Stellar LLC v. Pittasoft Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stellar, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Pittasoft Co., LTD. d/b/a BlackVue (Republic of Korea)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00877, E.D. Tex., 10/14/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BlackVue Dashcams infringe five patents related to loop recording, event-based write-protection, and data management in video recording systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves continuous-loop video recording systems, such as dashcams, which are significant for vehicle safety, insurance, and evidentiary purposes.
• Key Procedural History: The five asserted patents are members of the same patent family and claim priority back to provisional applications filed in 2006, indicating a long-developing portfolio. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving these patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-08-31	Earliest Priority Date (’034, ’882, ’471, ’914, ’910 Patents)
2009-09-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 Issued
2014-04-08	U.S. Patent No. 8,692,882 Issued
2016-11-01	U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 Issued
2018-03-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,912,914 Issued
2021-03-30	U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910 Issued
2022-10-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 - "Loop Recording With Book Marking"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034, issued September 22, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of prior art mobile video recorders, which had finite memory. Once full, recording had to be stopped to manually transfer data. Existing loop-recording devices indiscriminately overwrote older data, risking the loss of important, unforeseen events (Compl. ¶10, ¶16; '034 Patent, col. 1:29-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that continuously records video to a circular buffer. When a user or sensor sends a "bookmark" signal, the system write-protects a segment of the video stream that includes a "pre-recorded subset" (the moments leading up to the signal) and a "post-recorded subset." This protected segment, indexed as a distinct file, can then be wirelessly transmitted to a remote memory, which frees the buffer space for more recording without interrupting the continuous loop ('034 Patent, Abstract; '034 Patent, col. 2:5-27).
• Technical Importance: This method allows a recording device to operate continuously while ensuring that important, unanticipated events are preserved without user intervention to manually save files or stop recording (Compl. ¶12-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A surveillance apparatus with a camera, a local memory, and a wireless transmitter.
  • A "recording facility" that continuously records a data stream into a circular buffer in the local memory.
  • A "protecting facility" that responds to a signal by designating a segment of the buffer (including pre- and post-signal subsets) as write-protected and "indexing the write-protected portion as a second distinct file in the circular buffer."
  • A "sending facility" that uses the wireless transmitter to send the protected file to a remote memory.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 8,692,882 - "Loop Recording With Book Marking"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,692,882, issued April 8, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same family, the '882 Patent addresses the same technical problem of preserving important video segments from a continuous loop recorder with finite memory without interrupting operation ('882 Patent, col. 1:28-52; Compl. ¶10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a surveillance system with a camera and local memory that continuously records to a circular buffer. In response to a signal, a "protecting facility" designates a segment of video (including pre- and post-signal data) as write-protected and indexes it as a separate file. A key aspect of the claimed solution is that the local memory is configured to "allow access to at least one of the files," enabling management of the saved recordings ('882 Patent, Abstract; '882 Patent, col. 12:18-22).
• Technical Importance: This invention refines the data management capabilities of a loop-recording device, focusing on the ability to access and manage saved event files while the device continues to record (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A surveillance apparatus with a camera and a local memory.
  • A "recording facility" that records image data into a circular buffer.
  • A "protecting facility" that responds to a signal by designating a segment as write-protected and indexing it as a "second file in the circular buffer."
  • The local memory is configured to "allow access to at least one of the files."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 - "Write-Protected Recording"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471, issued November 1, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a recording apparatus with a sensor and local memory. It solves the problem of managing finite memory by using a trigger signal to designate a segment of recorded data (including pre- and post-trigger portions) as write-protected, preventing it from being overwritten during continuous loop recording ('471 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the BlackVue Dashcams' functionality for continuously recording video and, upon an event, saving a write-protected clip that includes footage from before and after the event (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,912,914 - "Write-Protected Recording"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,912,914, issued March 6, 2018.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a recording system with a sensor interface and memory. It addresses the challenge of continuous recording by employing a trigger signal to write-protect a specific segment of sensor data—which includes both pre- and post-trigger data—and storing it as a distinct file to prevent it from being overwritten ('914 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets the BlackVue Dashcams' system for capturing sensor data, continuously recording it to a buffer, and responding to triggers by saving write-protected event files (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910 - "Wearable Recording System With Memory Designation"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,965,910, issued March 30, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a surveillance system, including potentially wearable embodiments, that records data to a circular buffer. It solves the problem of preserving important events by responding to trigger signals to write-protect segments of data, including data recorded before the trigger, and enabling these segments to be sent to remote memory ('910 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets the BlackVue Dashcams' ability to continuously record, detect trigger events, and save protected video segments that include pre-event footage (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "one or more BlackVue Dashcams," specifically naming the "BlackVue DR750X Dashcam" as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶24). These are referred to collectively as the "Accused Instrumentalities."

