Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Aware360 Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Aware360 Ltd. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00799, W.D. Tex., 07/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident and has routinely conducted business and committed acts of infringement within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telematics solutions for driver and worker safety infringe five patents related to motion activity determination using sensors in wireless communication devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes in smartphones to identify specific human activities, such as driving behaviors or falls, a field with significant application in fleet management and lone worker safety industries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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 patent background describes the evolution of electronic messaging and notification systems, suggesting a need for more intelligent, ID-based, and/or activity-based actions initiated from mobile devices (’846 Patent, col. 1:50-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a wireless communication device (WCD), like a smartphone, uses its sensors to determine a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking or driving. Based on this determined activity, a targeted advertisement is selected and sent to the device (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). The system analyzes sensor data in three dimensions, compares it to stored reference signatures for different activities, and selects an advertisement based on the most likely match (’846 Patent, col. 90:8-25).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for actions, such as advertising, to be triggered not just by location but by the specific, real-time physical activity of the user, enabling more contextually relevant messaging (’846 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶21, ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) for a mobile thing (MT) transporting a wireless communication device (WCD).
  • The determination is based on sensor data from the WCD, which measures physical movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • The determining step involves storing reference MTMA signatures, normalizing sensor data, analyzing it in frequency/time domains, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
• Independent Claim 12 (Device):
  • A WCD with transceivers, memory, and processors.
  • The processors execute code designed to determine the MTMA from sensor data, communicate the MTMA to a remote system for advertisement selection, and receive/communicate the advertisement to a user.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-11 and 13-16 (Compl. ¶22-31, ¶33-36).

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: The patent identifies the technical challenge of accurately determining a person's activity with a mobile device's accelerometer, noting that prior attempts struggled with accuracy, particularly when distinguishing between activities like biking and driving, and when the device was not in a fixed position on the body (’558 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to improve accuracy by first using sensor data to establish a consistent coordinate system relative to the device's orientation, effectively neutralizing the influence of gravity. It receives streams of sensor data, recognizes a set of values as a reference to define the device's orientation, computes reference data based on that recognition, calculates subsequent movement data based on that reference framework, and then determines the MTMA (’558 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4D). This normalization allows for more reliable analysis of motion irrespective of how the user is carrying the phone (’558 Patent, col. 3:20-31).
• Technical Importance: By creating a solution to the orientation problem, the invention enabled more reliable and accurate motion detection from sensors in common consumer devices like smartphones, which are carried in pockets or bags in unpredictable orientations (’558 Patent, col. 2:52-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶39, ¶55, ¶65, ¶74, ¶80, ¶90).
• 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 that recognition.
  • Calculating movement data for subsequent non-reference data based upon the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA based upon the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶40-54, ¶56-64, ¶66-73, ¶75-79, ¶81-89, ¶91-104). The other asserted independent claims recite variations of this core method and corresponding systems.

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

• Technology Synopsis: The ’951 Patent describes a wireless communication device that operates in different modes based on sensor data to determine if a user needs assistance. The system enters a first investigation mode, captures sensor data, and if the data suggests a potential need for help (e.g., an accident), it enters a second, different investigation mode to capture further data and analyze the activity (Compl. ¶101; ’951 Patent, Abstract). The system can distinguish between user activities and communicate information to a remote system for analysis (Compl. ¶102).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶101, ¶104).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the iDriveAware application infringes by entering a first mode to monitor for a moving vehicle, and a second mode to monitor for unsafe driving behaviors once a user is determined to be the driver (Compl. ¶101).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The ’914 Patent discloses a system with a computing device and an application that uses logic to determine a user's activity and/or surroundings from sensor data. Based on this determination, the system selects a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates surveillance information to a remote computer (’914 Patent, Abstract). This allows the device to automatically adapt its monitoring and response functions to the user's context, such as driving (Compl. ¶107).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶107, ¶108).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the iDriveAware application infringes by using logic to determine that a user is driving, activating a corresponding surveillance mode to monitor driving habits, and allowing a user-defined response, such as marking themselves as a passenger instead of a driver (Compl. ¶107).

