DCT
1:23-cv-00851
Intelligent Agency LLC v. Neighborfavor Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intelligent Agency, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Neighborfavor, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Emanuelson Firm, P.C.; Maxus Legal PLLC
- Case Identification: Intelligent Agency, LLC v. Neighborfavor, Inc., 1:23-cv-00851, W.D. Tex., 07/24/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Favor" on-demand delivery service infringes a patent related to methods for managing location-based interactions between users and service agents.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns server-based systems for dynamically managing and matching mobile users (customers) with mobile service providers (agents) within defined geographic areas, a foundational element of the on-demand logistics and "gig economy" market.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a prior patent, which is itself a continuation-in-part of an earlier application, indicating a multi-generational patent family. The complaint cites the patent’s notice of allowance to assert that the claims represent a specific improvement over the prior art, a point which may be relevant to arguments regarding patent eligibility and non-obviousness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-02 | ’093 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2022-07-19 | ’093 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2023-07-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,395,093 - Method, system and apparatus for location-based machine-assisted interactions
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,395,093, Method, system and apparatus for location-based machine-assisted interactions, issued July 19, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of efficiently managing a network of mobile service providers ("agents") to serve mobile users within specific geographic zones ("session areas") for commercial transactions. The complaint highlights a specific problem solved: improving the server's ability to manage request loads by intelligently filtering out inactive or unresponsive agents to avoid sending requests to unavailable providers (Compl. ¶19, ¶22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-controlled method that defines a "session area" anchored to a fixed location and links both a user and a group of agents to it. The core of the solution is a mechanism for "dynamically enabling and disabling" the digital IDs of agents. This is achieved by prompting a timer for agent-required tasks; if the server does not receive a response signal from an agent's device before the timer expires, it temporarily stops sending that agent "supplementary requests for interactions" (’093 Patent, col. 43:50-65). This process effectively redistributes the request load to agents who are actively participating in the system.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a specific, automated method for dynamic resource management in a location-based service network, aiming to improve system efficiency by focusing communications on a pool of demonstrably active and responsive agents (’093 Patent, col. 5:6-11; Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶60, ¶61).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- Linking a first user to a "session area" that is anchored to a fixed reference location and controlled by a server.
- Enabling a communication functionality for the user to receive digital indicia related to the session area.
- Linking a predetermined second group of agents to the session area.
- Dynamically enabling and disabling the IDs of agents from a pool of active IDs by prompting a timer; if an agent's device does not send a signal before the timer expires, the server stops sending supplementary requests to that device for a time.
- Redistributing the load of incoming pairing requests among the plurality of agent equipment.
- Selecting an agent's device for pairing with the user's device based on criteria such as interaction history, responsiveness to a timed task, or time spent in the session area.
- Providing indicia related to the selected agent's device to the user's device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Favor Network," which includes the "Favor Customer Mobile App" for users and the "Favor Runner Mobile App" for delivery personnel, known as "Runners" (Compl. ¶24-25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Favor Network is a logistical service where customers use a mobile app to request on-demand deliveries from Runners within a given city (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Favor Customer Mobile App, which displays a "Discover" page with nearby restaurants available for delivery (Compl. p. 7).
- The system operates using "Delivery Zones," which the complaint alleges are geofenced areas matched to a customer's location and constitute the claimed "session area" (Compl. ¶35, ¶73). The complaint provides two map images depicting these Delivery Zones (Compl. p. 9).
