DCT

2:24-cv-00369

Motedata Inc v. Track What Matters LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00369, E.D. Tex., 08/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Track What Matters, LLC maintains one or more regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including physical locations in Argyle and Flower Mound. The complaint supports these allegations with property tax records, photographs of business signage, and screenshots of corporate and employee LinkedIn profiles listing locations within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Rhino Fleet Tracking System and associated products infringe seven U.S. patents related to systems and methods for storing, retrieving, and managing data from electronic tags associated with objects or entities.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using electronic tags, such as GPS devices, to monitor assets like vehicles and then collecting, organizing, and providing user access to the data generated by those tags, a foundational capability in the fleet management and logistics industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a large family of continuing applications stemming from a provisional application filed in 2003. The complaint notes that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,218,520; 9,817,870; 10,459,930; and 11,100,118 are subject to terminal disclaimers, a procedural tool used during prosecution to overcome non-statutory double patenting rejections, which may limit the enforceable term of these patents to that of an earlier-issued patent in the family.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-10-30 Earliest Priority Date Claimed by Asserted Patents
2011-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,956,742 Issues
2012-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,314,705 Issues
2015-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,952,814 Issues
2015-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,218,520 Issues
2017-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,817,870 Issues
2019-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,459,930 Issues
2021-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,100,118 Issues
2024-08-15 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,956,742 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags (Issued June 7, 2011)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a comprehensive system to manage data associated with electronic tags affixed to a wide variety of objects, from valuable items and inventory to people and animals. The background describes a need to track objects, retrieve historical data (e.g., price histories, medical conditions), and manage the flow of information in complex environments. (’742 Patent, col. 1:41-2:48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system comprising one or more tags, components that communicate with the tags (e.g., sensors, computers), and a communication network. The system is designed to receive, store, and transmit data associated with a tagged object, often in response to queries from a user. (’742 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-4:34). A key aspect of the solution described in the specification is a "Crawling Subsystem" that discovers and acquires tag data from various distributed "Tag Data Depositories" and a "Data Reorganization Subsystem" that structures this data for efficient querying. (’742 Patent, Fig. 14; col. 6:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: The described technical approach provided a framework for aggregating and querying data from potentially disparate, distributed sources tied to physical objects, a significant challenge with the proliferation of tracking technologies like GPS and RFID. (Compl. ¶¶ 76-77).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10.
  • Essential elements of Claim 10 include:
    • A system for retrieving and organizing data associated with one or more tags having one or more identifiers from a plurality of repositories.
    • The system includes means for:
      • retrieving data from the repositories.
      • linking together at least one portion of the data associated with at least one identifier.
      • receiving a query or keyword search.
      • determining tag identifiers that satisfy the search.
      • aggregating data for the determined tag identifiers.
      • ranking the aggregated data to form an ordered list.
      • responding to the search with the ordered list.

U.S. Patent No. 8,314,705 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags (Issued November 20, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’742 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem of managing data from tagged objects. It reiterates the need for systems to track objects through supply chains, authenticate valuable items, and monitor health data, among other applications. (’705 Patent, col. 1:50-2:43).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a system for organizing data from a plurality of repositories, where the data is associated with tags having unique identifiers. The system is explicitly defined to include a "crawling subsystem" for data discovery and a "query processing subsystem" for responding to user requests. (’705 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 14). This patent continues to elaborate on the architecture for discovering, aggregating, and structuring data from distributed sources.
  • Technical Importance: This patent further specifies the architectural components for a scalable system capable of handling data from numerous, independently managed repositories, a key requirement for interoperability in supply chain and logistics applications. (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 76-77).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15.
  • Essential elements of Claim 15 include:
    • A system for retrieving and organizing data associated with one or more tags having one or more tag identifiers from a plurality of repositories.
    • The system comprises a processor that:
      • retrieves data from the repositories, where the data includes tag references that associate tag identifiers according to a hierarchy.
      • links the retrieved data using the tag identifiers.
      • receives a query or keyword search.
      • determines tag identifiers that satisfy the search.
      • ranks the determined identifiers based on the tag references.

U.S. Patent No. 8,952,814 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags

  • Issued: February 10, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This continuation patent further refines the system for accessing and organizing tag-related data. It focuses on a method where the accessing of data from repositories is triggered by event notifications, allowing the system to handle both static and dynamic data associated with tagged entities. (’814 Patent, col. 25:10-27).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 13. (Compl. ¶124).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Rhino FTS, which processes data from GPS tags in response to vehicle events (e.g., movement, ignition on/off), infringes by being a system for retrieving and organizing tag data. (Compl. ¶125).

