DCT

2:24-cv-00165

Avant Location Tech LLC v. Fibar Group SA

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00165, E.D. Tex., 03/08/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants, though foreign corporations, are subject to personal jurisdiction and transact substantial business in the district, including offering the accused products for sale through intermediaries such as a Walmart Supercenter located in Marshall, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Fibaro line of smart home automation products infringes seven patents related to methods and systems for monitoring the presence of a mobile device within a defined “special area” to enable location-based services.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves geofencing, where a mobile device's location is used to trigger actions upon entering or exiting a predefined geographical boundary, a foundational feature in the smart home and Internet of Things (IoT) markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-28 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 Issues
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 Issues
2015-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910 Issues
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 Issues
2016-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621 Issues
2017-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 Issues
2018-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 Issues
2024-03-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: May 27, 2014
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶8)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge for mobile network operators facing competition from short-range wireless technologies (e.g., Wi-Fi) that provide cheaper connectivity in specific locations like homes. The operators lacked a flexible way to offer different rates or services when a user is in such a "special area" without needing to modify the local radio transmitters. (’040 Patent, col. 1:30-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where the mobile network sends "checking data" to a mobile station. The mobile station uses this data to recognize a local "distinctive defining signal" (e.g., from a Wi-Fi router) that defines the special area. Upon recognizing the signal, the mobile station sends an "updating signal" to the network about its presence, independent of any phone call activity. This allows the network operator to remotely define special areas and adjust services accordingly without altering the local radio device. (’040 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-51).
  • Technical Importance: This approach decouples the logic for location-based services from the local-area radio hardware, granting mobile operators the flexibility to create and manage special service zones remotely. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of claim 13 include:
    • A mobile station, comprising: observing means to observe a channel and process a received signal;
    • A processor to determine, based on previously obtained checking data, if the signal is a "distinctive defining signal" that defines a special area and to determine if the mobile station is present in that area;
    • The processor is further to send an "updating signal" to a mobile telephone network about its presence (periodically, upon entry/exit, or while remaining in the area);
    • The sending of the updating signal is "uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment" and is based on the mobile station's last presence determination.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’040 Patent. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: June 26, 2018
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶9)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as its predecessors: enabling mobile networks to flexibly associate special services with specific locations. (’720 Patent, col. 2:6-14).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method where the mobile station receives a distinctive defining signal that itself contains "information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment." This adds a contextual or verification element. The mobile station sends an updating signal, which includes this environmental information, to a provider of presence-related services, which then uses the signal to adjust an "operating parameter" like a tariff. (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-50).
  • Technical Importance: The invention adds a potential layer of security or contextual awareness by incorporating information about the local radio beacon's environment into the location-verification process. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Receiving and processing a "distinctive defining signal" in a mobile station, where the signal defines a "special area" (by coverage, intersection, or sum of coverages);
    • The distinctive defining signal includes information indicating whether the transmitting radio device is in a "predetermined environment";
    • Sending from the mobile station, via a mobile telephone network, an "updating signal" to servers of a presence-related service provider about the station's presence;
    • The updating signal is usable by the servers to adjust an operating parameter (e.g., tariff, service flat) and also comprises the information about the predetermined environment.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more method claims" of the ’720 Patent. (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: May 26, 2015
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶10)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a mobile station capable of receiving first and second distinctive signals from first and second radio devices, where the signals define a special area by the sum or intersection of their coverage. The mobile station uses data from these signals to determine its presence and sends an uncorrelated updating signal to a presence service provider. (Compl. ¶68; ’910 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Fibaro Home Center hub acts as a first radio communication device, while other Z-Wave accessories (e.g., repeaters) act as second devices, collectively forming a smart home network range that defines the special area. (Compl. ¶69, 76, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: January 13, 2015
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶11)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method where a provider of presence services stores data linking a mobile station to first and second special areas. The provider receives separate updating signals from the mobile station identifying its presence in each respective area and uses these signals to enable or disable presence-related services for each area independently. (Compl. ¶92; ’922 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint points to the Fibaro system's ability to define and save multiple distinct geofenced locations, such as "Home" and "Work," using GPS coordinates. (Compl. ¶¶94-95).

