DCT
3:23-cv-01937
Kustom Signals Inc v. Applied Concepts Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kustom Signals, Inc. (Kansas)
- Defendant: Applied Concepts, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hovey Williams LLP
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01937, N.D. Tex., 06/07/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because the Defendant is a Texas corporation that maintains its principal place of business in the district and has conducted business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s traffic radar systems and accessories infringe four patents related to using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data to determine a patrol vehicle's speed for calculating target vehicle speeds.
- Technical Context: The technology enables police radar units to determine their own speed independently, without a physical connection to the patrol vehicle's onboard electronics, thereby simplifying installation and preserving vehicle warranties.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant on May 2, 2022, and February 20, 2023, providing notice of its rights in the patents-in-suit or their predecessor applications.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-10-09 | Earliest Priority Date for ’039, ’602, ’172, and ’754 Patents |
| 2021-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039 Issues |
| 2022-05-02 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-02-20 | Plaintiff sends follow-up notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-07-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,703,602 Issues |
| 2024-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,977,172 Issues |
| 2024-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11,982,754 Issues |
| 2024-06-07 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039 - “Traffic Radar System with Patrol Vehicle Speed Detection”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with prior art traffic radar systems that required a physical connection to a patrol vehicle’s speed sensor wiring or data bus. Such connections were described as "difficult and time-consuming," complicated by the variety of electronic protocols across different vehicle models, and could risk voiding the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty (Compl. ¶¶18-19; ’039 Patent, col. 1:39-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by using a "speed determining element," such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, to determine the patrol vehicle's speed independently of the vehicle's own electronics. This standalone speed measurement is then used by a processing element, in conjunction with Doppler radar returns, to calculate the absolute speed of target vehicles (Compl. ¶20; ’039 Patent, Abstract). The system block diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the speed determining element (22) providing data to the processing element (26), which also receives signals from the front (12) and rear (14) radar transceivers (’039 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a universal, easier-to-install police radar system that does not interfere with a patrol vehicle's complex and proprietary electronic systems (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 9 (’039 Patent, col. 16:56 - col. 17:13; Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of Claim 9 are:
- A first radar transceiver for a front zone.
- A second radar transceiver for a rear zone.
- A speed determining element (e.g., GPS) to determine and output the patrol vehicle's speed.
- A processing element configured to:
- Receive radar data and the patrol vehicle's speed.
- Perform a time-to-frequency domain conversion on radar data, creating "frequency bins."
- Convert the patrol vehicle's speed into a corresponding "frequency bin number."
- Form a "patrol vehicle speed window" centered on that frequency bin number.
- Identify target vehicle signals as frequency bins outside this window that exceed a threshold.
- Convert the target's frequency bin number into a relative speed.
- Convert the relative speed into an absolute speed using the patrol vehicle's speed.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,703,602 - “Traffic Radar System with Patrol Vehicle Speed Detection”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as the ’039 Patent: the difficulty, vehicle-specificity, and warranty-voiding risks of connecting radar systems directly to a patrol vehicle's internal electronics (’602 Patent, col. 1:40-57; Compl. ¶¶18-19).
- The Patented Solution: The ’602 Patent also discloses using an independent GNSS-based speed determining element to ascertain the patrol vehicle's speed, which is then combined with radar data to calculate target speeds (’602 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶20). The process is illustrated in the flowchart of Figures 10A-10B, showing the system receiving speed data (101), performing a frequency domain transform (105), determining a patrol vehicle speed window (106), and then determining and converting target speeds (107-109) (’602 Patent, Figs. 10A-10B).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a modular solution for police radar systems, decoupling them from the specific make and model of the patrol vehicle in which they are installed (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 9 (’602 Patent, col. 23:14 - col. 24:12; Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 9 are:
- A first radar transceiver for a front or rear zone.
- A speed determining element (e.g., GPS) to determine and output the patrol vehicle's speed.