U.S. Patent No. 9,218,520 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags

  • Issued: December 22, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for retrieving and organizing tag-related data that includes location information. The claims focus on using the location information from the tags to provide location information about the associated entities, a core feature of asset tracking systems. (’520 Patent, col. 25:51-26:11).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 16. (Compl. ¶130).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Rhino FTS, a GPS-based vehicle tracking system, infringes by providing location data from vehicle tags to users. (Compl. ¶131).

U.S. Patent No. 9,817,870 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags

  • Issued: November 14, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for accessing and organizing tag data where the system links data from repositories to provide static, dynamic, and temporal information about an object. The claims emphasize the ability to satisfy a query or keyword search and rank the results based on tag references. (’870 Patent, col. 25:52-26:9).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶136).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Rhino FTS infringes by accessing and organizing static (e.g., vehicle ID) and dynamic/temporal (e.g., location over time) data from its GPS tags to provide fleet information to users. (Compl. ¶137).

U.S. Patent No. 10,459,930 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags

  • Issued: October 29, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for retrieving and organizing data that links data portions from one or more repositories to provide a composite view of an object's static, dynamic, and temporal information. The claims again focus on satisfying a search and ranking the results. (’930 Patent, col. 25:55-26:9).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 16. (Compl. ¶142).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Rhino FTS infringes by retrieving and organizing various data types from its tags and associated cloud system to present a comprehensive view of fleet assets. (Compl. ¶143).

U.S. Patent No. 11,100,118 - Method and System for Storing, Retrieving, and Managing Data for Tags

  • Issued: August 24, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method involving a tag with a sensor and control software that transmits a message to a central authority, which in turn generates an alert. The system also includes a web interface for querying data and ranking results based on tag references. (’118 Patent, col. 25:60-26:21).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 15. (Compl. ¶148).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Rhino FTS infringes by using GPS tags (with sensors) that transmit data to a central system which generates user alerts (e.g., for speeding) and provides a web interface for querying fleet data. (Compl. ¶149).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The primary accused instrumentality is the Rhino Fleet Tracking System (“Rhino FTS”), which includes associated hardware such as GPS Vehicle Tracking Devices, a cloud-based software platform, and a mobile application for iOS and Android devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 90, 92, 106).

Functionality and Market Context

The Rhino FTS is a fleet management system that uses GPS tracking devices installed in vehicles to monitor their activity. (Compl. ¶91). These devices, which include plug-in OBDII and wired options, function as the "tags" that collect and transmit data. (Compl. ¶94). The complaint presents a screenshot of a "Vehicle Tracking Plug-in OBDII" device offered for sale on Defendant's website. (Compl. p. 20). The system is cloud-based, allowing users to access data from any internet-connected computer or mobile device. (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 99). The platform provides users with real-time and historical data, including vehicle location, routes, stops, speed, and mileage, which can be viewed on a map interface or through reports. (Compl. ¶¶ 96, 98). A screenshot from a training video shows the system's timeline feature, which displays a vehicle's data for a full day on a map and in a list view. (Compl. p. 24, ¶98). Each tag is distinguished by a unique identifier, such as a serial number and an International Mobile Equipment Identifier (“IMEI”). (Compl. ¶100). The complaint includes a screenshot from the user interface displaying the Serial Number and IMEI for a specific device. (Compl. p. 25, ¶100). The system is marketed to business owners and fleet managers with benefits including improved efficiency, safety, and cost reduction. (Compl. ¶¶ 103-104).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim-chart exhibits for the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 115, 121, 127, 133, 139, 145, 151). The infringement allegations are therefore summarized below in prose based on the narrative provided in the complaint.

Infringement Theory for the ’742 Patent

The complaint alleges that the Rhino FTS is a system for "retrieving and organizing data that is associated with one or more tags having one or more identifiers from a plurality of repositories." (Compl. ¶113). The theory maps the Rhino FTS's GPS tracking devices to the patents' "tags," the devices' unique IMEI to the "identifiers," and the cloud-based server infrastructure to the "plurality of repositories" and the "computer including one or more processors." (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 113). The system's functions of collecting, processing, and displaying vehicle data to users are alleged to meet the claim elements of retrieving, organizing, and responding to queries.