U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: August 25, 2015
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶12)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method focused on a single special area. A provider stores data linking a mobile station to a special area, transmits checking data to the station, receives an updating signal from the station identifying its presence, and derives the presence status to enable or disable a service. (Compl. ¶117; ’030 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Fibaro system's fundamental geofencing feature, where a user defines a single "Home Location," infringes this patent. (Compl. ¶¶118-119).

U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: November 1, 2016
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶13)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method emphasizing that the provider of presence-related services is different than the mobile telephone network. This third-party provider stores linking data, receives an updating signal from the mobile station via the mobile telephone network, and derives the presence status to enable or disable a service. (Compl. ¶131; ’621 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶131).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant Fibaro is the provider of presence-related services (geofencing), which is a separate entity from the cellular carrier that provides the mobile telephone network. (Compl. ¶¶132, 133, 145).

U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Issued: April 11, 2017
  • Citation: (Compl. ¶14)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for dynamically modifying a special area. A provider receives an updating signal from a mobile station, stores an operating parameter based on it, and then sends second checking data, different from the first, back to the mobile station to modify the special area. (Compl. ¶142; ’032 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶142).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Fibaro system's feature allowing a user to update the radius of a geofence constitutes sending new checking data to modify the special area. (Compl. ¶148).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendants’ smart home and automation devices, including Fibaro’s Home Center 3, Home Center 3 Lite, Home Center 2, Home Center Lite, Yubii Home, and associated accessories and mobile applications that interoperate with these hubs. (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products constitute a smart home ecosystem centered around a hub that uses Z-Wave, a wireless protocol, to create a local mesh network for controlling smart devices. (Compl. ¶¶33, 53). A key feature is "geofencing," which is configured and managed through the Fibaro Home Center mobile application. (Compl. ¶32). Users define a "Home Location" by setting GPS coordinates and a radius, creating a virtual perimeter. (Compl. ¶¶32, 52). The user's smartphone then reports its GPS coordinates to Fibaro's servers. (Compl. ¶34). When the smartphone enters or exits this predefined "special area," the Home Center hub can trigger automated routines, such as turning lights on or off. (Compl. ¶34). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendants' documentation illustrating how geofencing is enabled in the mobile application for both iPhone and Android devices. (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’040 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
observing means to observe a channel and process any received signal in order to determine whether or not it is receiving a defining signal... The smartphone and Fibaro app observe channels and process signals related to the geofencing service, such as GPS location data. ¶32 col. 2:31-34
a processor to process any received defining signal and to determine, based on a previously obtained checking data, whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal that at least partially defines a special area... The smartphone's processor uses the pre-configured "Home Location" (the checking data) to determine if its current GPS location falls within the geofence, which is defined by the coverage of the Fibaro Home Center hub's Z-Wave signal (the distinctive defining signal). ¶¶37-39 col. 2:43-51
to send an updating signal at least one of (i) periodically, (ii) when the mobile station enters into or exits... and (iii) when the mobile station remains... to a mobile telephone network about its presence... The smartphone sends GPS coordinates to Fibaro's servers when entering or exiting the geofence, and the servers receive this updated geolocation data continuously. ¶¶40, 43 col. 2:35-37
where said updating signal sending is uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment... The GPS location updates are sent continuously and are not dependent on the user making or receiving a phone call. ¶¶36, 42 col. 2:35-37
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a smartphone determining its own GPS position and comparing it to a locally stored coordinate set constitutes receiving a "distinctive defining signal" as contemplated by the patent. A defendant may argue the patent envisions receiving a broadcasted radio signal (like a Wi-Fi beacon ID) that itself defines the area, rather than the phone calculating its own position relative to a map.
    • Technical Questions: For the "observing means" limitation, which is in means-plus-function format, the analysis will depend on the structures disclosed in the specification for performing that function. Questions may arise regarding whether the accused smartphone's GPS receiver and software correspond to the structures described in the patent.

