Autolocate Systems LLC v. Greyhound Lines Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AutoLocate Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01805, N.D. Tex., 07/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for providing vehicle location and arrival time information infringe a patent related to wireless transmission of vehicle tracking data to requestors.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns real-time vehicle tracking systems, which are used in public transportation and logistics to provide passengers and customers with accurate arrival time estimates.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-08	’904 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-06	’904 Patent Application Filing Date
2012-12-25	’904 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,340,904 - "Transmission of wireless messages of current vehicle location and estimated arrival time to requestors," issued December 25, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of passengers waiting for public transportation, such as a bus, who have no reliable information about the vehicle's actual location or arrival time beyond a static, often inaccurate, posted schedule (’904 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a wireless communication device installed on a moving vehicle (e.g., a bus) that can independently determine its geographic location using GPS. The on-vehicle device is configured to receive a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" directly from a "remote requestor" carrying a portable device. Upon receiving the request, the on-vehicle device "automatically generates and transmits" a message with the vehicle's location and arrival time directly back to the requestor's portable device, "without requiring to use a stationary communication device" for the transaction (’904 Patent, col. 5:50-6:24, Abstract). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates an embodiment of this on-vehicle device (210) containing a GPS unit (225), a map database (230), and subsystems to process requests and transmit responses (260, 270).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide a decentralized method for obtaining real-time transit information, empowering a direct communication link between a passenger and a specific vehicle, thereby bypassing reliance on potentially slow or complex central dispatch systems (’904 Patent, col. 6:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’904 Patent without specifying them, but independent claim 1 is foundational to the patent (’904 Patent, col. 9:4-21; Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A wireless communication device disposed on a vehicle for public transportation.
  • A vehicle location processor for receiving GPS data to compute the vehicle's geographic location.
  • A request response subsystem for:
    • receiving a real-time wireless telephonic signal from a remote requestor's portable communication device;
    • automatically generating and transmitting a real-time vehicle location message directly to the portable device;
    • doing so without requiring the use of a stationary communication device to indicate the vehicle's arrival time.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (’904 Patent, col. 9:22-10:56; Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific Greyhound products or services. It refers to them generally as "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The functionality of the accused products is described as practicing the technology claimed by the ’904 Patent, which involves providing vehicle location and arrival time information to customers (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Greyhound makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and that its employees internally test and use them, suggesting the technology is integral to its bus line operations (Compl. ¶¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ’904 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '904 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Greyhound system operates "without requiring to use a stationary communication device," as mandated by claim 1. Modern fleet tracking systems often rely on a central server architecture to process location data and manage communications, which may create a factual dispute over this negative limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific details on how Greyhound's system is initiated by a user. This raises the question of whether its operation involves receiving a "real-time wireless telephonic signal from a remote requestor" that "automatically generates" a response, as the claim requires, or if it operates through a different mechanism, such as a client-server application that polls a central database.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"without requiring to use a stationary communication device"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears to be a critical differentiator of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether systems that use any form of central or server-side processing fall outside the scope of the claim. The dispute will likely center on whether "stationary communication device" refers to the entire back-end infrastructure or a more specific component in the communication path.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., excluding more systems): The patent repeatedly contrasts its direct vehicle-to-user communication with systems that use a "traffic message center" or other intermediary hubs, which could support an interpretation that any system relying on a fixed, land-based server for processing the request or generating the response is "stationary" (’904 Patent, col. 5:50-55; col. 6:40-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., including more systems): An argument could be made that the term only precludes the use of a stationary device by the remote requestor to initiate contact. The claim language states the system works "without requiring to use a stationary communication device, to indicate the time when the vehicle will arrive," which could be narrowly read to mean the final delivery of the message must be direct, while still permitting some background server involvement that is not directly part of the user's request-response loop (’904 Patent, col. 9:18-21).

"real-time wireless telephonic signal"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the initiating signal from the user is a core claim element. The case may turn on whether a data request from a mobile application over the internet qualifies as a "telephonic signal."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions requests can come from a "cellular phone," a "personal digital assistant (PDA)," or a computer connected through the internet, which supports a broad reading that encompasses modern data communications from mobile devices (’904 Patent, col. 6:57-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "telephonic" could be argued to limit the signal to a voice call or a technology more closely associated with traditional telephony, such as SMS, as opposed to a purely IP-based data packet from a web application. The patent mentions a "special phone number that collect charge for each incoming call," which may suggest a call-based or SMS-based interaction model (’904 Patent, col. 5:22-24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’904 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of infringement acquired upon service of the complaint. The complaint asserts that despite this actual knowledge, Defendant continues its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the claim limitation "without requiring to use a stationary communication device" be construed to read on Greyhound's accused system, which, like most modern fleet management services, may rely on a central server for data aggregation and communication management?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: Does the accused system operate by receiving a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" that "automatically generates" a responsive message directly from the vehicle, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical sequence of operations as required by the patent claims?