Big Will Enterprises, Inc.v. Earnix, Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Earnix, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00078, N.D. Tex., 01/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant operates corporate offices in Plano, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Drive-It mobile telematics application infringes five patents related to using smartphone sensor data to detect, analyze, and act upon human motion activities.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to sensor-based motion analysis, a field critical to the usage-based insurance (UBI) market, where driving behavior is monitored to assess risk and determine policy pricing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 - “Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD)”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846, “Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD),” issued on December 31, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the proliferation of electronic messaging and notification systems, which created a need for more intelligent and context-aware methods for interacting with users of mobile devices ('846 Patent, col. 1:50-59). The complaint further specifies that a key problem was identifying human movement when the mobile device has no fixed orientation relative to the user (Compl. ¶3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for using sensor data from a wireless device (e.g., an accelerometer) to accurately identify a “mobile thing motion activity” (MTMA), such as walking or driving. The solution involves capturing sensor data in three dimensions, normalizing it using a mathematical relationship, analyzing the normalized data in both time and frequency domains, and comparing it to a database of stored "signatures" for known activities to find the most likely match. Once an activity is identified, a targeted advertisement is selected and sent to the device ('846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-12).
• Technical Importance: This orientation-independent approach to motion detection was significant for enabling reliable activity tracking on consumer smartphones, which are often carried in purses or pockets in arbitrary positions (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 23 (Compl. ¶¶20, 31, 36, 42).
• The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based on sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD).
  • Using sensors that measure physical movement in three-dimensional space to produce data sets with three movement values and a time value.
  • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • Wherein the determination process involves storing reference MTMA signatures, determining a normalizing mathematical relationship for the sensor data, analyzing the normalized data in frequency and time domains, and determining likelihoods to select the most likely MTMA signature.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 - “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558, “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions,” issued on June 2, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The technical challenge, as described in related patents in the family, is the difficulty of accurately identifying motion activities using mobile device sensors when the device's orientation is unknown and constantly changing ('273 Patent, col. 1:60–col. 2:50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by using a constant physical force—Earth's gravity—as a reference point. The system receives raw sensor data, recognizes a data set corresponding to the force of gravity to establish an orientation reference, computes reference data based on this recognition, and then calculates subsequent movement data relative to this established framework to determine the user's activity ('558 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:22-40).
• Technical Importance: Using Earth's gravity to create a dynamic reference framework for sensor data allows for reliable, orientation-independent motion analysis on devices that are not fixed to a user's body (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶45, 61, 71, 80, 86, 96).
• The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors indicative of movement.
  • Recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system.
  • Computing reference data based upon that recognition.
  • Calculating movement data in the coordinate system based upon the reference data.
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based upon the movement data.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, implicitly including dependent claims (Compl. ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951, “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” issued on May 27, 2014.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for personal surveillance that operates in multiple modes. A first investigation mode captures initial sensor data to determine if an activity may require assistance; if so, the system enters a second, different investigation mode to capture further data indicative of the activity (Compl. ¶107).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶107, 115).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Drive-It application’s process of monitoring driving, determining if a user is driving unsafely, and then capturing and sending "surveillance information" (location, time, g-force, etc.) infringes the '951 Patent's claimed two-mode investigation process (Compl. ¶107).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914, “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” issued on October 15, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system and method comprising logic for determining a user's activity, determining a corresponding surveillance mode, facilitating a user-defined response to the activity, and communicating surveillance information to a remote computer (Compl. ¶¶118, 121).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶118, 121).
• Accused Features: The Drive-It application is accused of infringing by using logic to determine that a user is driving, activating a surveillance mode to monitor that driving, facilitating a user-defined response (e.g., a "riding mode"), and communicating surveillance information (driver habits) to remote servers (Compl. ¶¶118, 121).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273, “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device,” issued on May 28, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for determining motion activity by receiving three streams of accelerometer data, recognizing a particular set of data samples as a reference to define a relationship between a 3D and a 2D coordinate system, and calculating movement data within the 2D system ('273 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶126, 137, 146).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Drive-It application infringes by using accelerometer data to calculate an orientation based on Earth's gravity, thereby establishing a reference framework to determine driving activities like hard braking and acceleration (Compl. ¶126, ¶129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s “Drive-It application,” a mobile telematics solution available on Android and iOS platforms (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Drive-It application uses smartphone sensors, including the accelerometer and gyroscope, to monitor a driver’s behavior (Compl. ¶15). It collects and analyzes data related to braking, acceleration, cornering, speed, and distracted driving to generate predictive risk scores (Compl. ¶15). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface displaying a "Time of Day Score" and a "Your Discount" percentage, indicating its use in usage-based insurance (UBI) programs (Compl. p. 6). The application automatically detects when a trip starts and stops and provides feedback to the user to improve driving habits (Compl. ¶15, p. 7). A visual from the complaint illustrates the types of events the app tracks, including "Trip Start," "Trip End," "Acceleration," "Braking," "Cornering," and "Phone Use" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges the application uses "machine learning models based on over five billion miles of actual driving data" to generate its scoring algorithms (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’846 Patent Infringement Allegations

’558 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue for the ’846 Patent will be whether the "discount score" and "gamification awards" provided by the Drive-It application can be construed as an "advertisement" as required by the claims (Compl. ¶¶20, 24). The patent’s examples may suggest a narrower scope limited to commercial products, whereas the complaint advances a broader interpretation.
  • Technical Questions: The patents describe specific methods for normalizing sensor data, such as by using Earth's gravity to establish a reference orientation ('558 Patent) or by determining a "normalizing mathematical relationship" ('846 Patent). A key question will be whether the "machine learning models" allegedly used by the Drive-It app (Compl. ¶15) perform these specific claimed steps, or if they represent a fundamentally different, non-infringing technical approach to activity recognition.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846

  • The Term: "advertisement"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’846 Patent hinges on this term. The accused product provides insurance discount information and driving scores, not traditional third-party product advertisements. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement for this patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an "Action Determination (AD) system" that can initiate "intelligent activity based actions," which may suggest a scope beyond simple commercial promotions ('846 Patent, col. 23:41-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment describes an advertisement for "running peripherals to current runners" ('846 Patent, col. 78:24-41), which suggests a conventional commercial context. The term is not explicitly defined in the specification to have a special meaning beyond its ordinary usage.

• U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558

  • The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation"
  • Context and Importance: This term recites the foundational step of the patented method for achieving orientation-independent analysis. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product’s data processing methods, which the complaint alleges are based on machine learning, perform this specific recognition and reference-setting step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not limit the "recognition" to a single method. Any process that uses a subset of sensor data to establish a reference orientation could potentially fall within its scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’273 patent, incorporated by reference, describes a specific method for this step: finding "effectively stationary" data points where the net acceleration magnitude is approximately 1g, and using that vector (representing Earth's gravity) to define the vertical axis for a new coordinate system ('273 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:1-10). A defendant could argue this detailed embodiment limits the claim's scope to that specific technique.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 74). The complaint, however, does not plead any specific facts regarding Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents prior to or after the suit was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “advertisement,” as used in the ’846 Patent, be construed broadly enough to cover the insurance discount scores and driving feedback provided by the accused Drive-It application, or is it limited to promotions for third-party goods and services?
• A central technical question will be one of operational correspondence: does the accused product's use of "machine learning models" for risk scoring perform the specific, multi-step methods claimed in the patents—particularly the recognition of a reference data set (e.g., gravity) to normalize sensor data—or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technology that distinguishes it from the patented inventions?