DCT

2:25-cv-00209

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. PACCAR Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00209, E.D. Tex., 02/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business in the district, has transacted business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district. The complaint also cites a prior case in which Defendant allegedly admitted to maintaining a place of business and conducting business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fleet management tracking solutions infringe six patents related to vehicle telematics, wireless communication methods, and channel interference reduction.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for communication between vehicles, and between vehicles and centralized networks, for purposes of tracking, safety, and operational management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case, Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. PACCAR Inc., 2:19-cv-00393, Defendant admitted that it "maintains a place of business and conducts business within this Judicial District."

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’270, ’926, ’304, and ’896 Patents
2000-09-11 ’270 Patent Application Filing Date
2001-02-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’616 Patent
2001-08-21 ’616 Patent Application Filing Date
2001-09-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’053 Patent
2003-10-14 ’616 Patent Issue Date
2003-11-10 ’926 Patent Application Filing Date
2003-11-11 ’270 Patent Issue Date
2006-09-20 ’896 Patent Application Filing Date
2006-10-17 ’926 Patent Issue Date
2008-12-09 ’896 Patent Issue Date
2009-08-24 ’304 Patent Application Filing Date
2010-01-29 ’053 Patent Application Filing Date
2010-08-24 ’304 Patent Issue Date
2011-08-23 ’053 Patent Issue Date
2012-02-14 ’053 Patent Certificate of Correction Issue Date
2013-05-28 ’304 Patent Certificate of Correction Issue Date
2013-08-13 ’896 Patent Certificate of Correction Issue Date
2013-08-27 ’926 Patent Certificate of Correction Issue Date
2025-02-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,647,270 - “Vehicle Talk,” issued November 11, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the limitations of then-current mobile communication systems, noting that cellular phones provided no practical way for operators of nearby vehicles to communicate, while CB radio offered no privacy (US 6,647,270 B1, col. 1:21-34). It further highlights a general need for improved vehicle control and warning systems to enhance safety (US6647270B1, col. 1:35-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that enables direct communication between multiple "mobile units," such as vehicles. Each unit is equipped with a unique identifier, a memory, a GPS receiver, and a broadband transceiver. A microprocessor in each unit constructs data packets containing sender information (its unique ID and GPS-derived position) and receiver information (the address of another unit), allowing for targeted, location-aware communication between vehicles and with fixed base stations (US 6,647,270 B1, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for dedicated vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) data exchange, forming a basis for telematics systems beyond simple voice communication.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 is a system claim for transmitting communications between remote units, requiring:
    • A plurality of remote units, each with a unique identifier.
    • Each remote unit comprising:
      • a memory for storing the unique identifier.
      • a transceiver for receiving and transmitting wireless communications, including downconverting from RF to baseband and upconverting from baseband to RF.
      • a GPS receiver for outputting a position signal.
      • a microprocessor that receives the position signal and downconverted communications and generates baseband communication.
    • The microprocessor generates the baseband communication by constructing data packets from data fields, including sender information (the sender's unique identifier and information derived from the position signal) and receiver information (the address of the desired remote unit).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to improve driver safety and the overall driving experience by overcoming the limitations of prior communication systems, particularly in the context of automobile accidents and other hazardous situations (US7123926B2, col. 1:24-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for alerting a user in one vehicle to an emergency situation involving another. A first mobile unit determines its geographic location and unique identity, assigns a priority level to the situation, and assembles a communication "header" containing this information. This communication is then transmitted to a second mobile unit, which can process the structured header to alert its user based on the location, identity, and priority of the originating vehicle (US 7,123,926 B2, Abstract; col. 2:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: The invention defines a structured protocol for exchanging priority-based alerts between vehicles, a foundational concept for automated collision avoidance and traffic hazard warning systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim for alerting a remote user to an emergency, comprising the steps of:
    • Determining a geographic location of a 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 geographic location, vehicle identity, and priority level.
    • The header must be capable of being processed upon receipt by a second mobile unit to alert its user of the emergency.
    • Transmitting the communication to the second mobile unit.

U.S. Patent No. 7,783,304 - “Wireless Communication Method,” issued August 24, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’304 Patent describes a method for communication between mobile units mediated by a website. A first unit connects to a website, searches a user list for a second unit's address, constructs a message containing both units' addresses, and transmits it via the website to the second unit, with the transaction being logged (Compl. ¶49).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's fleet management systems, which perform functions such as routing messages between vehicles via a central website or platform, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 - “Channel Interference Reduction,” issued August 23, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’053 Patent addresses wireless interference by disclosing an apparatus with two transceivers, each for a different wireless protocol. A controller selects one of the transceivers to communicate data of both protocols, encoding the data from the unselected protocol's format into the selected protocol's format for transmission (Compl. ¶59).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products that include multiple wireless transceivers (e.g., for cellular, Wi-Fi, or other protocols) and a controller to manage communication across them (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 - “OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking For Wireless LAN,” issued October 14, 2003