- A processing element configured to perform the same data processing steps as in Claim 9 of the ’039 Patent (e.g., create frequency bins, form a patrol vehicle speed window, identify targets outside the window, and calculate absolute speed).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 11,977,172 - “Traffic Radar System with Patrol Vehicle Speed Detection”
Technology Synopsis
This patent is directed to a speed sensor that uses a GNSS module to generate vehicle speed data packets. It further includes an accelerometer to provide acceleration data, which the processing element uses to calculate a current vehicle speed if the GNSS data packet is determined to be invalid, providing redundancy and improved reliability (Compl. ¶¶23-24).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶2).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges infringement by the Stalker Speed Module, which is marketed as using "Inertial Navigation Technology" in combination with a GPS receiver to "maintain precise vehicle speed tracking even in areas where a GPS signal is unavailable" (Compl. ¶¶27, 30).
U.S. Patent No. 11,982,754 - “Traffic Radar System with Patrol Vehicle Speed Detection”
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a speed sensor that uses a GNSS module to extract both speed and directional heading. The processing element is configured to determine if the vehicle is stationary or moving by analyzing these two data streams; a variable heading with near-zero speed indicates a stationary vehicle, while a constant heading with non-zero speed indicates a moving vehicle (Compl. ¶25).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶2).
Accused Features
Infringement allegations target the Stalker Speed Module's advertised support for "Moving/Stationary auto-switching features" (Compl. ¶¶27, 30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Stalker Speed Module" (referred to as the "Accused Product"), sold by Defendant Applied Concepts (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges infringement occurs when this module is used in combination with Defendant's radar units, such as the DSR 2X, DSR, DUAL SL, and PATROL models (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint, citing Defendant's marketing literature, describes the Stalker Speed Module as a "small plug-and-play device" that serves as an alternative to connecting a radar unit to a vehicle's hard-wired Vehicle Speed Sensor (VSS) (Compl. ¶27).
- The module is alleged to combine a GPS satellite receiver with "proprietary Inertial Navigation Technology" to determine the patrol vehicle's speed. This combination is advertised to allow the radar to maintain accurate speed tracking in areas of poor GPS reception, such as in tunnels or near tall buildings (Compl. ¶27). A photograph of the accused product's internal circuit board is provided in the complaint, identifying the GNSS module (Compl. Ex. H, p. 198).
- The complaint positions the Accused Product as a direct competitor that solves the same problems addressed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’039 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first radar transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams from a front zone... | The Stalker DSR 2X Radar, used with the Accused Product, includes a first transceiver for monitoring targets from the front. | ¶37; Ex. C, p. 89 | col. 4:11-15 |
| a second radar transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams from a rear zone... | The Stalker DSR 2X Radar includes a second transceiver for monitoring targets from the rear. | ¶37; Ex. C, p. 89 | col. 4:58-62 |
| a speed determining element configured to receive and process radio frequency signals from a global navigation satellite system to determine and output a speed of the patrol vehicle | The Stalker Speed Module is a speed determining element that uses a GPS receiver to determine and output the patrol vehicle's speed. | ¶37; Ex. C, p. 90 | col. 5:50-6:4 |
| a processing element configured to... perform a time domain to frequency domain conversion... form a patrol vehicle speed window... determine at least one group of successive frequency bin numbers outside of the patrol vehicle speed window... | On information and belief, the Stalker DSR 2X Radar's processing element performs these specific signal processing steps to distinguish the patrol vehicle's speed from target speeds and calculate the absolute speed of the target. | ¶37; Ex. C, p. 91 | col. 11:45-12:13 |
’602 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first radar transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams from a front zone... or in a rear zone... | The Stalker DSR 2X Radar includes a transceiver that can be configured to operate in a front or rear zone. | ¶63; Ex. C, p. 92 | col. 4:11-15 |
| a speed determining element configured to receive and process radio frequency signals from a global navigation satellite system... | The Stalker Speed Module uses a GPS receiver to determine patrol vehicle speed. | ¶63; Ex. C, p. 93 | col. 6:2-6 |
| a processing element configured to... form a patrol vehicle speed window... convert the relative speed of the target vehicle to an absolute speed... | On information and belief, the Stalker DSR 2X Radar's processing element performs the claimed signal processing steps to calculate target speeds using the GPS-derived patrol speed. | ¶63; Ex. C, p. 94 | col. 11:51-12:34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question may be whether the accused system's processor actually performs the specific sequence of steps required by the claims: creating "frequency bins," forming a "patrol vehicle speed window" around the patrol vehicle's GPS-derived speed, and then identifying targets as signals "outside of the patrol vehicle speed window." The complaint makes these allegations "on information and belief," suggesting that the precise internal software operations of the accused device are not yet known to the Plaintiff (Compl. Ex. C, p. 91). The litigation will likely focus on discovery related to the accused device's source code and signal processing algorithms.