’720 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving and processing the distinctive defining signal in the mobile station, the distinctive defining signal at least defining a special area by... a coverage area of the distinctive defining signal... The smartphone receives and processes the Z-Wave signal from the Fibaro Home Center hub, which acts as the distinctive defining signal and defines the special area (the smart home network range) by its coverage. ¶¶52, 59 col. 2:23-28
the distinctive defining signal including information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment... The complaint alleges that the status of the mobile station (i.e., its GPS location) is indicative that the GPS device is located in a predetermined environment. ¶61 col. 4:51-58
sending from the mobile station via a mobile telephone network an updating signal to one or more servers of a provider of presence related services about the mobile station's presence... When a smartphone enters or exits the special area, it sends a presence updating signal (its GPS coordinates) via the cellular network to the Fibaro Home Center servers. ¶¶57-58, 61 col. 2:35-40
the updating signal being usable by the one or more servers... to adjust an operating parameter... to adjust, activate, or deactivate the presence related services... The Fibaro servers use the updating signal to trigger routines (e.g., turning lights on), which constitutes activating or deactivating a presence-related service. ¶¶57, 61 col. 2:40-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be the "predetermined environment" limitation. The claim requires the defining signal to include this information. The complaint's theory appears to be that the mobile station's presence status is this information. A defendant may argue this conflates the location of the mobile station with information encoded within the signal about the physical environment of the transmitting device (the Fibaro hub), as described in the patent's embodiments. (’720 Patent, col. 8:35-41).
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Z-Wave signal transmitted by the Fibaro hub actually contains data corresponding to the hub's physical environment? The complaint does not appear to specify any such data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "distinctive defining signal" (from ’040 Patent and other asserted patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement theory for multiple patents. Its construction will determine whether the accused system—which relies on a smartphone's self-determined GPS location compared against stored coordinates—can be found to practice claims that describe receiving a "signal" that "defines" an area. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a passively received beacon signal or if it can encompass a system of GPS coordinates and a stored map boundary.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the signal "at least partially defines a special area by its coverage." (’040 Patent, Claim 13). Plaintiff may argue that the combination of the Fibaro Hub's Z-Wave network coverage and the GPS-defined geofence together constitute the "coverage" that defines the area.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples where the "defining signal" is a signal broadcast from a local radio device, such as a Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or DECT device, or a cellular base station. (’040 Patent, col. 6:17-24, col. 7:42-53). This suggests the signal is a broadcast that is received and identified by the mobile station, not a location calculated by the mobile station itself.

  • Term: "information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment" (from ’720 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is a key element of claim 1 of the ’720 Patent. The viability of the infringement allegation against this patent hinges on whether the accused Fibaro system can be shown to meet this requirement, which appears to be an added element compared to earlier patents in the family.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff alleges that the status of the mobile station itself is indicative of the environment. (Compl. ¶61). A broad reading might suggest that the system's overall operational context implicitly provides this information.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires this "information" to be included in the "distinctive defining signal." The specification's embodiments describe this in the context of a wireless device being physically connected to a fixed network point or receiving a signal from a trusted radio broadcast unit, where that status is confirmed and transmitted. (’720 Patent, col. 8:35-67). This suggests the signal must carry explicit data confirming the transmitting device's location or connectivity, which may not be present in the accused Z-Wave signal.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendants manufacturing and selling the accused products while also providing instructions, product manuals, and online documentation that encourage and direct end-users to set up and use the allegedly infringing geofencing features. (Compl. ¶¶45, 62, 86, 111, 125, 136, 149).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendants have had actual notice of the Asserted Patents, at least as of the filing date of this complaint." (Compl. ¶26). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: the asserted patents were drafted in the context of mobile telephone network operators creating special service zones, but they are being asserted against a third-party, over-the-top smart home system. This raises a key evidentiary question: does a system where a smartphone calculates its own GPS position and compares it to a user-defined boundary (the accused system) function in a substantially similar way to the patented method of a mobile device receiving and identifying a "distinctive defining signal" from a local beacon?
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope, particularly for claims requiring additional elements like those in the ’720 Patent. Can the claim limitation requiring the defining signal to include "information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment" be satisfied by the operational context of a smart home hub, or does the claim require explicit data to be encoded within the broadcasted signal itself? The outcome of this construction may be dispositive for at least some of the asserted claims.