Big Will Enterprises, Inc.v. Earnix, Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • 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: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant operates corporate offices in Plano, Texas, routinely conducts business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Drive-It" mobile telematics application infringes five patents related to methods for determining motion activities of a person or vehicle using sensor data from a wireless communication device.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors commonly found in smartphones, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to analyze movement and automatically identify specific activities like driving, walking, or certain driving behaviors for use in applications like usage-based insurance.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has been developing proprietary technologies in this field since at least 2007. The asserted patents claim priority to applications filed as early as 2008, indicating a long development history in the mobile sensor data analysis space.

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)," Issued Dec. 31, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes an evolution in electronic messaging and notification, noting the need for more sophisticated capabilities in wireless communication devices beyond basic communication (e.g., smartphones, tablets) (’846 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensor data (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope) from a mobile device to automatically identify a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking or driving (’846 Patent, Abstract). It achieves this by producing data sets representing movement in three-dimensional space, comparing this data to a stored library of "reference MTMA signatures," normalizing the data, and analyzing it to determine the most likely activity (’846 Patent, col. 89:56 - col. 90:26). Based on the identified activity, the system selects and delivers a targeted advertisement to the user's device (’846 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables context-aware actions, such as advertising, based on a user's real-time physical activities as determined by their personal mobile device (Compl. ¶2, ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 23 (Compl. ¶20, ¶31, ¶36, ¶42).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with a mobile thing (MT) transporting a wireless communication device (WCD) based on sensor data from the WCD.
  • The WCD's sensors measure physical movement in three-dimensional space, producing data sets of movement values and time values.
  • The determining step comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, determining a normalizing mathematical relationship, analyzing normalized data sets, determining likelihoods based on the stored signatures, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
  • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶21-30).

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 Jun. 02, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint highlights a primary challenge in sensor-based activity detection: identifying a specific human movement when the mobile device's sensors have no fixed orientation relative to the person (e.g., a phone in a pocket or purse) (Compl. ¶3). Prior art struggled with accuracy in such real-world conditions (’273 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention addresses the orientation problem by using Earth's gravity as a constant reference point (’558 Patent, Claim 2). It receives multiple streams of sensor data, recognizes a data set corresponding to gravity's acceleration to establish an orientation for the device, and computes reference data (e.g., a rotation matrix) based on this recognition (’558 Patent, Claim 1). Subsequent sensor data is then normalized using this reference data, allowing movement to be calculated and analyzed in a consistent coordinate system, independent of the device's initial orientation, to determine the MTMA (’558 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This orientation-agnostic approach was a key step toward making sensor-based activity monitoring reliable enough for widespread use in mobile applications that operate in uncontrolled environments (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).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a WCD.
  • 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 the recognition of the particular set.
  • Calculating movement data in the coordinate system for other non-reference data based upon the reference data.
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶46-60, ¶62-70, ¶72-79, ¶81-85, ¶87-95, ¶97-104).

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," Issued May 27, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system on a wireless device that uses sensors to capture data and determines if the data indicates a user's need for assistance, an accident, or a crime. If such an event is detected, the system can enter a different mode of operation to capture more data, communicate with remote systems, or initiate alarms (Compl. ¶107).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶107, ¶115).
• Accused Features: The Drive-It application is alleged to enter a "first investigation process" by monitoring sensor data to detect driving, determine if the driving is unsafe (a "user need for assistance"), and then enter a "second mode of operation" to capture and send surveillance information (e.g., location, time, g-force) to remote servers (Compl. ¶107).

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," Issued Oct. 15, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system on a computing device that uses logic to determine a user's activity and surroundings. Based on this determination, it selects a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates surveillance information to a remote device (Compl. ¶118, ¶121).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶118, ¶121).
• Accused Features: The Drive-It application is accused of determining user activity (driving), determining a corresponding surveillance mode (monitoring for hard braking, phone usage, etc.), facilitating a user response (prompting a user to confirm they are a passenger, not a driver), and communicating surveillance information (driver habits) to remote computers to determine a driving score (Compl. ¶118-121, ¶123).

