Peregrine Data LLC v. Solera Holdings LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peregrine Data LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Solera Holdings, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03103, N.D. Tex., 12/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products, which appear to relate to automotive monitoring, infringe a patent directed to vehicle-mounted camera systems for recording events around a vehicle’s perimeter.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for continuous, 360-degree optical recording around a vehicle to create a complete evidentiary record of events, intended for later use in legal or insurance proceedings.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit’s front page indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may affect the patent's expiration date. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,319,619 - "Stored vision for automobiles"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,319,619, "Stored vision for automobiles", issued November 27, 2012 (’619 Patent). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a lack of reliable, objective evidence following automobile accidents, crimes, or other road incidents, noting that eyewitness testimony can be scarce or inaccurate and that it is dangerous for a driver to attempt to manually record events while operating a vehicle. ( ’619 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using multiple camera apparatuses mounted around a vehicle's perimeter to continuously capture a 360-degree view. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:30-35). This optical data is transmitted to a central digital recorder, preserving a complete record of events that can be retrieved and analyzed "off line" after the trip is complete, thereby allowing the driver to focus on safe driving. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:14-18; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described method aimed to provide a comprehensive and automated system for gathering objective evidence of vehicular incidents, thereby improving the efficiency and reliability of subsequent legal and insurance investigations. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:4-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '619 Patent Claims" identified in an external chart (Exhibit 2) that was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). The patent contains two independent method claims, 1 and 2.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Placing a plurality of cameras in circumferentially spaced positions around the automobile’s periphery, fixedly secured with their fields of view directed outwardly.
  • Activating all cameras to operate continuously throughout an entire trip.
  • Recording images from each camera in a "corresponding separate file."
  • Using "separate node files" to provide eight separate files of real-time recorded data.
  • Using the cameras as a "set, not a combination," with each operating separately and individually.
  • Locating the apparatus such that it is "inaccessible to a driver" during the trip.
• The complaint’s reference to "one or more claims" preserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in the unattached Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any specific accused product. It makes only a conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '619 Patent." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not included with the public filing, a detailed, element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement states that the defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and that these products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the patent and the general nature of the allegations, infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "operate continuously throughout an entire trip." The question for the court will be whether this language reads on modern systems that may use loop recording, event-based triggers (e.g., G-force sensors), or other power-saving modes, as opposed to uninterrupted recording from the start to the end of a trip.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products, once identified, implement the specific data architecture required by the claims, such as recording images from each camera into a "corresponding separate file" and using "separate node files." ( ’619 Patent, col. 6:62-67). The complaint provides no facts on how the accused products manage or store data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "operate continuously throughout an entire trip" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the temporal scope of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because many modern dashcam and vehicle surveillance systems do not record without interruption but instead use loop recording or are triggered by specific events. The definition will determine whether such common implementations fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s stated objective to "capture an entire collision, road rage incident, or fender bender" and to eliminate the need for a driver to actively monitor events could support an interpretation where "continuously" means always being ready to capture an event, even if not literally writing data to memory at every single moment. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:7-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim, requiring operation "throughout an entire trip," and the specification's description of data being transmitted on a "continuous and concurrent basis," could support a stricter interpretation requiring uninterrupted recording from the beginning to the end of a vehicle's journey. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:38-42).

The Term: "inaccessible to a driver" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to whether the claims cover systems that, while automated, still offer driver-accessible controls. The dispute will likely center on whether "inaccessible" means physically out of reach, disabled via software during operation, or simply not requiring driver interaction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's emphasis on avoiding driver distraction could support a functional interpretation, meaning the system is designed to operate without needing any driver input, even if some controls are technically reachable. The patent notes an object is to record "without requiring the driver to be distracted from his or her main priority." ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:11-13).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "it is preferably inacessible to the driver while driving the vehicle," and suggests locating a battery switch in a position that is inaccessible. ( ’619 Patent, col. 2:56-58, col. 5:53-56). This could support a narrower construction requiring physical inaccessibility of the system's core components or controls.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes no allegations of indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement). Count 1 is limited to "Direct Infringement." (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead any specific facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. However, in the prayer for relief, it requests that the case be "declared exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could lead to an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, E.i.).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint’s immediate challenge is its lack of factual specificity. A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually perform the highly particular method steps recited in the claims, especially given the absence of any named products or technical descriptions in the initial pleading.

2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on claim construction. A core issue will be whether the term "operate continuously throughout an entire trip," rooted in the patent's concept of uninterrupted evidence gathering, can be construed to cover modern automotive camera systems that may employ more dynamic recording logic, such as event-triggered or looping storage methods.

3. Technical Architecture: A key factual question for infringement will be one of data structure equivalence. Does the accused products' method for storing video data—whatever it may be—meet the claim requirement for recording data from each camera into a "corresponding separate file" and using "separate node files," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed versus accused data management architecture?