Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Safe Apps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises, Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Safe Apps Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00418, E.D. Tex., 06/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is not a resident of the United States, making venue proper in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges that Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s lone worker safety application infringes patents related to using smartphone sensor data to determine human motion activities and initiate responsive safety actions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue uses sensors embedded in mobile devices, such as accelerometers, to algorithmically identify specific human movements like falling or non-movement and automatically trigger safety alerts, a key function for personal and occupational safety applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 is identified in its Certificate of Correction as a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914, indicating a shared specification for some subject matter.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 - “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty in reliably determining a person’s specific motion activity using sensors in a mobile device when that device has no fixed orientation relative to the person (e.g., carried in a pocket or purse) (’558 Patent, col. 2:37-43). The complaint frames this as a core problem the inventions solve (Compl. ¶3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method that uses sensor data, such as from an accelerometer, to first establish a consistent frame of reference by identifying the direction of Earth's gravity. Subsequent sensor data is then normalized relative to this gravitational reference, creating an orientation-agnostic coordinate system. This allows for more accurate analysis and identification of specific motions like walking, running, or driving, regardless of how the device is carried ('558 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-21).
• Technical Importance: This orientation-agnostic approach to sensor data analysis was designed to enable more reliable activity detection on standard consumer devices like smartphones, supporting a range of applications in safety and health monitoring without requiring specialized hardware or specific device placement (Compl. ¶¶2-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶18, 34, 44, 53, 59, 69).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the core method elements:
  • Receiving at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing.
  • Recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system.
  • Computing reference data based upon that recognition.
  • Calculating movement data in the coordinate system based upon the reference data.
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based upon the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims by example and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶19-33, 35-43, 45-51, 54-58, 60-68, 70-77).

---

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for a personal security system that is not limited to a fixed location (like a building) but can travel with a user and automatically adapt its function based on the user's activities and changing environments without requiring constant manual input (’914 Patent, col. 2:7-15, 52-60).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system on a portable communication device that uses sensors to determine a user’s activity (e.g., walking, running, falling) and surroundings. Based on this context and user-defined parameters, the system automatically selects and engages a corresponding "surveillance mode," which can facilitate a response such as capturing audio/video, sending alerts, or communicating information to a remote server ('914 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows a standard mobile device to function as a proactive and personalized safety tool that can automatically initiate a security response based on contextual triggers derived from sensor data ('914 Patent, col. 2:52-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶¶80, 81).
• Independent Claim 5 recites the core system elements:
  • At least one computing device and an application comprising:
  • Logic that determines a user activity and/or user surroundings.
  • Logic that determines a surveillance mode that corresponds to the user activity and/or surroundings.
  • Logic that facilitates a user-defined response to the user activity and/or surroundings.
  • Logic that communicates surveillance information to at least one remotely located computer device.
• The complaint asserts dependent claims 6 and 20 by example (Compl. ¶¶80, 82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the StaySafe application, which consists of a "lone worker application" for mobile devices and a "lone worker hub" for centralized monitoring (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The StaySafe application is marketed as a safety solution for lone workers (Compl. ¶13). It uses a smartphone's accelerometer and gyroscope sensors to determine human activities, specifically "user falls" (detected by acceleration or impact) and "non-movement" (Compl. ¶14). When one of these events is detected, the application can trigger an alert, initiate an on-screen countdown, and ultimately notify third parties by sending information to the remote "hub" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides a screenshot of the application's user interface, which shows toggles for enabling "Non-Movement" and "Fall Detection" features (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’558 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused product's alleged use of gravity for orientation meets the specific claim limitation of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" and "computing reference data." The patent describes this in the context of creating a rotation matrix, and the degree of correspondence between the accused method and the patented method will be a central question (Compl. ¶¶21, 26).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused application compares reference data with accelerometer data to determine motion states (Compl. ¶18). The evidentiary basis for this allegation and the specific technical process by which the StaySafe application distinguishes a "fall" from "normal movement" will likely be a key area of inquiry. A visual provided in the complaint shows a coordinate system for a smartphone, illustrating the three-axis data central to this analysis (Compl. ¶18).

’914 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused product's binary "fall detected" and "non-movement detected" alert states constitute a "surveillance mode" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that these are simple event triggers, whereas the patent specification describes more complex, user-configurable modes corresponding to a variety of activities like travel and exercise ('914 Patent, Fig. 16; col. 2:21-25).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the application "facilitates a user-defined response" (Compl. ¶80). Whether the settings for non-movement time periods and fall sensitivity (Compl. ¶14) provide a sufficient level of user definition to meet this limitation, compared to the broader user-definable criteria described in the patent, raises a technical question for the court ('914 Patent, Fig. 4). The complaint includes an image of an alert screen, which visualizes the post-detection response (Compl. ¶15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" ('558 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed invention of an orientation-agnostic system. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused product's method of using gravity as a baseline infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its use of gravity is a conventional technique that does not meet the specific "recognizing" step as claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in dependent claims, such as determining reference data that is "indicative of a relationship to Earth gravity" ('558 Patent, Claim 19), could support a construction that covers any method using gravity as a baseline orientation signal.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and other claims describe this step in the context of a specific mathematical implementation, such as computing a "rotation matrix M" ('558 Patent, Claim 4). This could support a narrower construction limited to systems that create and use such a matrix.

---

• Term: "surveillance mode" ('914 Patent, Claim 5)
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the '914 Patent depends on construing the accused product's "fall detection" and "non-movement" states as "surveillance modes." The definition of this term will be central, as the defense may argue these states are simple event triggers, not the comprehensive, activity-based "modes" described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system determines user activities including "falling, standing, lying down, etc." and then "automatically uses the user activities to set or engage alarms or surveillance" ('914 Patent, col. 2:23-27). This language suggests that a "fall" is an activity that can trigger a "surveillance mode."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 16 of the patent provides examples of "User-Defined Surveillance Modes" that are highly contextual (e.g., "UDS - Mode 5" for Taxis in DFW at 7:00am) ('914 Patent, Fig. 16). This may support a narrower construction where a "mode" is a more complex, user-configured state tied to specific locations, times, or activities beyond a simple emergency trigger.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. The prayer for relief includes requests for injunctions against future contributory and inducing infringement, but the complaint body does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims (Compl. p. 40).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts a claim for willful infringement in its prayer for relief, seeking increased damages (Compl. p. 40). However, the complaint does not plead any specific facts to support this allegation, such as Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

• A core issue will be one of algorithmic scope: Does the accused application's method of using Earth's gravity to orient its sensor data perform the specific, multi-step process of "recognizing a particular set of data... as a reference" and "computing reference data" as required by the '558 Patent claims, or is it a functionally distinct and conventional technique that falls outside the claim scope?
• A central question will be the definitional scope of "surveillance mode": Can the accused application's reactive alert states for "fall detected" or "non-movement" be construed to meet the '914 Patent's requirement for a "surveillance mode" that corresponds to a user activity, or does the patent require a more proactive and broadly configurable system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: The complaint makes numerous allegations about the internal data processing of the accused application on "information and belief." The case will likely depend on what evidence is produced during discovery to substantiate these allegations and demonstrate that the accused software performs the specific logical and mathematical operations recited in the asserted claims.