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’616 Patent describes a method to improve performance in OFDM receivers by estimating pilot phase error. The method involves a separate processing path that runs in parallel with the main Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processing, which allows the phase error estimation to complete before the main FFT processing of a subsequent symbol is finished (Compl. ¶68). This reduces processing delay and improves tracking of the wireless signal.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products that use an OFDM receiver and perform the claimed method of pilot phase error estimation (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,463,896 - “System And Method For Enforcing A Vehicle Code,” issued December 9, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’896 Patent claims a method for enforcing a vehicle code. It involves a first mobile unit receiving a signal from a second unit associated with a vehicle, determining the vehicle's identifier and GPS position, having a system administrator determine the vehicle's status (e.g., for code enforcement), and then generating and transmitting a message indicating that status back to the second unit (Compl. ¶78).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses fleet management systems that perform methods for remotely monitoring a vehicle's status for code enforcement or compliance purposes (Compl. ¶78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s fleet management tracking solutions, including the Platform Science Virtual Vehicle Platform, Connected Vehicle Device (CVD), In-Vehicle Display Tablets, and associated software and services such as PS Asset Tracking, PS Fleets, PS Telematics, and PS Navigation (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Products as a suite of hardware and software solutions for managing vehicle fleets. Their functionalities are alleged to include vehicle tracking, telematics data collection, analytics, in-vehicle navigation, and messaging between vehicles and a central platform (Compl. ¶19). The complaint frames these products as comprehensive fleet management and communication systems operating within the United States (Compl. ¶5, ¶19).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

’270 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products constitute a system for transmitting communications between multiple remote units (Compl. ¶29). The theory of infringement maps the components of the Accused Products to the elements of claim 1. Specifically, it alleges the products include remote units with unique identifiers, memory, a transceiver for wireless communication, a GPS receiver for position data, and a microprocessor that generates baseband communications by constructing data packets containing sender (ID and position) and receiver (address) information (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention (’270 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "remote unit," which the patent illustrates as entire vehicles or fixed base stations, can be construed to cover the specific combination of hardware and software components of Defendant's system, such as a "Connected Vehicle Device (CVD)" operating in conjunction with an "In-Vehicle Display Tablet" and a remote software platform (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the microprocessor "generates said baseband communication by constructing said data packets" with specific fields (Compl. ¶29). A point of contention may be whether the data packets used by the Accused Products are constructed with the distinct "sender information" and "receiver information" fields as required by the claim, or if they use a different data structure.

’926 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant, in using the Accused Products, performs a method for alerting a remote user to an "emergency situation" (Compl. ¶39). The infringement theory tracks the steps of claim 1, alleging that the method includes determining a vehicle's geographic location and identity, determining a priority level, assembling a communication header with that information, and transmitting it to a second mobile unit for the purpose of alerting its user (Compl. ¶39).

Identified Points of Contention (’926 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: The construction of "emergency situation" will be a central issue. The question will be whether this term is limited to acute safety events like accidents, or if it can be read broadly to cover the routine operational alerts common in fleet management systems (e.g., geofence violations, maintenance warnings, or driver behavior alerts).
  • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the Accused Products "assembl[e] a header of a communication" with the specific structure and purpose required by the claim. The dispute may focus on whether the system's messages contain a dedicated, processable "header" for generating alerts based on location, identity, and priority, or if this information is simply part of a generic data payload that does not function in the claimed manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’270 Patent, Claim 1: "remote unit"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to identifying the boundaries of the allegedly infringing system. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to integrated vehicle-based hardware as depicted in the patent or can extend to modern, disaggregated systems involving distinct hardware, software, and cloud components.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the "remote unit" functionally by what it contains (memory, transceiver, GPS, microprocessor) rather than by a specific physical form factor (US 6,647,270 B1, col. 14:26-59). The specification also depicts communication between mobile units and fixed "base stations," suggesting the term is not limited to vehicles (US 6,647,270 B1, Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Vehicle Talk," and the abstract and figures consistently depict vehicles as the primary embodiment of a "mobile unit" (US 6,647,270 B1, Title; Abstract; Fig. 1). This context may support an interpretation that a "remote unit" must be a self-contained physical device associated with a vehicle or fixed infrastructure.

’926 Patent, Claim 1: "emergency situation"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical for determining whether the routine operations of the Accused Products constitute infringement. A narrow construction could place many of the system's functions outside the claim's scope, whereas a broad construction would favor the plaintiff's infringement theory.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "emergency situation," leaving it open to a potentially broad ordinary meaning. The stated goal of improving the "driving experience and the safety statistics" could encompass a wide range of events beyond collisions, including traffic or weather hazards (US 7,123,926 B2, col. 1:45-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly frames the problem in the context of "automobile accidents" as a "greatest causes of serious injury and fatalities" (US 7,123,926 B2, col. 1:33-37). This focus on acute, safety-critical events could support a narrower construction that excludes routine, non-safety-related operational alerts.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement, stating that Defendant instructs others on how to install and use the Accused Products and contributes to infringement by third parties (Compl. ¶12, ¶17). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as quoting from user manuals or marketing materials, to support these allegations.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The prayer for relief requests a declaration of an "exceptional case" to award attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not explicitly seek enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. ¶81.d).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms from patents filed in the early 2000s, rooted in the context of vehicle-centric hardware (e.g., "remote unit," "mobile unit"), be construed to cover modern fleet management platforms that are technologically disaggregated into distinct hardware devices, software applications, and cloud-based services?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: do the general-purpose messaging and alerting functions of the accused fleet management systems perform the specific, structured methods required by the claims—such as assembling a dedicated "header" for emergency alerts or constructing data packets with specific sender/receiver fields—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and data structure?
  • A third question concerns the multi-patent scope: Plaintiff has asserted six patents covering a range of technologies from V2V communication to OFDM signal processing. The case will likely require determining whether the accused systems practice the specific and distinct inventions of each patent, raising the possibility that infringement may be found for some patents but not others.