DCT

2:25-cv-00952

AGIS Software Development LLC v. Trimble Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00952, E.D. Tex., 11/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business within the district, including corporate offices and "Trimble Technology Outlets" that are part of a key distribution strategy.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s location sharing and fleet management products infringe patents related to server-mediated methods for creating ad hoc digital and voice communication networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology enables mobile device users to quickly form temporary, password-protected groups to share real-time location and status information on a shared map, a capability valuable in coordinating field personnel for industries like construction, agriculture, and emergency response.
  • Key Procedural History: All four patents-in-suit previously underwent Ex Parte Reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the complaint states that all asserted claims were confirmed as valid and patentable. The outcomes of these prior proceedings may inform the court's analysis of claim scope and validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-09-21 Earliest Priority Date for ’251, ’838, ’123, and ’829 Patents
2016-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 Issues
2016-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 Issues
2017-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 Issues
2017-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 Issues
2021-05-27 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issues for ’838 Patent
2021-06-08 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issues for ’251 Patent
2021-08-16 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issues for ’829 Patent
2021-09-24 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issues for ’123 Patent
2025-11-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," Issued September 13, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of coordinating different organizations (e.g., police and fire departments) during a disaster because their communication systems are not interoperable, and setting up temporary networks is cumbersome ('251 Patent, col. 2:20-38). This creates a need for a way to "quickly establish user specific password protected private ad hoc voice and data networks" ('251 Patent, col. 2:40-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a server-mediated system where users on mobile devices can join a temporary, password-protected network by entering a server IP address and a shared network name ('251 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:46-57). Once connected, each device reports its GPS location to the server, which then relays that information to all other members of the network. This allows all participants to see each other's location as symbols on a map, creating a common operational picture without requiring them to pre-load each other's contact information ('251 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:1-14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach simplified the creation of interoperable situational awareness networks, a critical capability for first responders, military units, and other field teams that need to coordinate on the fly without complex pre-configuration ('251 Patent, col. 2:8-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 24 (System): A "first device" is programmed to perform operations including:
    • Receiving a message from a second device relating to joining a group.
    • Based on the message, participating in the group by sending its own location information to a server and receiving location information for other devices from that server.
    • Presenting a first georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols showing the locations of the other devices.
    • Sending a request to the server for a second, different georeferenced map.
    • Receiving and presenting the second georeferenced map with the user symbols.
    • Identifying user interaction with one of the symbols and, based on that interaction, using an Internet Protocol to send data to the corresponding device via the server, where the first device does not have access to the other device's IP address.

U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," Issued October 11, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’251 Patent: the need for disparate emergency response groups to establish temporary ("ad hoc") voice and data networks quickly and easily to coordinate their activities during a crisis ('838 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where users on IP-capable devices join a network by providing a network name and password to a central server ('838 Patent, Abstract). The server acts as a data forwarder, receiving GPS position and status from each participant and routing it to all other members for display on an interactive map. This enables real-time, cross-organizational situational awareness ('838 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 3:9-28).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to break down communication barriers between different field organizations, allowing for unified command and control by creating a temporary, shared digital operating picture ('838 Patent, col. 2:16-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 54 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Claim 54 (System): A "first device" is programmed to perform operations including:
    • Joining a communication network by transmitting a message with a group identifier.
    • Participating in the group by sending its location information to a "first server" and receiving location information for other devices from that "first server."
    • Presenting a first georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols showing the locations of other devices.
    • Sending a request for different map data to a "second server."
    • Receiving the requested map data from the "second server."
    • Presenting a second georeferenced map with user symbols.
    • Identifying user interaction with a symbol and, based thereon, sending data to the corresponding device via the first server.

U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," Issued November 14, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of establishing temporary, interoperable communication networks for field personnel, such as first responders. The patented solution involves a server-based system where users join a password-protected group to share GPS location data, which is then rendered as symbols on a common map interface for all participants, enabling real-time situational awareness. (Compl. ¶13-14; ’123 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Trimble's products that enable users to form groups, view team members' locations on a shared map, and communicate through a server-based architecture (Compl. ¶18, 44-45).

U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," Issued August 29, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for creating ad hoc digital networks to solve the problem of cross-organizational coordination during emergencies. The invention allows users with mobile devices to join a temporary network via a server, which relays location and status data among all members for display on a shared map, thereby creating a unified operational view. (Compl. ¶13-14; ’829 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 34 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Trimble's products that allegedly provide features for group formation, server-mediated location sharing on interactive maps, and remote control messaging between users in a group (Compl. ¶18, 53-54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "any and all variations and versions of Trimble Terrain Navigator and Fleet Management," which encompass a suite of mobile, desktop, and web applications, as well as related mobile devices, terminals, and servers (Compl. ¶18). This includes products also known by names such as VisionLink, CAT Fleet, and CAT Connect (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide functionalities allowing users to form and join groups to share and view their respective locations in "near real time" on interactive maps (Compl. ¶19, 24, 25). The complaint includes a screenshot for "Terrain Navigator Pro" that describes a "Team Tracking" feature providing "complete visibility of the location of all team members on the mobile" device (Compl. p. 25, ¶25). Another included visual shows a "Team Track" screen with icons for team members overlaid on a map (Compl. p. 26). These products are marketed to professionals in fields such as search and rescue, law enforcement, and land management, as well as for fleet and asset management in industries like agriculture and construction (Compl. ¶24, 29-34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’251 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first device programmed to perform operations comprising: receiving a message from a second device, wherein the message relates to joining a group; Accused Products allow users to establish and join groups, which involves receiving messages relating to group formation via servers. ¶27 col. 2:62-65
based on receiving the message... participating in the group, wherein participating in the group includes sending first location information to a server and receiving second location information from the server... The "Team Tracking" feature facilitates group participation by sending a user's location to a server and receiving the locations of other team members from that server for display. ¶27 col. 3:1-4
presenting, via an interactive display of the first device, a first interactive, georeferenced map and a plurality of user-selectable symbols corresponding to the plurality of second devices... The Accused Products display an interactive map showing the locations of other group members as selectable symbols. ¶27 col. 6:59-65
sending, from the first device to the server, a request for a second georeferenced map different from the first georeferenced map... Users of the Accused Products can request different map types or move the map screen to retrieve new map data from a server. ¶27 col. 3:39-42
identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the user-selectable symbols... and... based thereon, using an Internet Protocol to send data to the one or more second devices via the server, wherein the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices. The Accused Products permit users to interact with symbols on the map to send data to other users, with the server managing the communication such that devices do not have direct access to each other's IP addresses. ¶26, ¶27 col. 4:6-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be whether the process of creating a "team" within the Accused Products constitutes "receiving a message... relating to joining a group" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a specific server sign-on process involving an IP address, network name, and password (Compl. ¶27; ’251 Patent, col. 3:46-57).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the assertion that the Accused Products use a server to relay data without giving devices direct access to other devices' IP addresses. A factual question for the court will be whether the architecture of the Accused Products, which may involve various cloud services and APIs, meets this specific negative limitation required by the claim (Compl. ¶26; ’251 Patent, col. 18:32-35).

