Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Autoliv Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Autoliv, Inc. (Delaware); Autoliv North America, Inc. (Delaware); Autoliv Asp, Inc. (Indiana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-04847, S.D. Tex., 12/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Texas based on Defendants operating corporate offices, routinely conducting business, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Safety Score" smartphone-based telematics applications and services infringe five U.S. patents related to using device sensors to determine and analyze human motion activities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors commonly found in smartphones, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to identify real-world user activities like driving, walking, or specific driving behaviors for safety and risk-management applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a large, interconnected family with shared priority claims. The complaint alleges that the underlying technology has been in development by the plaintiff since at least 2007. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

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)"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846, "Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD)," Issued December 31, 2019. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for the "next generation" of electronic notification systems to be based on accurately identifying a user's "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking or driving, using sensors in a portable device. (’846 Patent, col. 2:5-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims systems and methods that use sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD), like a smartphone, to determine a user's MTMA. This identified activity is then used as a basis for selecting and communicating a "targeted advertisement" to the user's device. (’846 Patent, Abstract). The technical process involves capturing sensor data, normalizing it to account for device orientation, comparing it to a database of reference "signatures" for different activities, and using a likelihood analysis to select the most probable MTMA. (’846 Patent, col. 38:52 - col. 39:50).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables actions, such as delivering targeted content, to be triggered by a user's real-world physical activities as determined by a personal electronic device. (’846 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 12 (device), 17 (computer system), and 23 (means-plus-function system). (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 31, 36, 42).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based on sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD) measuring movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • Wherein the determination step includes storing reference signatures, normalizing the sensor data using a mathematical relationship, analyzing the normalized data, determining likelihoods based on the analysis, and selecting the most likely MTMA signature.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert various 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"

• Patent Identification: 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 June 2, 2015. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes the difficulty of accurately identifying human motion from sensors in a device that has "no fixed orientation with respect to the human," such as a smartphone in a pocket or purse. (’558 Patent, col. 25:27-33; Compl. ¶3). Prior art approaches are described as having low accuracy partly due to this orientation problem. (’558 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method to achieve orientation-independent activity detection by using the constant force of Earth's gravity as a reference. The system recognizes a set of data samples corresponding to gravity to define a coordinate system, and then normalizes subsequent movement data relative to that reference frame for analysis. (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:28-44).
• Technical Importance: This method of using gravity to establish a stable, orientation-agnostic reference frame allows for more reliable activity recognition from personal devices that are carried in inconsistent and unpredictable ways. (’558 Patent, col. 2:50-54; Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27 (methods) and 36, 42, 52 (systems). (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 61, 71, 80, 86, 96).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving 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.
  • Computing reference data based on the recognition of that particular set.
  • Calculating movement data based on the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA based upon the calculated movement data.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert various dependent claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 46-60).

---

Multi-Patent Capsules

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951, "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," Issued May 27, 2014. (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a personal surveillance system on a wireless device that uses sensor data to determine if a user may be in a situation requiring assistance, such as an accident or a crime. The system enters a first mode of general monitoring and, if the data suggests a potential need, enters a second, different mode of investigation to capture more specific data indicative of the activity. (’951 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶ 107, 115).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Safety Score system infringes by monitoring driving (first mode) and, upon detecting an unsafe event, capturing more detailed "surveillance information" such as location, g-force, and speed (second mode). (Compl. ¶107, p. 54).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914, "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," Issued October 15, 2013. (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a system that uses logic on a computing device to determine a user's activity, select a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitate a user-defined response based on that activity, and communicate surveillance information to a remote computer. (’914 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶ 118, 121).
• Accused Features: The Safety Score system is accused of using logic to determine a user is driving, activating a corresponding surveillance mode to monitor for events like hard braking or phone usage, and communicating the resulting "surveillance information" (driver habits and score) to remote servers. (Compl. ¶118, p. 59).