- Scope Questions: The infringement count for the ’602 Patent alleges the accused system contains both a "first radar transceiver" and a "second radar transceiver" (Compl. ¶63). However, Claim 9 of the ’602 Patent, as recited in the complaint, only requires "a first radar transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar beams from a front zone... or in a rear zone" (Compl. ¶22). This discrepancy between the asserted claim language and the infringement allegation raises the question of whether this is a pleading error or a point of future dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "patrol vehicle speed window"
Context and Importance
This term is central to the claimed method of signal processing. The claims require the system to create this "window" around the patrol vehicle's own speed signature in the frequency domain to distinguish it from the signatures of target vehicles. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused system's method of isolating the patrol vehicle's speed signal falls within the court's construction of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a functional definition: "a patrol vehicle speed window that includes a range of frequency bin numbers having the frequency bin number of the converted patrol vehicle speed as a center of the range" (’039 Patent, col. 17:1-5). Plaintiff may argue this covers any software-defined range used to isolate the patrol vehicle's signal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example of the window's implementation: "the bin numbers that correspond to the converted patrol vehicle speed frequency bin number plus 5 mph and minus 5 mph" (’039 Patent, col. 9:3-6). Defendant may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to require a fixed numerical range around the patrol speed, rather than any functional equivalent.
The Term: "speed determining element"
Context and Importance
This element is the core of the asserted invention, replacing the hard-wired connection to the vehicle's electronics. The infringement case hinges on the Accused Product's GPS and inertial navigation module meeting the definition of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the term by its function: an element "configured to receive and process radio frequency signals from a global navigation satellite system to determine and output a speed of the patrol vehicle" (’039 Patent, col. 16:61-64). This language is technology-agnostic as long as it uses GNSS signals.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific commercial part as an exemplary embodiment: "the SE868K3-A GNSS module from Telit Wireless Solutions" (’039 Patent, col. 6:1-3). A defendant might attempt to argue that the claims are limited to similar, dedicated, off-the-shelf GNSS modules, although arguments to limit claim scope to a preferred embodiment are often disfavored.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes separate counts for induced and contributory infringement for all four patents (Compl. Counts II, IV, VI, VIII). It alleges Defendant induces infringement by selling the Accused Product to customers for use in an infringing manner and contributes to infringement by selling a component especially made and adapted for use in the infringing system, which is not a staple article of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶48-50, 52).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The complaint asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement based on notice letters sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on May 2, 2022, and February 20, 2023, and that Defendant made "no attempt to design around" the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶41-43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical operation and proof: What is the actual signal processing algorithm used by the accused Stalker Speed Module in combination with its radar units? Discovery will be critical to determine if the system performs the specific claimed steps of creating frequency bins and using a "patrol vehicle speed window" to isolate and distinguish the patrol vehicle's own speed from that of targets, as alleged on information and belief.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "patrol vehicle speed window"? The dispute could focus on whether this term covers any method of isolating the patrol vehicle's signal in the frequency domain, or if it is limited to the more specific "+/- 5 mph" range disclosed as an example in the patent's specification.
- Finally, a key question for damages will be willfulness: Given the two pre-suit notice letters cited in the complaint, the court will likely examine whether Defendant's continued sales of the Accused Product constituted objective recklessness, which could expose the Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages if found liable for infringement.