DCT
2:25-cv-01138
Pivot Innovations LLC v. Sensys Gatso Group Ab
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pivot Innovations, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Sensys Gatso Group AB (Sweden)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01138, E.D. Tex., 11/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s traffic enforcement systems infringe a patent related to a method for acquiring vehicle traffic flow data, calculating travel rates, and reporting the data for onboard vehicle navigation.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated systems for monitoring vehicle speed over a defined road segment and reporting data, a field with significant application in traffic law enforcement and management.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, administrative patent challenges, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-09-22 | ’724 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-01-24 | ’724 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,552,724 - "Traffic citation delivery based on type of traffic infraction"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,552,724, "Traffic citation delivery based on type of traffic infraction," issued January 24, 2017 (’724 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the inefficiencies of traditional traffic monitoring and the safety risks associated with police officers conducting traffic stops on busy roads (’724 Patent, col. 1:44 - col. 2:21). The patent identifies a need for a system to automatically detect traffic violations beyond just measuring congestion (’724 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using imaging systems at two or more different locations to capture data about vehicles (’724 Patent, col. 3:11-18). The system individually identifies vehicles, calculates the elapsed time and rate of travel between the locations, and then broadcasts this information to a subscriber, such as a law enforcement vehicle equipped with an onboard navigation system (’724 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-59). This allows for remote, automated detection of speeding vehicles.
- Technical Importance: The described method facilitates automated traffic enforcement, which can enhance the efficiency of monitoring and potentially improve officer and motorist safety by reducing the need for high-speed pursuits or roadside stops (’724 Patent, col. 2:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 of the ’724 Patent (Compl. ¶14, 37).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the following essential elements:
- acquiring, at a first location, data of multiple vehicles traveling through the first location, wherein said data is acquired from a source not traveling in the vehicle;
- individually identifying the multiple vehicles from the first location data;
- acquiring, at a second location, data of said multiple vehicles traveling through the second location;
- determining an elapsed time of travel from said data for the individually identified vehicles traveling through the two locations;
- computing a rate of travel for each of the individually identified multiple vehicles based upon the elapsed time of travel;
- broadcasting the rate of travel for at least one of the individually identified multiple vehicles to a subscriber for at least one of the two locations;
- wherein broadcasting the rate of travel... further comprises additionally broadcasting the acquired data to the subscriber.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's Traffic enforcement as a Service (TRaaS) system, which includes the Flux, Puls, and Xilium platforms (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also references Defendant’s SM300 AI Powered Vessel Vision system (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused system provides traffic data acquisition and reporting (Compl. ¶21). The Flux platform reportedly uses fixed or mobile sensors and cameras at different points along a road to measure vehicle travel time, calculate average speed, and capture license plate and timestamp data (Compl. ¶21). This data is then allegedly transmitted to the Puls platform for analysis against traffic laws, and the processed violation data is forwarded to the Xilium back-office system to generate fines and reports (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that law enforcement officers can access this processed data in real time via onboard terminals in their patrol vehicles (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references a claim chart in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶26); the following table summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 1 based on the narrative description of the accused system.
’724 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| acquiring, at a first location, data of multiple vehicles traveling through the first location, wherein said data is acquired from a source not traveling in the vehicle | The Flux platform uses sensors and cameras, such as two camera units positioned at different points, to capture vehicle data, including license plates and timestamps. | ¶21 | col. 10:9-12 |
| individually identifying the multiple vehicles from the first location data | The system captures license plate data to identify specific vehicles. | ¶21 | col. 10:13-14 |
| acquiring, at a second location, data of said multiple vehicles traveling through the second location | The system employs camera units at two different points to measure travel time between them. | ¶21 | col. 10:15-18 |
| determining an elapsed time of travel from said data for the individually identified vehicles traveling through the two locations | The system measures the travel time for each vehicle between the two camera positions. | ¶21 | col. 10:19-21 |
| computing a rate of travel for each of the individually identified multiple vehicles based upon the elapsed time of travel | The system calculates each vehicle's average speed based on the measured travel time between the two points. | ¶21 | col. 10:22-24 |
| broadcasting the rate of travel for at least one of the individually identified multiple vehicles to a subscriber for at least one of the two locations | On information and belief, law enforcement officers (subscribers) access processed enforcement data, including speeds, through onboard terminals in patrol vehicles. | ¶21 | col. 10:25-28 |
| wherein broadcasting the rate of travel... further comprises additionally broadcasting the acquired data to the subscriber | The collected data (e.g., license plate, timestamp) is transmitted through the system platforms, and processed data is made available to law enforcement. | ¶21 | col. 10:29-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "subscriber," as used in the patent, reads on a law enforcement agency client using Defendant’s TRaaS system. Another question may be whether the alleged transmission of data from Defendant’s back-office system to an officer's terminal constitutes "broadcasting" as contemplated by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The final claim limitation requires broadcasting both the "rate of travel" and the "acquired data." A factual dispute may arise over whether the "processed data" that officers allegedly access (Compl. ¶21) is coextensive with the original "acquired data" (e.g., raw timestamp and image data) required by the claim, or if it is merely a summary report.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "subscriber"
- Context and Importance: The identity of the "subscriber" is essential, as the claim requires broadcasting information to this entity. The infringement theory depends on law enforcement officers using the accused system qualifying as "subscribers."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the subscriber could be a police vehicle, stating that data can be provided to "a subscriber in the vehicle 150" and that "Vehicle 150 could be a police vehicle" (’724 Patent, col. 4:45-51). This may support an interpretation that includes users of a traffic enforcement system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined. A defendant could argue that in the context of "onboard vehicle navigation," the term implies a consumer or driver receiving general traffic information, rather than a law enforcement officer receiving targeted enforcement data.
The Term: "broadcasting"
- Context and Importance: The nature of the transmission is critical. Whether the targeted, secure data flow within the accused TRaaS system constitutes "broadcasting" will likely be a point of contention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various methods for providing data, including via "an Internet connected onboard navigation system," "text messaging, Web page, or by way of e-mail" (’724 Patent, col. 4:48-52). This suggests the term is not limited to a specific radio-frequency transmission protocol but encompasses various forms of electronic communication.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that in the technical field, "broadcasting" implies a one-to-many, non-targeted transmission, which would not describe sending specific violation data to a particular police terminal.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides hardware, software, and systems with instructions that encourage its customers to practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶23, 40). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on Defendant supplying a material part of the system that is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶24, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the patent and is "intentionally continuing their knowing infringement" (Compl. ¶34). The inducement claim is based on alleged acts occurring "subsequent to notice" (Compl. ¶23), suggesting a basis for post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "subscriber" and "broadcasting," which are used in the context of onboard navigation systems, be construed to cover the relationship between a TRaaS provider and its law enforcement client and the associated secure data transmissions?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional parallelism: does the specific "processed data" allegedly accessed by officers in the accused system contain both the calculated "rate of travel" and the original "acquired data" as distinctly required by the final limitation of Claim 1, or is there a technical mismatch in the content of the information delivered?