DCT
2:25-cv-00636
Nostromo LLC v. Fibar Group SA
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Fibar Group S.A. (Poland) and Nice S.p.A. (Italy)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00636, E.D. Tex., 06/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, have committed acts of infringement, and maintain a regular and established place of business in the district. As foreign corporations, Defendants may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Fibaro smart home systems, which use geofencing to trigger automated actions, infringe a patent related to providing customized location-based services to portable devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a device's geographical location (geofencing) to automatically trigger pre-programmed events or deliver specific information, a foundational capability in the internet-of-things (IoT) and smart home automation markets.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding that concluded on February 27, 2025. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate confirming the patentability of claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 17. As the complaint asserts at least Claim 1, this proceeding may strengthen the patent’s presumption of validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-23 | ’970 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-10-15 | ’970 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-27 | ’970 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2025-06-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970 - "Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970, "Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device," issued October 15, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional location-based services as requiring frequent and active user requests to a server. This is described as "impracticable" for staying aware of real-time local events, and the information returned is often generic, not of interest to the user, or covers an overly broad geographical area (’970 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a user can pre-define their interests (e.g., categories of information like traffic or weather) and a desired location range. A remote system then monitors the user's portable device location. When the device enters a relevant area or another pre-set condition is met, the system automatically selects and transmits only the information that matches the user’s stored preferences, eliminating the need for active user requests and ensuring relevance (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-20; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a shift from user-initiated, request-response models to a passive, customized, and automated system for delivering context-aware information, a key concept underlying modern geofencing applications (’970 Patent, col. 2:55-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for receiving and recording user preferences for categories of information and a location range;
- (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering the information service;
- (c) receiving positioning information that includes the portable device's location; and
- (d) determining if the condition has been met, and if so, selecting location information from a location information database based on the device's position and user preferences, and transmitting it to the portable device.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims later (Compl. p. 13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "Fibaro System" products, including the Home Center 3, Home Center 3 Lite, Home Center 2, Home Center Lite, Yubii Home, related accessories, and the associated mobile applications that interoperate with these hardware devices (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as a smart home automation system that uses geofencing to trigger actions based on a user's location (Compl. ¶11). A user defines a virtual geographic boundary (a "geofence") around a location, such as their home. The Fibaro mobile application on the user's smartphone then reports its GPS location to the Fibaro Home Center hub (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
- When the user’s device enters or leaves this pre-defined area, the system can automatically execute pre-programmed "scenes," such as turning on lights, adjusting a thermostat, or opening a gate (Compl. ¶18). A screenshot from Fibaro's documentation shows an example scene being configured: "Whenever the user admin arrives home, the porch lights turn on" (Compl. p. 11, Fig. 6).
- The complaint alleges that Defendants are "major players" in the global smart home market and their products are available through national retailers in the United States (Compl. ¶3, p. 2 fn. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’970 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for respectively receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user of the portable electronic device; | The Fibaro Home Center, mobile application, and associated servers serve as an information platform and database where users register devices and set preferences for location-based actions. | ¶17 | col. 2:1-4 |
| (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision to the portable electronic device; | The Fibaro system allows users to set and store conditions (e.g., "arrives home") in a "condition database" that trigger actions based on user presence within a geofenced area. A screenshot in the complaint illustrates a user creating a trigger condition within the Fibaro app (Compl. p. 11, Fig. 6). | ¶18 | col. 2:4-6 |
| (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device by having a positioning module; | The system's geofencing feature receives positioning data from the user's mobile device, which contains a positioning module (e.g., GPS). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Fibaro app requesting permission to "Allow all the time" access to the device's location (Compl. p. 10). | ¶19 | col. 2:6-8 |
| (d) determining through use of a condition module whether the at least one condition... has been met, and when the condition has been met, selecting location information from a location information database... and transmitting the selected location information to the portable electronic device. | The Fibaro system determines when a geofence is crossed, which allegedly constitutes selecting location information (e.g., the location of the Home Center) and transmitting it to trigger an action on the portable device or associated smart home devices. | ¶20 | col. 2:8-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the selection and transmission of "location information." The patent specification provides examples of such information as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-36). A central dispute may be whether a command signal to a smart device, triggered by location, falls within the scope of the term "location information" as used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused system performs the claimed step of "selecting location information from a location information database" (Compl. ¶20). A technical question for the court will be whether the accused system's execution of a pre-programmed "if-then" rule (e.g., if user enters geofence, run scene) is functionally the same as the patent's described process of selecting data from a "database" of "multiple entries of location information" (’970 Patent, col. 6:3-5). There may be a technical distinction between executing a stored command and selecting informational content from a database.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "location information"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on the construction of this term. A narrow definition focused on informational content could pose a challenge to the Plaintiff's theory, while a broader definition encompassing any data tied to a location (including commands) could support it. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused system's primary output appears to be control signals, not the type of informational content explicitly described in the patent's specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the type of "location information" that can be selected or transmitted, which a party could argue leaves room for an interpretation that includes command data linked to a specific location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides specific examples of "location information," such as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-36) and "real-time local news information" (col. 5:27-28), which could be used to argue that the term was intended to cover informational content for the user, not machine-to-machine control commands.
The Term: "selecting location information from a location information database"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines a core functional step of the claimed method. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused system's process for triggering a "scene" can be mapped onto this claim language.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any system where location is used as a key to retrieve associated data from a stored set (even a user-defined rule set) constitutes "selecting" from a "database."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the "location information database" (15) as a distinct system component that stores "multiple entries of location information that are updated in real-time" (’970 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:3-5). This could support an argument that the term requires a more dynamic, content-oriented database rather than a relatively static set of user-programmed automation rules.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants provide customers with user manuals, websites, and other publications that instruct them on how to use the allegedly infringing geofencing features of the Fibaro system (Compl. ¶23 & fn. 7).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of infringement "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging that Defendants have "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others" to intentionally avoid discovering their infringement, a theory that suggests pre-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "location information," which the patent's specification illustrates with examples of informational content like news and weather, be construed to cover the automated control signals (e.g., "turn on lights") that are transmitted within the accused Fibaro smart home system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused system's rule-based architecture, which executes a pre-programmed scene when a geofence is triggered, perform the specific claimed step of "selecting location information from a location information database," or is its technical operation fundamentally different from the content-retrieval system described in the patent?
- A third question will relate to willfulness: can the Plaintiff substantiate its allegation of willful blindness with evidence of a specific policy or corporate conduct aimed at avoiding knowledge of patents, or will the willfulness inquiry be confined to Defendants' conduct after receiving the complaint?