Big Will Enterprises Inc v. SafeDrivePod Intl BV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • Defendant: SafeDrivePod International B.V. (The Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00042, W.D. Tex., 01/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States, and on information and belief, Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive telematics solutions infringe five U.S. patents related to systems and methods for determining human or vehicle motion activity using sensor data from wireless communication devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors commonly found in smartphones, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to identify specific activities like driving, walking, or running, which is significant for the automotive safety, fleet management, and insurance industries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or any prior licensing history.

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 December 31, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that a primary inventive concept common to the patents is identifying a particular human movement using sensors in a mobile device, like a smartphone, that has no fixed orientation with respect to the person (e.g., a phone in a pocket or purse) (Compl. ¶3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD), such as a smartphone, to determine a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) like walking or driving. Based on the identified activity, the system selects and communicates a targeted advertisement to the user's device (’846 Patent, Abstract). The system normalizes sensor data to account for the device's variable orientation by comparing live data to stored "reference MTMA signatures" associated with specific activities (’846 Patent, col. 89:11-25; Compl. ¶18).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables context-aware actions, such as advertising, based on real-time activity recognition from ubiquitous personal devices without requiring the device to be held in a specific position (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 23 (Compl. ¶¶18, 29, 34, 40).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 sensor(s) measure physical movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • Wherein determining the MTMA comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, determining a normalizing mathematical relationship for the sensor data, analyzing the normalized data, determining likelihoods based on the analysis, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶19-28, 30-33, 35-39).

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 02, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’846 Patent, the technology addresses the challenge of accurately determining a user's motion activity from a device with a variable and unknown orientation (Compl. ¶3). Prior methods were noted to have low accuracy for activities like biking and driving, particularly when the device was not in a fixed position (’273 Patent, col. 2:1-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention receives at least three streams of data from sensors (e.g., an accelerometer). It first recognizes a particular set of data values as a "reference for defining an orientation" of the device, often by identifying the constant force of Earth's gravity. It then computes reference data based on this recognition and calculates subsequent movement data relative to that reference framework, thereby normalizing the data and allowing for the determination of the MTMA (’558 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶43).
• Technical Importance: By using Earth's gravity to establish a dynamic reference framework, the system can distinguish between the device's orientation and the user's actual movement, which may improve the accuracy of activity detection regardless of how the user is carrying the device (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶43, 59, 69, 78, 84, 94).
• 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 sensor(s) of a WCD, 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 upon that recognition, defining a relationship between subsequent non-reference data and the reference set.
  • Calculating movement data for other non-reference data based upon the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA based upon the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶44-58, 60-68, 70-77, 79-83, 85-93, 95-102).

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 enters different modes of operation based on sensor data. It determines if data indicates a need for assistance, an accident, or a crime, and can enter a second investigation process to capture further data or communicate with a remote system (’951 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶105, 113).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the SafeDrivePod application infringes by entering a "first investigation process" to monitor driving dynamics, determining if the user is driving unsafely (an "activity relating to a user need for assistance"), and then entering a "second mode of operation" to send surveillance information to a remote server for fleet management (Compl. ¶105).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent covers a system with logic that determines a user activity, determines a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates surveillance information to a remote device (’914 Patent, Claim 5).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶¶116, 119).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the SafeDrivePod application uses logic to determine that a user is driving, activates a corresponding surveillance mode to monitor for unsafe habits, facilitates user-defined responses (such as a "riding mode"), and communicates surveillance information (driver habits, phone usage) to remote computers (Compl. ¶¶116, 119).

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, related to the ’558 Patent, describes a method for determining motion activity by receiving three streams of accelerometer data, recognizing a reference set of values to define a relationship between the 3D orientation and a 2D coordinate system, and then calculating movement data in that 2D system to determine the activity (’273 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶¶124, 135, 144).

Accused Features

The infringement allegations parallel those against the ’558 Patent, focusing on the alleged use of gravity to establish a reference orientation and then calculating movement data (e.g., hard braking, cornering) based on that reference framework (Compl. ¶124).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a family of telematics solutions including SafeDriveMotion, SafeDriveFocus, SafeDriveResponse, SafeDriveCoach, and SafeDriveLink, collectively referred to as the "SafeDrivePod application" (Compl. ¶14). A screenshot from Defendant's website illustrates this product suite (Compl. p. 6).