Infringement Theory for the ’705 Patent

The infringement theory for the ’705 Patent is substantially similar, alleging that the Rhino FTS is a system for "retrieving and organizing data that is associated with one or more tags having one or more identifiers from a plurality of repositories." (Compl. ¶119). This count similarly maps the components of the accused system to the claimed elements, alleging the Rhino FTS is implemented on a computer with one or more processors that performs the claimed functions.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be the interpretation of "a plurality of repositories." Defendant may argue that its integrated, cloud-based system constitutes a single logical repository for each customer's data, whereas the patent specification appears to contemplate a system that crawls and aggregates data from distinct, separately-managed sources (e.g., manufacturer, distributor, and retailer repositories). (’930 Patent, col. 21:40-44). Another question is whether the "ranking... based on tag references" required by several claims is performed by the accused system, which appears to provide chronological or location-based sorting of data for a customer's own assets rather than ranking different entities based on hierarchical relationships.
  • Technical Questions: The patent specifications describe a specific architecture involving a "crawling subsystem" and a "data reorganizer." (’742 Patent, Fig. 14). A technical question will be whether the accused cloud-based system, which likely uses a conventional database architecture to store and retrieve customer data, performs the specific "crawling" and "reorganizing" functions as described and claimed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a plurality of repositories" (from ’742 Patent, Claim 10; ’705 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as the accused system is a cloud-based platform that may be characterized by the defendant as a single, integrated system. The patentee will need to establish that the accused system accesses data from more than one "repository" to prove infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires physically separate databases, logically distinct data stores within a single system, or data sources managed by different entities.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification depicts various types of data sources that can be associated with a tag, including "Sensor Data," "Database Data," and "Web Page Data." (’742 Patent, Fig. 13). This could support an argument that logically distinct data types (e.g., raw GPS data, processed trip data, user account information) within a single cloud architecture constitute a "plurality of repositories."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples often describe crawling data from repositories managed by different commercial entities, such as a manufacturer and a distributor. (’930 Patent, col. 21:39-44). This could support a narrower construction requiring that the repositories be under the control of different entities or be otherwise meaningfully separate, beyond merely storing different types of data for a single user's assets.

"tag" (from ’742 Patent, Claim 10; ’705 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "tag" is critical for determining whether the accused GPS tracking devices fall within the scope of the claims. The patent family originated when RFID technology was a primary example of a "tag," and the operational details of RFID differ from modern cellular-based GPS trackers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "A tag is any device that sends, receives and/or stores data about whatever it is monitoring or is associated with; it includes many different types such as radio frequency identification device (RFID) tags, laser tags, cellular phones, devices that receive and transmit signals from . . . a Global Positioning System (GPS), etc." (’742 Patent, col. 1:47-54). This explicit inclusion of GPS devices provides strong support for a broad interpretation that covers the accused products.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that despite the broad definition, the specific problems addressed and embodiments described (e.g., proximity checking in Fig. 5) are so distinct from the functionality of an always-on GPS/cellular tracker that the claims should be limited to the types of tags and systems actually disclosed, not later-developed technologies.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for all asserted patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant provides the Rhino FTS system and associated GPS devices to its customers and provides instructions, user manuals, and a software interface that allegedly encourage and facilitate customers' direct infringement by using the system as intended. (Compl. ¶¶ 114, 120, 126, 132, 138, 144, 150).

Willful Infringement

While the complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement, each count alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the respective patent "at least since the filing of this lawsuit." (e.g., Compl. ¶114). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's "ongoing inducement" in light of the complaint's allegations is made "with the specific intent to induce ongoing infringement," which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-suit infringement. (e.g., Compl. ¶114).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused cloud-based Rhino FTS, which provides customers with access to their own fleet's data, practice the claimed invention's architecture of "retrieving" and "organizing" data from a "plurality of repositories," as that system is described in the patents' specification with its "crawling" and "reorganization" subsystems? The court will need to determine if a modern, integrated cloud database system maps onto the distributed data aggregation model contemplated by the patents.
  • A key question of claim scope will be whether claim limitations such as "ranking... based on tag references according to a hierarchy" can read on a system that primarily provides chronological and geographical visualization of a single customer's assets. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs a function equivalent to the hierarchical ranking of different entities described in the patents.
  • An evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what specific data processing steps does the Rhino FTS actually perform, and is there a fundamental mismatch between its operation and the specific methods of data linking, aggregation, and ranking required by the asserted claims? The outcome may depend on whether the accused system's general data reporting and display functions can be shown to meet the more structured processing elements recited in the claims.