DCT

4:25-cv-03961

Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Geometris LP

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
    • Defendant: Geometris LP (Texas)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-03961, S.D. Tex., 08/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant operates its headquarters within the district, routinely conducts business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s whereQube OBD II vehicle trackers infringe four patents related to using sensor data from a mobile device to determine and analyze motion activity.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, within mobile electronic devices to identify specific physical activities (e.g., walking, driving) by analyzing movement patterns, often compensating for the device's variable orientation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any significant prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-16 '914 & '951 Patents Priority Date
2012-08-30 '558 & '273 Patents Priority Date
2013-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 Issued
2013-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 Issued
2015-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Issued
2025-08-20 Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint identifies the primary technical problem as the inability to effectively identify a particular human movement when the sensors in a mobile device, such as a smartphone, have no fixed orientation relative to the person (Compl. ¶3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention, as characterized in the complaint, solves this problem by receiving streams of sensor data, recognizing a particular set of data samples (e.g., the constant force of gravity) as a reference to define the device's orientation, and then computing subsequent movement data relative to that reference framework, allowing for the determination of a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) regardless of how the device is carried (Compl. ¶18). This process is described in the '273 Patent, which is related to the '558 Patent, as establishing a reference framework to enable normalization and intelligent comparison of sampled data (’273 Patent, col. 4:45-50).
  • Technical Importance: This orientation-agnostic approach to motion detection was significant for enabling reliable activity tracking on consumer mobile devices like smartphones, which are often carried in pockets or bags in unpredictable orientations (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶18, 20, 22, 23, 25).
  • Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing (MT), with each sample indicative of movement.
    • 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 on that recognition, which defines a relationship for subsequent data.
    • Calculating movement data for subsequent data based upon the reference data.
    • Determining an MTMA associated with the MT based upon the movement data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶19, 21, 24).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the need for a personal surveillance system that can activate automatically based on a user's activity and environment, overcoming the limitations of stationary surveillance systems and the manual burden of constant user interaction for personal safety (’951 Patent, col. 1:41-2:16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system within a wireless device that uses sensor data to determine a user's "human body physical activity" (HBPA). Based on the identified HBPA (e.g., driving, walking), the system selects a corresponding mode of operation, which can involve initiating different processes to capture and communicate surveillance data to a remote computer system (’951 Patent, Abstract; col. 43:61-66). This automates the transition between different levels of surveillance based on the user's context.
  • Technical Importance: The technology links automatic activity detection with context-aware security protocols on a personal device, aiming to provide proactive safety measures without requiring constant user input.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Independent Claim 10, a device claim, recites a wireless communications device with memory and processors executing code comprising:
    • Instructions to produce data from one or more sensors associated with the WCD.
    • Instructions to determine an HBPA associated with a WCD user based upon the data.
    • Instructions to select a mode of operation from a set of modes, based upon the determined HBPA, where different modes involve different investigation processes.
    • Instructions to communicate the data to a remote computer system.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914, titled Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods, issued on October 15, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’951 Patent, this patent describes a system with logic to determine a user's activity and/or surroundings, determine a corresponding surveillance mode, facilitate a user-defined response, and communicate surveillance information to a remote device (’914 Patent, col. 35:45-col. 36:45). The goal is to create an interactive and context-aware personal security system.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the whereQube trackers’ logic for detecting driving behaviors (e.g., aggressive cornering, accidents), selecting surveillance modes based on those behaviors, and communicating violation data to remote servers infringes the patent (Compl. ¶¶31-32).

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273, titled Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device, issued on May 28, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’558 Patent, this patent details a method for determining a motion activity by receiving three streams of data from an accelerometer, computing reference data that defines a relationship between data samples and a reference framework, calculating movement data based on that framework, and determining the motion activity (’273 Patent, col. 32:48-60). The core concept is creating a stable reference from accelerometer data to enable orientation-independent analysis.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 22 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the whereQube trackers’ use of a 3-axis accelerometer to process 3D acceleration data, create reference data to identify driving movements (e.g., by removing gravity), calculate movement data from live accelerometer data, and thereby determine driving activity infringes the patent (Compl. ¶¶35, 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the GEOMETRIS whereQube OBD II trackers (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The whereQube tracker is a telematics unit that plugs into a vehicle's On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) II port (Compl. ¶15, p.7). It is equipped with sensors, including an accelerometer and gyroscope, to monitor and report on driving behaviors such as "fast accelerations, hard braking and aggressive cornering," as well as accidents (Compl. ¶15). A marketing image in the complaint highlights its use of an "Accelerometer" for "Driver behavior detection" (Compl. p.6). The device contains a processor and memory and communicates wirelessly, allegedly connecting to backend servers and applications for fleet management (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). A technical specifications graphic notes an "Accelerometer" as a "Special Feature" (Compl. p.8). The complaint positions the product as a solution for driver safety and asset tracking (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method, comprising: receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from one or more sensors of a wireless communication device (WCD) that is transported by a mobile thing (MT), each data sample value indicative of movement of the WCD at a corresponding time value; The whereQube trackers use GPS, cellular, and accelerometers that detect 3D accelerations on x, y, and z axes to determine driving behaviors. ¶18 Patent document not provided for verification
recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system; The trackers collect accelerometer data sample values, including the force of gravity, which is processed to determine a direction. The devices are alleged to "auto-orient themselves to determine their position." ¶18 Patent document not provided for verification
computing reference data based upon the recognition of the particular set, the reference data defining a relationship between each set of subsequent non-reference data sample values and the particular reference set of data sample values in the coordinate system; The trackers allegedly determine reference data based on whether gravitational accelerations are included, allowing for comparison between the reference data and subsequent data from the accelerometer. ¶18 Patent document not provided for verification
calculating movement data in the coordinate system of one or more other non-reference data sample values based upon the reference data; and The trackers are alleged to continually monitor driver behaviors by calculating real-time movement accelerations across the x, y, and z axes of the accelerometer data. ¶18 Patent document not provided for verification
determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data. The trackers are alleged to determine "human driving, identifying instances of unsafe braking, unnecessary acceleration, cornering, and accidents." ¶18 Patent document not provided for verification
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may raise a question of claim scope regarding the term "mobile thing (MT)." The complaint applies this term to the vehicle in which the OBD II tracker is installed. A potential issue is whether the patent's specification supports a construction where the "MT" is the vehicle itself, rather than a person carrying a device.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused trackers' alleged "auto-orient" process (Compl. ¶18) performs the specific claim steps of "recognizing a particular set of data... as a reference" and "computing reference data" based on that recognition. The dispute may center on whether the accused functionality is merely a generic orientation correction or if it meets the more structured, multi-step process required by the claim.