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

• Patent Identification: 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. (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: A related predecessor to the ’558 Patent, this patent also addresses orientation-independent motion detection. The claimed solution involves receiving 3D accelerometer data, recognizing a set of data samples to define a reference relationship between the 3D orientation and a 2D coordinate system, computing reference data, and then calculating and analyzing movement data within that 2D system. (’273 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 are asserted. (Compl. ¶¶ 126, 137, 146).
• Accused Features: The Safety Score system is accused of infringing by receiving 3D accelerometer data, using gravity to define an orientation for a 2D measurement system, and then calculating and determining driving events based on data analyzed in that 2D system. (Compl. ¶126, pp. 62-63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant's "Safety Score applications and services." (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is described as a "smart phone based digital solution" that functions as a telematics system to monitor driver behavior for risk management purposes. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the system uses a smartphone's internal sensors, such as the accelerometer and gyroscope, to monitor and identify human activities including "fast acceleration/deceleration/cornering," distracted driving, and automobile accidents. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, 20). The application provides users with a numerical "Safety Score," as shown in a screenshot of the app's user interface. (Compl. p. 7). The system is marketed as a tool to "Lower your claims cost by focusing on safety" and includes features such as "crash detection and driver coaching." (Compl. ¶14, p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'846 Patent Infringement Allegations

'558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions:
  • '846 Patent: A primary issue may be whether the "discount score" and "reward messages" generated by the Safety Score system (Compl. ¶20) fall within the scope of the claim term "advertisement." The defense could argue this term implies a third-party commercial promotion, whereas the plaintiff may argue it broadly covers any communication intended to influence behavior for a commercial purpose.
  • '558 Patent: The construction of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" will be critical. The patent specification ties this to identifying discrete "stationary points" where only gravity is felt ('558 Patent, col. 27:31-34). The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's alleged continuous monitoring of the gravity vector meets this limitation.
• Technical Questions:
  • The complaint makes narrative allegations that the accused system performs the multi-step analysis required by the claims (e.g., normalization, likelihood determination) (Compl. ¶20, pp. 10-11). A central evidentiary question will be whether the specific algorithms employed by the Safety Score system function in the manner required by the claims, or if there is a technical mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"advertisement" ('846 Patent)

• Context and Importance: Infringement of the '846 patent hinges on this term. The case may turn on whether the accused product's driver scores, coaching tips, and discount information are construed as "advertisements."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning. This could encompass any notice or communication designed to promote an action (safe driving) for a commercial benefit (reduced insurance claims).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 6 refers to "enabling an advertiser to communicate the advertisement" and Claim 5 refers to "monetarily benefiting from causing the advertisement to be communicated." (’846 Patent, col. 90:38-42). This language could suggest a more traditional commercial context involving a distinct "advertiser," which a court might not find in an integrated driver scoring system.

"recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" ('558 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the crucial step for establishing the orientation-independent framework. The dispute will likely focus on how this "recognition" is performed and whether the accused product's method of using gravity falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and does not specify the precise nature of the "particular set." Plaintiff may argue it covers any use of a known physical constant discernible from sensor data to establish an orientation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment for this step: finding "effectively stationary, points" by "selecting data points with magnitude sufficiently close to 1" (i.e., the magnitude of Earth's gravity). (’558 Patent, col. 27:31-34). A defendant could argue that this disclosure limits the claim scope to methods that identify discrete stationary points, rather than using a continuous gravity vector for normalization.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief requests injunctions against contributory and inducing infringement. (Compl. p. 72). A potential basis for inducement could be the allegation that Defendant provides the Safety Score application to end-users with the knowledge and intent that they will use it in an infringing manner.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all asserted patents. (Compl. p. 72). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents are alleged. The basis for willfulness appears to be the filing of the complaint itself, making any continued alleged infringement post-suit potentially willful.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "advertisement" in the ’846 patent, which the specification links to advertisers, be construed to cover the internal "Safety Score" and driver coaching feedback generated by the accused system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic correspondence: does the accused product's method for handling sensor data, particularly its use of the gravity vector to establish an orientation-independent reference frame, operate in a manner that maps onto the specific steps of "recognizing a particular set of data... as a reference" and creating a "normalizing mathematical relationship" as claimed in the asserted patents?
• A central strategic question will be one of patent differentiation: with five related patents asserted, the case will test whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system infringes the distinct technological contribution of each patent—from the foundational orientation-agnostic framework of the earlier patents to the application-specific systems for surveillance and advertising in the later ones.