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: The ’273 Patent is directed at a method of processing three-dimensional accelerometer data to determine motion activity, with a focus on establishing a two-dimensional coordinate system. The method involves receiving three streams of accelerometer data, recognizing a data set as a reference to define the device's orientation relative to a 2D system, and then calculating and analyzing movement data within that 2D system to determine the motion activity (’273 Patent, Abstract). This patent is asserted against the SafetyAware product.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶112, ¶123, ¶133).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the SafetyAware lone worker safety product infringes by using smartphone accelerometers to detect events like falls. This allegedly involves establishing a 2D measurement system by removing the constant acceleration of gravity to determine the device's orientation and then analyzing movement data to detect motion indicative of a fall (Compl. ¶112, ¶123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a "family of telematics solutions," primarily Defendant's iDriveAware and SafetyAware applications (Compl. ¶14, ¶15, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• iDriveAware: This application is described as a "smartphone-deployed driver-behavior monitoring and reporting solution" (Compl. ¶20). It uses smartphone accelerometers and gyroscopes to monitor and report on driving behaviors such as "fast accelerations, hard braking and aggressive cornering," as well as distracted driving from phone usage (Compl. ¶15). The application provides drivers with scores and coaching to promote safety (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot from the Apple App Store shows the iDriveAware user interface for trip logging and driver scoring (Compl. p. 7). Another visual shows how users can differentiate between being a driver, a passenger, or on public transport, which alters the surveillance mode (Compl. p. 8).
• SafetyAware: This application is described as a "smartphone-deployed worker safety monitoring and reporting solution" for lone or remote workers (Compl. ¶111). It uses device sensors to detect falls. Upon detecting a fall, the application allegedly engages a count-down timer, and if not canceled by the user, activates an alarm state to contact third-party responders (Compl. ¶18). A screenshot from a marketing video shows a user interface for monitoring worker status, including "SOS" and "Assist" alerts (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’846 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "driving statistics including, driver scores, leader boards, and coaching" (Compl. ¶21) provided by the iDriveAware system constitute an "advertisement" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue these are functional feedback or safety features, not commercial advertisements, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader interpretation that includes any messaging intended to influence behavior.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the iDriveAware system performs normalization and analysis in frequency and time domains. A point of contention could be whether the specific mathematical and analytical steps performed by the accused product technically align with the multi-step process required by the claim for "determining likelihoods" and "selecting a most likely MTMA signature."

’558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The term "recognizing" a set of data as a "reference" may be a point of dispute. The analysis will question whether the accused product's method for handling gravity is merely a standard background process for sensor fusion or if it performs the specific, affirmative step of "recognizing" a particular data set as a reference for the purpose of defining orientation as claimed.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on the accused product performing a specific sequence of recognizing, computing reference data, and then calculating movement data based on that reference data. A key question will be whether the accused product's architecture and data flow actually follow this claimed sequence or if it uses a different, albeit functionally similar, method for processing sensor data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’846 Patent

• The Term: "advertisement"
• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’846 Patent hinges on construing the driving scores, coaching, and safety feedback provided by the iDriveAware application as an "advertisement." The outcome of the case for this patent may depend heavily on whether this term is limited to traditional commercial promotions or can be read more broadly to include any messaging intended to influence user behavior for a commercial purpose (e.g., reducing insurance costs for a fleet operator).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes actions that can be initiated based on the MTMA, stating they are "not limited to, generation of a report, creation and communication of a message to another communication device, actuation of a local WCD function, etc." (’846 Patent, col. 23:38-42). This suggests the invention is not limited to narrow categories of actions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language consistently uses the specific term "advertisement." In a section discussing causing the advertisement to be communicated, the patent provides an example of "advertisement pertaining to runners" being communicated to a user, which suggests a more traditional commercial context (’846 Patent, col. 78:44-51).

Term from the ’558 Patent

• The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novel process claimed for solving the device orientation problem. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's background processing of gravity data constitutes the affirmative step of "recognizing" a specific data set as a reference for the purpose of creating a coordinate system, or whether it is simply part of a standard, un-patented data filtering process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process generally as defining a relationship between the WCD's orientation and a coordinate system, which could encompass various mathematical techniques for handling gravity data (’558 Patent, col. 31:26-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific embodiment where this "recognition" occurs when a "combined value has a magnitude that is indicative of a relationship to Earth gravity" (’558 Patent, col. 32:2-5). This suggests the "recognizing" step is tied to a specific physical event—detecting a moment of near-stasis where gravity is the dominant force—rather than a continuous background calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The headings for each count allege "Direct Infringement," and the complaint body lacks specific factual allegations regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patents or intent to induce infringement by its users.

Willful Infringement

The complaint's prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 71). However, the complaint does not allege any facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant.

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 driver scores, coaching, and safety feedback provided by the accused iDriveAware system, or is it limited to more traditional commercial solicitations?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused iDriveAware product's method for processing sensor data to account for device orientation and gravity perform the specific, sequential steps of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" and "computing reference data based upon the recognition" as required by the claims of the ’558 Patent, or does it employ a different, non-infringing algorithm to achieve a similar result?
• A third central question will concern the accused instrumentality for the ’273 Patent: does the SafetyAware application's fall-detection feature, which is designed for lone worker safety, practice the claimed method of establishing a "two dimensional (2D) coordinate system" from three-stream accelerometer data to determine motion activity, or does it operate on a different technical principle?