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are mobile video recording systems that implement "loop recording" to continuously capture video to a memory buffer (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Upon a trigger—such as a signal from an internal sensor or a manual user action—the devices are alleged to save a write-protected segment of video that captures the event as well as the moments leading up to it (Compl. ¶13). The complaint further notes the devices have wireless transfer capabilities to upload saved footage, which it characterizes as a commercially valuable feature for both personal and professional use (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement charts in Exhibits A-2 through E-2, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The infringement theories are therefore summarized based on the narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation across all five patents is that the Accused Instrumentalities practice the claimed methods for managing video data. The complaint alleges the dashcams' standard loop-recording feature is the claimed "recording facility" (Compl. ¶11). The "event recording" function—which automatically saves footage of an incident (e.g., a collision) to a separate, protected file—is alleged to be the claimed "protecting facility" (Compl. ¶13). This feature's inclusion of pre-incident footage is alleged to read on the claimed "pre-recorded subset" (Compl. ¶13). For patents with a transmission element like the '034 Patent, the ability of the dashcams to upload saved clips to a cloud service or a connected smartphone is alleged to meet the "sending facility" limitation (Compl. ¶15). For patents with an access element like the '882 Patent, the ability for a user to review and manage saved clips via the device or an application is alleged to satisfy that limitation (Compl. ¶15).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A central point of contention may be the specific mechanism of the "protecting facility." The claims of the '034 and '882 Patents require designating and indexing a write-protected segment in the circular buffer. The dispute may turn on whether the accused dashcams protect data in-place within the buffer or if they copy the relevant data segment out of the buffer and save it to a different, non-buffer memory location. The latter may not meet the specific claim language.
  • Scope Question: A further question concerns the scope of "local memory." The patent specifications explicitly define this term as memory physically coupled by wires and located less than 20 cm from the camera ('034 Patent, col. 2:14-20). The degree to which this narrow definition is read as a binding limitation on the claims, rather than an exemplary embodiment, could be a significant issue in the case.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "indexing the write-protected portion as a second distinct file in the circular buffer" (from '034 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for several patents may depend on this phrase. It describes how and where a video segment is protected. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused products copy data out of the buffer to protect it, rather than indexing it in the buffer, there may not be literal infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that protected portions "are preferably stored as separate files in the memory," which could be argued to support any method of creating a distinct file ('034 Patent, col. 2:45-47). Further, it notes that such files "could be stored in physically dis-contiguous parts of the circular buffer," which may be argued to cover logical rather than strictly physical storage constructs ('034 Patent, col. 2:47-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "in the circular buffer" suggests an in-place protection scheme. The specification also describes a process where, after indexing, protected data can be copied to a separate memory, implying that indexing and copying are distinct steps, not equivalents ('034 Patent, col. 10:9-14).

• The Term: "local memory functionally coupled to the camera" (from '034 Patent, Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The patent provides an explicit definition for this term. Its construction is critical because a strict interpretation could significantly narrow the scope of the claims to specific hardware configurations.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of an integrated device like a dashcam, the internal storage is inherently a "local memory" and the specific distance and connector types are merely illustrative of a preferred embodiment, not a required limitation for all embodiments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification uses clear definitional language: "As used herein, the term 'a local memory functionally coupled to the camera' means that the memory that is distanced less than 20 cm from the camera, and is coupled to the camera using entirely physical connectors" ('034 Patent, col. 2:14-20). This explicit definition provides strong evidence that the term should be narrowly construed as defined.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement and does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶24, ¶31, ¶38, ¶45, ¶52).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents or engaged in conduct rising to the level of willfulness. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not plead a specific claim for enhanced damages due to willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to several key technical and legal questions:

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused BlackVue dashcams protect event video by "indexing" a segment in the circular buffer, as the claims require, or do they employ a different mechanism, such as copying the data segment from the buffer to a separate, permanent file location?
• A second key question will relate to claim scope and definition: Will the explicit definition of "local memory" in the patent specification—requiring physical connectors and a proximity of less than 20 cm to the camera—be construed as a strict and binding limitation on the claims, or as merely an example of a preferred embodiment?
• A final evidentiary question will be one of function: Does the accused products' ability to upload video to the cloud or a phone satisfy the '034 patent's requirement of a "sending facility that uses the transmitter to wirelessly transmit the second file," linking the specific protected file to a dedicated transmission function?