'951 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...code comprising: instructions to produce data from one or more sensors associated with the WCD; The whereQube trackers are alleged to activate and produce accelerometer data. ¶17 col. 43:56-58
instructions to determine a human body physical activity (HBPA) associated with a WCD user based upon the data; The trackers allegedly use the sensor data to determine the driver's orientation and activity, such as being "stationary/idling, or driving," to establish a "driving surveillance mode." ¶17 col. 43:58-60
instructions to select a mode of operation from a set of modes, based upon the determined HBPA, the set including different modes of operation involving initiation of different investigation processes that capture different types of data; and The trackers allegedly use logic to detect specific driving events like hard braking or accidents, which trigger the capture of event data and audible alerts. ¶17 col. 43:61-66
instructions to communicate the data to a remote computer system. The trackers allegedly communicate surveillance information, such as unsafe driving behaviors, to remote servers for logging and other actions. ¶17 col. 43:67-col.44:1
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the construction of "human body physical activity (HBPA) associated with a WCD user." The complaint equates this with the activity of a vehicle's driver. A question for the court will be whether an activity detected by a vehicle-mounted OBD II tracker can be considered an HBPA of a user as contemplated by the patent, especially if the device primarily measures vehicle dynamics rather than direct human motion.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise regarding whether the accused device actually "select[s] a mode of operation from a set of modes." The infringement theory suggests that detecting dangerous driving constitutes selecting a different mode. The defense may argue the device operates in a single, continuous monitoring mode and that event-based alerts do not constitute a "selection" from a "set of modes" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "mobile thing (MT)" (from '558 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the asserted claims require the WCD to be "transported by a mobile thing." The complaint's infringement theory rests on the "mobile thing" being the vehicle in which the accused OBD II tracker is installed. The viability of the infringement case for the '558 and '273 patents may depend on whether this construction is adopted.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide excerpts from the '558 Patent's specification defining this term. However, the related '273 Patent provides context that parties may reference.

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '273 Patent's detailed description mentions MTMAs can include "driving (including travel in a motorized vehicle, such as, but not limited to taking a public transit or being a passenger in a vehicle)" ('273 Patent, col. 4:56-60). This language explicitly contemplates vehicles and could support a construction where the "mobile thing" is the vehicle itself.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background of the '273 Patent focuses on determining "a person's activity" ('273 Patent, col. 1:61) and discusses scenarios where a WCD is carried by a person (e.g., in a hip pocket) ('273 Patent, col. 2:12-14). This could support an argument that the "mobile thing" is intended to be the person, and the WCD is transported by that person, even when the person is within a vehicle.

  • The Term: "human body physical activity (HBPA)" (from '951 Patent, Claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the '951 Patent hinges on the "HBPA" encompassing driving behavior as measured by a vehicle's OBD II port. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "HBPA" is construed to require direct measurement of human motion (like footsteps or posture), an OBD II tracker measuring vehicle dynamics might not infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '951 Patent specification explicitly lists "user travel method (e.g., car, bus, motorcycle, bike...)" as a type of activity the invention is designed to determine ('951 Patent, col. 1:44-46). This suggests "HBPA" was intended to be interpreted broadly to include the state of being transported in a vehicle.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself, "human body physical activity," could imply direct motion of the human body. The specification also lists activities like "walking, running, climbing, falling, standing, laying down" ('951 Patent, col. 1:46-48), which are distinct from the motion of a vehicle. A defendant may argue that driving is a "travel method" but not a "human body physical activity" in the specific sense required by the claim language.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin contributory and inducing infringement (Compl. p.22), but the complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. The factual allegations supporting such a claim are not explicitly detailed, though the complaint states Defendant engages in the "promotion and sale of driver behavior tracking systems" which can be linked to applications and backend services (Compl. ¶19). These allegations may form a basis for a later-amended indirect infringement theory, but the complaint currently lacks specific allegations of intent or instruction required for inducement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl. p.22). It does not allege any facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit, such as receipt of a notice letter or knowledge of a competitor's products embodying the patents.

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

This case will likely focus on fundamental questions of claim scope and the technical mapping of that scope onto the accused vehicle-centric system. The central issues for the court can be framed as follows:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "mobile thing" and "human body physical activity," which are described in the patents' context of personal mobile devices, be construed to cover the motion of a vehicle as measured by a dedicated, vehicle-installed OBD II tracker?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused tracker's process for handling sensor data—specifically its alleged "auto-orientation" using gravity—perform the precise, sequential steps of "recognizing a reference," "computing reference data," and "calculating movement data" as recited in the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A third question will concern the system as claimed: do the accused trackers, which report specific driving events, practice the claimed methods of "select[ing] a mode of operation from a set of modes" based on a detected activity, or do they operate in a single continuous mode where event reporting is merely a feature, not a change in operational mode?