DCT
4:24-cv-00489
Advanced Meter Systems LLC v. Schneider Electric USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advanced Meter Systems, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Emanuelson Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00489, E.D. Tex., 05/31/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "PowerLogic" and "ION" utility monitoring systems infringe a patent related to remote utility meter reading, hazard detection, and automated hazard response.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns networked smart meters that remotely communicate utility usage data and are also capable of detecting and reporting hazardous conditions, such as fires or gas leaks, and enabling remote control over utility connections.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-02 | ’239 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-08-08 | ’239 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-05-31 | 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, issued August 8, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional method of manually reading utility meters as expensive, time-consuming, and potentially dangerous for meter readers (’239 Patent, col. 1:36-44). It also identifies a need for automated systems to respond to emergencies, such as shutting off gas or electricity during a fire, particularly when a property is unoccupied (’239 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus that combines remote utility meter reading with hazard detection and response capabilities. The system uses a meter connected to a communication line to periodically report usage data to a remote computer and can also be triggered by local alarms (e.g., for fire or a gas leak) to automatically send alerts to emergency responders and shut off the associated utility service (’239 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-49).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to integrate automated meter reading (AMR) with premise safety systems, creating a unified network for both routine monitoring and emergency management of utility services (’239 Patent, col. 1:21-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is a representative apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- 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, confirmation of receipt, and a protocol for handling failed transmissions that includes both repeated transmission and giving notice of a need for repair.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names "Schneider Utility Monitoring Devices" and the "Schneider Utility Monitoring Network," operating under the "PowerLogic" and "ION" brand names (Compl. ¶10). Specific examples cited are the "PowerLogic ION8650" and "PowerLogic ION7400" Utility Meters (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused devices provide "automatic remote utility meter reading and reporting" through a network featuring "two-way communication" (Compl. ¶10, ¶14).
- The functionality is said to include providing detailed reports on utility usage which can be used to "identify hazards and anomalies such as potential shorts, open circuits and meter tampering" (Compl. ¶15).
- The system is alleged to handle "priority reporting of alarms, leak detection, error conditions and tamper notifications" (Compl. ¶17).
- Technically, the devices are alleged to incorporate capabilities to confirm successful data transmission, request retransmission of failed transmissions, and generate notice of repair needs (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide further details on the products' market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’239 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| utility usage metering means | The accused devices are "specifically designed, made, and used for metering utility usage" and are "operable to monitor utility usage." | ¶19, ¶25 | col. 18:49-50 |
| utility usage reporting means | The accused devices are "specifically designed, made and used for reporting utility usage" and "are operable to transmit utility usage data to remote data receiving devices." | ¶20, ¶27 | col. 18:51-52 |
| utility hazard detection means | The devices are "used for detecting, reporting and correcting errors and faults" and can "identify hazards and anomalies such as potential shorts, open circuits and meter tampering." | ¶15, ¶21 | col. 18:53-54 |
| utility hazard reporting means | The devices "handle priority reporting of alarms, leak detection, error conditions and tamper notifications." | ¶17 | col. 18:55-56 |
| confirmation means | The devices possess a capability "to confirm successful transmission and receipt of utility data, to request retransmission of failed transmissions and to generate notice of repair needs." | ¶24 | col. 18:57-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 includes a "utility hazard detection means." The complaint alleges the accused products detect "hazards and anomalies such as potential shorts, open circuits and meter tampering" (Compl. ¶15). The patent specification, however, describes this means in the context of specific structures like "fire alarms and/or gas detectors" (’239 Patent, col. 13:1-2). A central dispute may be whether the internal diagnostic functions alleged in the complaint are structurally equivalent to the external, event-driven alarm systems disclosed in the patent for the purpose of claim construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
- Technical Questions: The "confirmation means" of claim 1 requires, in part, means "to give notice of a need for repair if repeated data transmissions are not successful." The complaint alleges this capability in conclusory fashion (Compl. ¶24). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system's error-handling protocol performs this specific function, as distinct from merely logging an error or retrying transmission without generating an affirmative repair notice.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "utility hazard detection means"
Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term, and its construction will be critical to determining infringement. Its scope is defined by the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case hinges on whether the accused products' alleged "anomaly" detection (Compl. ¶15) is structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed hazard detectors.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to detecting "malfunctions or errors in the use and operation of the utility equipment" (’239 Patent, col. 1:62-64), which a party could argue encompasses the "potential shorts" and "open circuits" alleged in the complaint.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s primary examples of structures for this function are external systems like "fire alarms," "gas detectors," "motion detector," and detectors for a "chem/bio' terrorist attack" (’239 Patent, col. 13:1-43). A party could argue the term's scope is limited to structures that detect external, physical hazards rather than internal electrical anomalies.
The Term: "confirmation means"
Context and Importance: This is also a means-plus-function limitation. The dispute may center on the final clause, which requires means "to give notice of a need for repair." The interpretation of this phrase will determine what level of functionality the accused product must demonstrate beyond simple error logging.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any automated error report or log entry that is accessible by a technician constitutes "notice of a need for repair." The complaint alleges the accused devices have the capability to "generate notice of repair needs" (Compl. ¶24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flow chart in Figure 2 shows that after a set number of failed attempts, the system proceeds to a distinct "Repair" box (44) (’239 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 9:37-44). A party may argue this requires an active notification or dispatch process, not merely a passive log entry, to be structurally equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (induced or contributory infringement). The claims for relief are based on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages based on alleged "knowing and deliberate" conduct, with notice alleged to have been provided "at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: can Plaintiff prove that the accused products' software-based systems for detecting electrical anomalies and handling transmission errors are structurally equivalent to the specific, often hardware-based, embodiments (e.g., external fire alarms, distinct repair notification steps) disclosed in the ’239 patent specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does discovery show that the accused "PowerLogic" and "ION" systems' error-handling protocols perform the specific dual function required by Claim 1's "confirmation means"—not only repeating a failed transmission but also affirmatively "giv[ing] notice of a need for repair"—or is there a functional mismatch with the claim language?