Functionality and Market Context

The SafeDrivePod system is described as a solution consisting of a small hardware device (the "SafeDrivePod"), a smartphone application, and an online management environment (Compl. ¶15). The system uses the smartphone's internal sensors, including the accelerometer and gyroscope, to monitor and analyze a driver's behavior, such as acceleration, braking, and steering movements (Compl. ¶15). This data is displayed in the app and on a dashboard, providing insight into driving style (Compl. ¶15). App screenshots in the complaint show a "Motion" score broken down by braking and cornering, and a "Focus" score tracking phone usage while driving (Compl. p. 8). The system is marketed as an "affordable, privacy-friendly, easy-to-install solution for telematics" aimed at enhancing driver safety, reducing accidents, and lowering insurance claims for fleet managers and insurance companies (Compl. ¶7, ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'846 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "advertisement". The defense may argue that the alleged "discount score" and "safe driving" messages are merely feedback or gamification features, not "advertisements" in the commercial sense contemplated by the patent. The complaint's characterization of these features as "driving advertisements" that help insurance companies "increase profits" suggests Plaintiff will argue for a broader commercial definition (Compl. ¶18).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused system performs the claimed steps of storing "signatures," "normalizing" data, and determining "likelihoods" (Compl. ¶18). A key technical question will be whether discovery reveals that the SafeDrivePod application's algorithm actually performs these specific functions, or if it uses a different, non-infringing method to analyze sensor data. The complaint illustrates the accused 3D coordinate system using a diagram of a smartphone with x, y, and z axes (Compl. p. 11).

'558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: The claims require a multi-step process of "recognizing" a reference, "computing" reference data, and then "calculating" movement data based upon it. A potential point of contention is whether the accused system's alleged method of using Earth's gravity to establish an orientation (Compl. ¶44) constitutes this specific claimed sequence, or if it represents a different, unitary process for analyzing motion.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused system "computes reference data defining a relationship" between subsequent data and the reference set (Compl. ¶43). The technical evidence required to prove that the SafeDrivePod algorithm performs this specific computational step, rather than simply using gravity to orient a coordinate system and then measuring motion within it, will likely be a focal point of the dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846

• The Term: "advertisement"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’846 Patent hinges on whether the "discount score" and "safe driving" messages allegedly communicated by the SafeDrivePod system constitute an "advertisement" (Compl. ¶18). A narrow construction limited to third-party commercial solicitations could undermine Plaintiff's infringement theory, while a broader construction covering any commercially-motivated messaging could support it. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is central to the applicability of the asserted claims to the accused functionality.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not define or limit the term, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially including any communication intended to influence behavior for a commercial benefit (e.g., reducing insurance payouts).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, "Targeted advertisement selection," and the abstract's focus on "selecting" an advertisement may suggest a system for choosing from a plurality of pre-existing commercial messages, not generating intrinsic system feedback like a driving score.

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558

• The Term: "computing reference data based upon the recognition of the particular set"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it describes the creation of the framework used to normalize subsequent motion data. The infringement case turns on whether the accused system's alleged use of Earth's gravity as a directional vector (Compl. ¶44) is equivalent to the claimed step of "computing reference data".
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "reference data" as potentially being a "rotation matrix" that is computed (’273 Patent, col. 33:14-16, col. 34:52-56). This functional description could be argued to cover any algorithm that uses an initial gravity vector to create a mathematical transform for normalizing subsequent data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a "stationary point" is found, and this point is then used to "compute a rotation matrix" (’273 Patent, col. 8:26-47). A defendant may argue that the term requires this specific sequence of finding a stationary point first, which may not be how the accused real-time system operates.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts or include separate counts alleging indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests increased damages for willful infringement of all asserted patents (Compl. p. 75). The complaint body, however, does not plead any specific facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct, that would typically be used to support such a claim.

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, be construed to cover the "driving discount advertisements" and "reward messages" allegedly provided by the accused system, or is it limited to more traditional third-party commercial solicitations?
• A key technical question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: does the accused SafeDrivePod application's method for analyzing sensor data perform the specific, multi-step process of "recognizing" a reference, "computing" reference data, and "calculating" movement data as claimed in the '558 Patent family, or does it employ a fundamentally different, non-infringing algorithm for motion analysis?
• An evidentiary question will center on proof of operation: the complaint makes detailed allegations regarding the internal software operations of the accused system, such as normalizing data and comparing it to stored signatures. A central issue for litigation will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence from the accused product's source code or technical documentation that substantiates these specific, claimed software functions.