DCT
4:18-cv-00653
Akoloutheo LLC v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Akoloutheo, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE EMANUELSON FIRM; RW Burns & Co., PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:18-cv-00653, E.D. Tex., 09/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart grid infrastructure and associated smart meters infringe a patent related to automatic remote utility meter reading combined with hazard detection and response.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to "smart grid" systems, which replace manual utility meter reading with automated, two-way communication networks for improved efficiency and enhanced functionality.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint notes that the patent was assigned to the Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,088,239 Priority Date |
| 2006-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,088,239 Issue Date |
| 2018-09-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,088,239 - "Method and Apparatus for All-purpose, Automatic Remote Utility Meter Reading, Utility Shut Off, and Hazard Warning and Correction"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,088,239, "Method and Apparatus for All-purpose, Automatic Remote Utility Meter Reading, Utility Shut Off, and Hazard Warning and Correction," issued August 8, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the traditional method of manual utility meter reading as expensive, time-consuming, and potentially dangerous for meter readers (’239 Patent, col. 1:36-45). It further identifies a critical safety gap: the continued supply of electricity or gas during a fire or gas leak can exacerbate the danger and hinder emergency response (’239 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that integrates automated remote meter reading with hazard detection and response capabilities (’239 Patent, Abstract). The system uses a meter equipped with a modem to communicate with utility companies and can also interface with on-premises sensors for hazards like fire or gas leaks. Upon detecting a hazard, the system is designed to automatically shut off the relevant utility service and transmit alarms to emergency responders, such as the fire department, thereby minimizing danger before first responders arrive (’239 Patent, col. 2:21-41, Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: The technology's contribution was to combine the efficiency of remote meter reading with an automated, proactive safety system that could autonomously react to on-site emergencies (’239 Patent, col. 2:35-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the system described.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "utility monitoring apparatus" comprising the following essential elements:
- utility usage metering means;
- utility usage reporting means;
- utility hazard detection means;
- utility hazard reporting means; and
- confirmation means, which itself comprises means for two-way communication and confirmation between a local meter and a remote computer, including means for repeated transmission if a message is not successfully received.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "Oncor Smart Grid" and "Oncor Smart Meters," specifically identifying "Landis+Gyr 'Focus' smart meters" as part of the accused system (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused instrumentalities provide "automatic remote meter reading and related features" (Compl. ¶9). These features are alleged to include metering and reporting utility usage, detecting and reporting hazards, transmitting data to remote computers, receiving data at those computers, and a confirmation protocol that includes requesting retransmission of failed transmissions and generating repair notices (Compl. ¶¶11-16).
- The complaint positions Defendant as a major electricity provider in Texas that has installed "at least hundreds of thousands of smart meters" at customer premises (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is constructed below based on the narrative allegations, using representative Claim 1.
’239 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| utility usage metering means | The Oncor Smart Meters are used for "metering utility usage within the Oncor Smart Grid." | ¶11 | col. 9:43-48 |
| utility usage reporting means | The Oncor Smart Meters are used for "reporting utility usage within the Oncor Smart Grid." | ¶12 | col. 3:56-62 |
| utility hazard detection means | The Oncor Smart Meters are used for "detecting and reporting hazards within the Oncor Smart Grid." | ¶13 | col. 13:1-14 |
| utility hazard reporting means | The Oncor Smart Meters are used for "detecting and reporting hazards within the Oncor Smart Grid." | ¶13 | col. 5:46-59 |
| confirmation means, wherein said confirmation means comprise: data transmission means... data reception means... confirmation transmission means... confirmation reception means... | The Oncor Smart Grid allegedly incorporates "data transmission capability," "data reception capability," and the capability "to confirm successful transmission and receipt of utility data, to request retransmission of failed transmissions and to generate notice of repair needs." | ¶¶14-16 | col. 8:57-col. 9:10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "utility hazard detection means." The complaint alleges the accused meters detect "hazards" but provides no specifics (Compl. ¶13). The patent specification extensively discusses life-safety hazards such as fire and gas leaks (’239 Patent, col. 2:1-20). This raises the question of whether the operational issues typically monitored by a modern smart grid (e.g., power outages, voltage fluctuations, meter tampering) fall within the scope of "hazards" as contemplated and defined by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes high-level, functional allegations without providing technical evidence. A key question will be what proof exists that the accused Oncor system performs the specific, multi-step handshake protocol required by the "confirmation means" of Claim 1. The complaint alleges the capability "to request retransmission of failed transmissions" (Compl. ¶16), but the court will require evidence that the system's actual operation maps to the specific algorithmic steps for re-transmission and error handling disclosed in the patent's specification (e.g., ’239 Patent, Fig. 2, boxes 42, 44, 46).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "utility hazard detection means"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to the infringement analysis. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the types of events monitored by the Oncor Smart Grid qualify as "hazards" under the patent's definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether grid-management functions like tamper or outage detection can satisfy a limitation heavily described in the context of fire and gas leak detection.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to specific hazards. The specification also contemplates connecting the system to a "burglar alarm system" and detectors for a "'chem/bio' terrorist attack," suggesting the inventor envisioned a range of applications beyond just fire and gas (’239 Patent, col. 13:14-15, 13:38-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background of the Invention" and "Summary of the Invention" sections overwhelmingly frame the problem and solution around the dangers of fire and gas leaks (’239 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:41). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to serious, life-threatening events, rather than routine operational anomalies of a utility grid.
The Term: "confirmation means"
- Context and Importance: This term is written in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is therefore not its literal dictionary meaning but is limited to the specific structures (and their equivalents) disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function of two-way confirmation. The dispute will be a structural and algorithmic one: does the accused system's communication protocol use a structure equivalent to the specific algorithm disclosed in the patent?
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent discloses the corresponding structure for this function as a microprocessor (52) and modem (58) programmed to execute the specific algorithm detailed in the flowcharts of Figures 2 and 7 (’239 Patent, col. 10:2-4). The algorithm includes specific steps such as awaiting confirmation (Fig. 2, box 34), handling a failure to receive confirmation by delaying and re-transmitting (Fig. 2, box 46), and after a set number of failures, initiating a repair process (Fig. 2, box 44). The infringement analysis will require a detailed, step-by-step comparison to this disclosed algorithm.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, pleading only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement and seeks enhanced damages, but bases the allegation of knowledge on notice occurring "at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Compl. p. 4, ¶d). This asserts a claim for post-filing willfulness only and does not allege that Defendant had knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "utility hazard detection means," which the patent repeatedly frames in the context of life-safety events like fires and gas leaks, be construed to cover the operational grid-management functions (e.g., power quality monitoring, outage detection) performed by the accused smart grid system?
A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: as the case proceeds, what specific technical evidence will be presented to prove that the accused Oncor system performs the particular multi-step communication and error-handling algorithm that defines the "confirmation means" in the patent, as opposed to a more generic or functionally distinct communication protocol? The complaint’s conclusory allegations will need to be substantiated with detailed proof of the accused system’s underlying operation.