’838 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 54) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first device programmed to perform operations comprising: joining a communication network corresponding to a group, wherein joining the communication network comprises transmitting a message including an identifier corresponding to the group; Accused Products allow users to form and join groups by transmitting messages that establish their participation in a network. ¶36 col. 10:1-6
participating in the group... includes sending first location information to a first server and receiving second location information from the first server... The products facilitate group participation by sending a user's location to a server and receiving location data for other group members from that same server. ¶36 col. 2:60-3:2
presenting, via an interactive display... a first interactive, georeferenced map and a first set of one or more user-selectable symbols... The products display interactive maps with symbols representing the locations of other users or assets in the group. ¶36 col. 5:44-6:3
sending, to a second server, a request for second georeferenced map data different from the first georeferenced map data; The Accused Products allegedly allow users to retrieve map information (e.g., satellite imagery, street maps) from various sources, which may constitute a "second server." ¶36 col. 3:36-40
identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the... user-selectable symbols... and, based thereon, sending third data to the selected one or more second devices via the first server. The products permit users to select symbols on the map to send data or messages to other devices, with the communication being routed through the "first server" that handles location data. ¶36 col. 3:25-28
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: This claim recites a "first server" for location data and a "second server" for map data. A key question for claim construction will be whether these must be physically or logically distinct servers, or if a single server providing both functions from different endpoints could satisfy the limitation.
    • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute may arise over whether the architecture of the Accused Products actually employs two distinct servers for the claimed functions. The complaint alleges the products are configured to "retrieve map information from multiple sources," but it does not specify if these sources are functionally distinct from the server that manages user location data in the manner required by the claim (Compl. ¶36).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "ad hoc... network" (from patent titles and specifications) and "group" (from claims)

    • Context and Importance: The patents were developed to solve problems related to temporary, "ad hoc" networks for emergency responders. The claims, however, use the more general term "group." The relationship between these terms will be critical, as the accused "Team Tracking" and "Fleet Management" features may be argued to be more permanent than the "ad hoc" scenarios described in the specification.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "group" without temporal limitations, which may support an interpretation that covers both temporary and persistent collections of users ('251 Patent, col. 17:62).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of temporary networks for emergencies or disasters, stating the purpose is to "establish quickly a temporary ad hoc network" ('251 Patent, col. 4:12-14). The abstract also highlights the "temporary" nature of the network. A defendant may argue that "group" should be construed in light of this "ad hoc" context.

  • Term: "first server" and "second server" (’838 Patent, Claim 54)

    • Context and Importance: Claim 54 of the ’838 Patent recites sending location information to a "first server" while requesting map data from a "second server." This architectural distinction is a key limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the Accused Products utilize two distinct servers for these separate functions.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification often refers to "a communication Server" or "the Server" in the singular, which could suggest that "first" and "second" are merely labels for different logical functions that could potentially reside on the same physical server or cloud platform ('838 Patent, col. 3:15, 3:36).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim uses two different terms, "a first server" and "a second server," which suggests they are structurally distinct entities. An argument could be made that a system using a single, monolithic server for both location data relay and map data provision would not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with instructions on how to use the accused features through "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installations, and/or user guides" (Compl. ¶20, 24, 33). Specific URLs for product pages and manuals are cited as evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶20, 34).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents "since at least the issuance date of the Patents-in-Suit" and knowledge of infringement "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶17, 24, 33). The complaint does not provide specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge beyond a general allegation.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the server architecture of the Trimble Accused Products, which likely relies on modern cloud infrastructure, map onto the specific "server" (for the ’251 Patent) or "first server" and "second server" (for the ’838 Patent) configurations required by the claims? The distinction in Claim 54 between a server for location data and a server for map data presents a particularly salient question of technical fact.
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "group" as used in the claims, which are rooted in patent specifications describing "ad hoc" and "temporary" networks for emergency response, be construed to cover the more permanent "teams" and "fleets" managed by the Accused Products?
  • Finally, a significant procedural question will be the impact of the ex parte reexaminations: given that the asserted claims for all four patents were confirmed as patentable by the USPTO, how will this history influence the court's view on claim construction and potential validity challenges, and to what extent will it narrow the available prior art arguments for the Defendant?