DCT

2:25-cv-00603

Mimzi LLC v. Mercedes Benz AG

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00603, E.D. Tex., 06/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-vehicle information systems infringe two patents related to presenting location-based data and using a networked database to report and share roadway conditions.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves vehicle telematics systems that integrate location awareness, voice recognition, and network connectivity to provide drivers with targeted information, such as advertisements or community-sourced traffic hazard alerts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint emphasizes the prosecution history of both patents, noting that the patent examiner considered and allowed the claims over subject-matter eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff also alleges providing Defendant with a notice of infringement letter on October 20, 2023, which forms the basis for its willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-29 Priority Date for ’163 and ’361 Patents
2017-10-17 ’361 Patent Issued
2021-08-24 ’163 Patent Issued
2023-10-20 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant
2025-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163 - "Photographic Memory"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163, titled "Photographic Memory," issued on August 24, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an "easy and unobtrusive way to record and search audio from phone calls and face-to-face conversations," akin to how email creates a searchable record, and to share real-time, location-specific information like traffic hazards with a community (’163 Patent, col. 2:21-28, 31-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a mobile device captures data (e.g., audio, location), which is sent to a server for processing, such as speech-to-text conversion. This processed data is stored in a centralized, searchable database (’163 Patent, Fig. 1). The system is configured to use this data to retrieve and present location-based information, including travel information and targeted advertisements, to the user (’163 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create a comprehensive, searchable personal archive or "photographic memory" by integrating diverse data streams from a user's environment into a single, queryable system for mobile applications (’163 Patent, col. 1:30-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 11 (method), and 22 (computer-readable medium) (Compl. ¶11).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A communication network interface port.
    • A database system configured to store location-based travel information and location-based advertisements.
    • At least one server configured to: automatically control access to the database; automatically receive a location from a mobile electronic device; automatically receive location-based information from the device; automatically retrieve location-based travel information from the database dependent on the received location; automatically retrieve a location-based advertisement from the database dependent on the location and "at least one spoken keyword"; and automatically present the retrieved advertisement to a user.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims 3-8 and 10 (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361 - "Photographic Memory"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361, titled "Photographic Memory," issued on October 17, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the lack of a mechanism for a mobile phone user who observes a road hazard to easily communicate that information, including speech and location data, to a "community searchable database" to instantly warn other drivers (’361 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user's input on a mobile device, combined with location metadata, is used to query a "social network database" containing roadway condition records. The system is also capable of communicating a message back to the database to create new records, effectively allowing users to both consume and contribute information (’361 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: The technology is directed at creating a real-time, community-sourced traffic and hazard information system by leveraging social networking concepts and ubiquitous mobile devices (’361 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 16 (method), and 18 (system) (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A hardware data input port to receive user input.
    • A hardware processor to define a user request based on the input and location metadata.
    • A hardware communication interface port configured to: transmit the request to a "social network database" of roadway conditions; receive location-dependent information from that database; and communicate a message to create a "new record in the social network database."
    • A hardware user interface to present the received information, ranked by a "social network ranking factor."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Defendant's Mercedes vehicles" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶41, ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these vehicles include infotainment and telematics systems with functionality that infringes the asserted patents (Compl. ¶41, ¶49). The infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts attached to the complaint as Exhibits G, H, and I; however, these exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint document. Therefore, the specific technical operation of the accused systems cannot be analyzed from the complaint itself. The allegations broadly concern systems that deliver location-based information, advertisements, and traffic data to the driver. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits G, H, and I) that purportedly detail the infringement (Compl. ¶41, ¶49). In the absence of these charts, the infringement theory must be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • ’163 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that Mercedes vehicles embody the system of claim 1 by providing a server-based architecture that receives location data from the vehicle (the "mobile electronic device") and uses it to retrieve and present location-based advertisements that are allegedly dependent on a "spoken keyword" from the user (Compl. ¶11, ¶39).
  • ’361 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that Mercedes vehicles implement the system of claim 1 by receiving user input, determining the vehicle's location, and communicating with a networked database to retrieve and present roadway condition information. The core of this allegation is that the vehicle systems interact with what Plaintiff characterizes as a "social network database" and have the capability to contribute new records to it (Compl. ¶29, ¶47).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’361 patent, a central question will be whether the traffic information service used by Mercedes-Benz qualifies as a "social network database" under the patent's claims. This may depend on whether the system allows users to contribute new records, as required by claim 1, or if it is a one-way data feed from a central provider.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’163 patent, the infringement case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused system retrieves advertisements based on a specific "spoken keyword," as claimed, rather than relying solely on location, destination, or a pre-set user profile. For the ’361 patent, a key factual question will be whether the accused system actually performs the claimed step of "communicat[ing] a message... for creating a new record in the social network database."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "spoken keyword" (’163 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the ’163 patent hinges on this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether any voice-based interaction that influences ad selection meets the limitation, or if a more direct link between a specific spoken word and a retrieved ad is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system for capturing and recognizing entire conversations, not just discrete commands, which could support an interpretation that any word recognized within a broader voice input could qualify as a "keyword" for advertising purposes (’163 Patent, col. 2:9-13).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the advertisement to be "relevant to at least one spoken keyword," which suggests a direct causal link. The specification supports this by describing the use of "speech-recognized text, to target the ad to something (a keyword) mentioned one or more times in the conversation" (’163 Patent, col. 5:58-62), implying a specific targeting function.

  • Term: "social network database" (’361 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement allegation against the ’361 patent. The dispute will likely focus on whether the database must have interactive, community-driven features.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frames the invention in the context of "Location Blogging" and a "community or collective photographic memory," which could be argued to encompass any system where information is shared among a group of users, even if centrally managed (’361 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the system to be configured to "communicate a message... for creating a new record in the social network database." This points to a specific user-contribution functionality. The background further reinforces this by describing a user sending a message about a road hazard "to a community searchable database, from which others can be instantly warned" (’361 Patent, col. 2:1-5), supporting a definition that requires user-generated content submission.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, stating that Defendant's product literature, manuals, and website materials instruct and encourage customers to use the accused vehicles in a manner that infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶41, ¶49).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The claim is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving actual notice via a letter from Plaintiff dated October 20, 2023 (Compl. ¶40, ¶42-43, ¶48, ¶50-51).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "social network database" in the ’361 patent, which is described with community-contribution features, be construed to cover the potentially proprietary, one-way traffic data service used in the accused vehicle systems?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: for the ’163 patent, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused system’s advertisement selection is technically dependent on a "spoken keyword," or is it driven by other data like location and user history, rendering the voice input incidental rather than causal?
  • A third significant issue, foreshadowed by the complaint's detailed recitation of the prosecution history, will be patent eligibility: the parties will likely dispute whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea (e.g., providing location-based information) and, if so, whether the specific combination of elements recited constitutes an inventive concept sufficient to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101.