- The complaint alleges the Favor Network manages its Runners by maintaining "Runner Schedules" and will remove a Runner's ID from a schedule if their "acceptance rate for Requested Favors falls below a predetermined threshold" (Compl. ¶46, ¶50). It further alleges that the system uses timed functionalities, such as a timer to accept a requested Favor, and that ignoring requests can be a factor in determining eligibility for future assignments (Compl. ¶52-53).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’093 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| linking a first user, belonging to a predetermined first group of users, with a session area according to at least one location-based parameter via a first mobile equipment apparatus...wherein said session area is anchored to one fixed reference location... | The Favor Network links a customer to a "Delivery Zone" via the customer's mobile device. The complaint alleges this "Delivery Zone" is the claimed "session area" and is anchored to a fixed location, such as a restaurant. | ¶73 | col. 43:18-26 |
| enabling at least one communication functionality, wherein said first user receives digital indicia related to said session area via said first mobile equipment apparatus; | The Favor Network enables customers to receive personalized information on their mobile devices, such as information about restaurants within their Delivery Zone. | ¶76 | col. 43:35-39 |
| linking a predetermined second group of agents associated with a plurality of agent equipment apparatuses to said session area; | The Favor Network links a predetermined group of "Favor Runners" and their mobile devices to the Favor Delivery Zone. | ¶79 | col. 43:40-43 |
| dynamically enabling and disabling a plurality of IDs...by prompting a timer functionality...and when said server serving at least one principal does not receive a predetermined data signal from said agent equipment apparatus before the expiration of said timer functionality then said server...stops sending supplementary requests...for at least a predetermined time window; | The Favor Network is alleged to dynamically enable and disable Runner IDs based on a timer functionality associated with accepting a Favor. If the server does not receive an acceptance signal before the timer expires, it stops sending supplementary requests to that Runner's device. Runners with low acceptance rates may be removed from schedules. | ¶82, ¶46, ¶53 | col. 43:50-65 |
| a load of incoming requests for pairing between IDs of members of said predetermined first group of users...is redistributed among said plurality of agent equipment apparatuses; wherein said first user has no control over said pool of active IDs. | The load of incoming customer requests is allegedly redistributed among the available Favor Runners' mobile devices, and the customer has no control over which Runners are in the active pool. | ¶85 | col. 43:66-44:5 |
| selecting said agent equipment apparatus based, on at least one of a prior amount of interaction activities data, a responsiveness to an electronically monitored task that is regulated by a timer initiated by said server..., a recurrence within said session area data, and an amount of time spent within said session area data... | The Favor Network allegedly selects a Runner's mobile device based on factors including prior interaction data (acceptance rate), responsiveness to a timed request for a Favor, and recurrence within the Favor Delivery Zone. | ¶88 | col. 44:6-14 |
| providing indicia pertaining to said agent equipment apparatus to said first mobile equipment apparatus. | The Favor Network provides information about the selected Runner to the customer's mobile device, such as time to delivery and information for communication. | ¶91 | col. 44:18-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "Delivery Zone," a broad service area, meets the claim requirement of a "session area...anchored to one fixed reference location" ('093 Patent, col. 43:24-25). The complaint alleges the zone is anchored to a restaurant (Compl. ¶73), which may support its theory, but the defense may argue the patent contemplates a more specific, user-centric location like a single establishment, not a wide delivery radius.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the "dynamically enabling and disabling" limitation. A key question is whether the Favor Network's alleged practice of removing Runners from schedules for low acceptance rates (Compl. ¶50) is functionally the same as the specific mechanism claimed: a server prompting a timer, not receiving a signal before expiration, and then stopping supplementary requests for a set time window ('093 Patent, col. 43:55-65). The court will need to determine if there is a technical and legal distinction between managing availability based on aggregate performance versus a real-time, per-request, timer-expiration mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "session area"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the geographic scope of the invention. Its construction is critical because infringement depends on whether Defendant's "Delivery Zones" (Compl. ¶73) fall within its meaning. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused system's broad, service-defined zones may not align with the patent's more specific examples.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a geofence as a "virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area" that can be generated dynamically ('093 Patent, col. 2:44-46), which could support a more flexible definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the "session area" to be "anchored to one fixed reference location" ('093 Patent, col. 43:24-25). The specification provides examples such as "a mall or a bar, or a happy hour place" ('093 Patent, col. 4:21-22), which may support an interpretation limited to specific, discrete physical venues rather than larger logistical regions.
The Term: "dynamically enabling and disabling a plurality of IDs...by prompting a timer functionality"
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core technical mechanism alleged to be the patent's key improvement over the prior art. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused system's method for managing driver availability performs this specific claimed function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the phrase should cover any system that de-activates an agent's ID in response to that agent failing to respond to a request within a time limit, focusing on the overall function of filtering out unresponsive agents. The patent's abstract describes enabling functionalities to "discover taxonomies of users" and "trace or follow up with users," suggesting a broader purpose ('093 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific causal sequence: (1) a timer is prompted, (2) the server does not receive a signal before the timer expires, and (3) the server then stops sending requests for a time window ('093 Patent, col. 43:55-65). A defendant could argue this requires a specific, real-time, per-transaction process, which may differ from a system that removes agents from a schedule based on a cumulative "acceptance rate" metric (Compl. ¶50).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement "either directly or through intermediaries" (Compl. ¶94), but it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced damages based on "knowing and deliberate" conduct, with notice alleged to begin "at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Compl. p. 21, ¶d). This is a standard allegation of post-filing willfulness, and there are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The disposition of this case may turn on the resolution of two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's term "session area", which must be "anchored to one fixed reference location," be construed broadly enough to read on the accused "Favor Delivery Zone," which appears to be a larger, service-defined logistical area?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused system's method of managing "Runner" availability based on performance metrics like acceptance rates perform the specific, multi-step, timer-driven process of "dynamically enabling and disabling" agent IDs recited in Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?