleges these systems have a first level of administrative privilege for a system administrator and a second, independent level for a group administrator (e.g., a customer) (Compl. ¶64). This group administrator can allegedly set geofences, define event conditions, and control who receives notifications within their group by creating access lists, independent of the main system administrator (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65). This alleged structure is presented as the key technical improvement over prior art systems and the basis for infringement (Compl. ¶63).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products' user and administrator roles map onto the specific two-level administrative privilege structure required by the claims. For example, does a "customer account" in the accused systems function as the claimed "group administrator" with the specific, independent notification control privileges described in the patent?
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products implement distinct "first" and "second" levels of administrative privilege that operate independently as described? The dispute may focus on whether the accused systems simply offer standard user permission settings or if they implement the specific hierarchical administrative structure for controlling event notifications as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first level of administrative privilege" and "second level of administrative privilege"

  • Context and Importance: These terms are central to the patentability arguments and infringement theory presented in the complaint, which repeatedly emphasizes the novelty of a hierarchical system where a group administrator has control independent of the system administrator (Compl. ¶¶ 46-48, 64-65). The definition of these privilege levels will be critical to determining if the accused products, which likely have user and admin roles, practice the specific claimed structure.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system where an "administrator" can set up an "information-sharing environment" and that "various levels of administrator privileges can exist" (e.g., ’662 Patent, col. 6:54-61). This language could be argued to support a broad interpretation covering various forms of tiered user permissions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment where a "system administrator" performs a "first set of administrative functions" (e.g., creating groups) and gives a "group administrator a second level of privilege to perform a second set of administrative functions" (e.g., setting geofences and access lists for that group) that are "not performed by the system administrator" (’662 Patent, col. 16:34-61). This detailed description may support a narrower construction requiring two distinct, non-overlapping sets of administrative functions.

  • The Term: "access list"

  • Context and Importance: The "access list" is the mechanism by which the group administrator allegedly exercises independent control over who receives notifications, forming a key part of the privacy and security features highlighted in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 64, 66). Whether the accused products' notification features meet the specific functional requirements of the claimed "access list" will be a key point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the access list as specifying "one or more authorized users" to receive information (’689 Patent, Claim 2). This could be argued to broadly cover any feature that allows a user to select recipients for an alert.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the access list in the context of a specific database structure where the server retrieves the list based on a group ID (GID) and sends notifications "based on the identification codes of group recipients," ensuring "no one else is a recipient" (’689 Patent, col. 10:7-13, col. 15:1-7). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific database lookup and enforcement mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's provision of user guides, marketing materials, technical information, and customer support services that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 114-115, 124-125, 134-135).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff claims it sent a notice of infringement letter to CarrierWeb in July 2018, identifying the '941, '874, and '198 patents (Compl. ¶121). Plaintiff alleges that when Defendant acquired CarrierWeb in January 2019, it gained actual knowledge of the patents or was willfully blind for failing to conduct due diligence regarding accusations of infringement against its acquisition target (Compl. ¶¶ 118, 123, 132, 139).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the user permission and administration features in Defendant's fleet management platforms embody the specific, two-tiered hierarchical structure of "administrative privileges" described in the patents, or do they represent conventional, non-infringing user access controls?
  • A second central question will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's acquisition of CarrierWeb, following a notice letter sent to CarrierWeb, is sufficient to prove that Defendant had the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage infringement to support the claims for willful and induced infringement?
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: What technical evidence will be presented to show that the accused products' notification systems perform the specific database-driven "access list" functionality required by the claims, as opposed to generic alert-recipient selection common in software applications?