U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - "Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device," Issued May 28, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is closely related to the ’558 Patent and describes a method for orientation-agnostic activity detection using accelerometer data. It involves recognizing a reference set of data in a 3D coordinate system to define a relationship with a 2D coordinate system, thereby establishing the device's orientation relative to gravity and allowing for consistent analysis of movement data (Compl. ¶126).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶126, ¶137, ¶146).
• Accused Features: The allegations against the Drive-It application are substantially similar to those for the ’558 Patent, focusing on the use of 3-axis accelerometer data to determine the direction of gravity, establish an orientation, and compute movement data in a normalized 2D coordinate system to identify driving behaviors (Compl. ¶126, ¶127, ¶129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant Earnix’s "Drive-It" mobile application for Android and iOS systems (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Drive-It application is a telematics solution used in Usage-Based Insurance (UBI) programs (Compl. ¶15). It uses smartphone sensors, including the accelerometer and gyroscope, to monitor and analyze a driver's behavior, such as braking, acceleration, cornering, speed, and distraction from phone use (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The application collects sensor data, automatically detects when a driving trip starts and stops, and uses machine learning models to generate predictive risk scores for drivers (Compl. ¶15). These scores are then used to provide feedback to the driver and to determine eligibility for insurance discounts (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Drive-It application displaying a "Time of Day Score" of 90 and a "Your Discount" of 12% (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'846 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a "discount score" or a "reward message" (Compl. ¶21), which reflects a driver's performance, constitutes an "advertisement" as the term is used in Claim 1 of the ’846 Patent. The patent's title and specification reference "advertisers," which may suggest a narrower construction limited to third-party commercial promotions rather than performance-based feedback.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the use of "reference MTMA signatures" and "normalizing" data (Compl. ¶20, ¶12). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Drive-It application's machine learning models perform these specific, claimed steps, as opposed to using other algorithmic techniques to generate a risk score from raw sensor data.

'558 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The core of this patent family is the specific method of using gravity as a reference to create an orientation-agnostic coordinate system. The primary point of contention will likely be whether the Drive-It application actually "recogniz[es] a particular set of data sample values as a reference" (i.e., the gravity vector) and "comput[es] reference data" (e.g., a rotation matrix) to normalize subsequent data, as claimed. The complaint's allegations are technical, but the case may depend on evidence from the accused product's source code demonstrating this specific technical implementation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "advertisement" (’846 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory for the ’846 Patent hinges on construing the "discount score" and related feedback in the Drive-It app as an "advertisement." Defendant will likely argue that this feedback is fundamentally different from a commercial promotion, potentially avoiding infringement of this patent entirely.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly limit the term to commercial promotions from third parties. A party could argue that any information communicated to a user to influence their behavior (e.g., drive more safely to get a discount) qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is "Targeted advertisement selection." The specification discusses enabling an "advertiser to communicate the advertisement to the WCD" (’846 Patent, col. 14:7-9). This language suggests a commercial context involving a distinct advertising entity, which may support a narrower construction that excludes user performance feedback.

• The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation" (’558 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the foundational step of the patented method for achieving orientation-agnostic analysis. The scope of "recognizing" and what constitutes "a reference" will determine whether the accused product's method of handling different device orientations falls within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the core technical novelty asserted to overcome problems in the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is somewhat broad and could be argued to cover any process that uses a known physical constant, like gravity, to establish a baseline orientation for sensor data analysis.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the related ’273 patent, to which the ’558 patent is related, describes a specific method for this step: finding "effectively stationary, points" where the net magnitude of acceleration is approximately 1g (the force of gravity), and using that vector as the z-axis to compute a rotation matrix (’273 Patent, col. 7:4-16). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires these specific sub-steps.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, the factual allegations state that Defendant "designed, manufactured, and is using and selling a telematics solution, the Drive-It application" (Compl. ¶14), and that the app is used by insured drivers (Compl. ¶14). These facts may be intended to support a later claim for induced infringement by providing the means (the app) and encouraging its use to monitor driving.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 74). The body of the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant, such as prior correspondence, citation of the patents in other contexts, or deliberate copying.

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 in the context of targeted ad selection, be construed broadly enough to cover the insurance discount scores and driving feedback messages presented to a user in the accused Drive-It application?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the Drive-It application perform the specific, multi-step method of orientation normalization claimed in the ’558 patent family—namely, recognizing the gravity vector as a reference, computing reference data such as a rotation matrix, and applying it to subsequent sensor data—or does it employ a different, potentially non-infringing algorithm to achieve orientation-agnostic analysis?
• A central theme across all five patents will be claim specificity: given the substantial overlap in the technological field covered by the asserted patents, the case will likely focus on whether the accused application performs the exact sequence of steps recited in any single asserted independent claim, raising questions about potential mismatches between the broad functionality of the app and the specific limitations of the patent claims.