Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Solutions Into Motion Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Solutions Into Motion Limited (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00833, W.D. Tex., 07/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and has committed acts of infringement and routinely conducts business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle tracking and telematic systems infringe four patents related to using sensor data from wireless devices to determine and act upon motion activity.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes in mobile devices to identify and analyze the motion of a person or vehicle, a key component in the telematics, fleet management, and personal monitoring industries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff has been developing technologies in this field since 2007. The asserted patents claim priority to applications dating back to 2008, suggesting a potentially extensive prosecution history for the asserted patent families.

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 on December 31, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for electronic messaging and notification systems to more accurately identify a "mobile thing" (MT) and its specific motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD) it is transporting (’846 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses sensor data, such as from an accelerometer or gyroscope, to determine a specific motion activity like walking or driving. This determined activity is then used as a basis for selecting a targeted advertisement to be sent to the wireless device. The system involves creating "reference MTMA signatures" for various activities and using statistical analysis to match live sensor data to these signatures to identify the current activity (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-21).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables actions and communications to be triggered based not just on location, but on the specific, real-time activity of a device's user, which the complaint alleges has applications in health and safety monitoring (Compl. ¶2, 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶19, 28).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with a mobile thing (MT) transporting a wireless communication device (WCD).
  • The determination is based on sensor data derived from one or more sensors associated with the WCD.
  • The sensor data is indicative of physical movement of the WCD in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • The determining step comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, normalizing sensor data, analyzing it in frequency and time domains, and determining likelihoods to select a most likely MTMA signature.
• Independent Claim 12 is a device claim with parallel elements for a WCD comprising transceivers, sensors, memories, and processors executing code to perform a similar method.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 13-16 (Compl. ¶20-27, 29-32).

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 on June 02, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the technical challenge of accurately determining a person's activity using an accelerometer when the sensor device has no fixed orientation relative to the person (e.g., it is loose in a pocket or purse) (’273 Patent, col. 1:59-col. 2:4). Prior art allegedly struggled with accuracy for activities like biking and driving under these conditions (’273 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for processing sensor data to make it orientation-independent. It involves receiving data streams, recognizing a particular set of data samples as a "reference" (often corresponding to Earth's gravity when the device is momentarily stationary), and using this reference to define a coordinate system. Subsequent sensor data is then normalized against this reference framework, allowing for accurate calculation of movement and identification of the motion activity regardless of the device's orientation (’558 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This orientation-independent analysis allows motion detection technology to function reliably on common consumer devices like smartphones, which are typically not in a fixed position during use (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶35, 51, 59, 68, 74, 84).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • 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 on that recognition.
  • Calculating movement data for subsequent non-reference data based on the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA based upon the movement data.
• Independent Claim 17 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving first and second data from sensors of a WCD.
  • Determining reference data that defines a reference framework from the first data.
  • Normalizing the second data with the reference data.
  • Identifying an MTMA based upon the normalized second data.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶36-50, 52-58, 60-67, 69-73, 75-83, 85-92).

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 on October 15, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an interactive surveillance and security system implemented on a wireless device. The system automatically captures surveillance information based on user activity or surroundings, sends it to a remote system, and facilitates user-defined responses, such as triggering alarms or notifying contacts (’914 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶95, 96).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems employ logic to determine a user's activity (e.g., risky driving), establish a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitate a user-defined response, and communicate surveillance information to a remote computer device (Compl. ¶95, 96).

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 on May 28, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’558 patent, focuses on accurately identifying motion activity using only accelerometer data. It claims a method of receiving accelerometer data, determining a reference framework in two dimensions (2D) from the data, normalizing subsequent data against that framework, and identifying the motion activity from the normalized data (’273 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶99, 110, 117).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's devices receive three streams of data from an accelerometer, recognize a reference set of values to define a relationship with a 2D coordinate system, calculate movement data within that 2D system, and determine a motion activity based on that data (Compl. ¶99).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "OBD Trackers" (Trackem Plug-In GPS Tracker, WhereSafe OBD Tracker), "Wired Trackers" (Trackem Wired GPS Tracker, WhereSafe Wired Tracker), and associated systems and smartphone applications (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are telematic devices that connect to a vehicle's Onboard Diagnostic (OBDII) port or are wired into the vehicle (Compl. ¶15). They utilize accelerometers and/or gyroscopes to monitor a vehicle's x, y, and z-axis movements to detect driving behaviors such as "fast accelerations, hard braking, fast cornering, and other unsafe events" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating that data from a vehicle tracker is transmitted via a cellular network to a server, with information and notifications then made available to a user through a smartphone app (Compl. ¶16, p. 8). The system is marketed for monitoring driver behavior to identify risky habits, calculate driver scores, improve safety, and reduce costs (Compl. ¶15, p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,521,846 Patent Infringement Allegations

9,049,558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the ’846 Patent, a primary question will be one of claim scope: can the term "advertisement" be construed to cover the driver behavior "feedback," "notifications," and "driver scores" that the accused system provides? The complaint characterizes this feedback as "driver account-based advertisements" (Compl. ¶19), but a court may need to determine if this functional feedback aligns with the patent's use of the term.
• Technical Questions: For the ’558 Patent, a key technical question will be evidentiary: what proof shows that the accused products perform the specific claimed steps of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation" and "computing reference data" based on that recognition? The complaint alleges this occurs to compensate for varying OBDII port orientations (Compl. ¶36), but does not provide specific evidence of the accused system's underlying software architecture or data processing methods.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "advertisement" (from ’846 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’846 Patent hinges on whether the accused system's driver feedback, scores, and coaching notifications meet the definition of an "advertisement." If they do not, the claim element of "selecting an advertisement" may not be met. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality appears to be operational feedback rather than a traditional commercial solicitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for "advertisement," which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any communication intended to influence behavior in a commercial context.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The title of the patent is "Targeted advertisement selection," and the flowchart in Fig. 24I shows a process of detecting MTMA and causing an "advertisement to be communicated" (’846 Patent, Fig. 24I). This context may suggest a traditional commercial advertisement, which a defendant could argue is distinct from the operational data and driver scores provided by the accused system.

• The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system" (from ’558 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's method for achieving orientation-independent motion analysis. Infringement will depend on whether the accused devices perform this specific technical step, as opposed to a more generalized method of analyzing motion.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that this language is broad enough to cover any process that establishes a baseline from sensor data (e.g., data when the device is stationary) against which subsequent movement is measured, even if it does not involve creating a formal "rotation matrix."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the related ’273 patent, which shares a specification, describes a detailed process for implementing this step: finding "effectively stationary, points" where the net magnitude of acceleration is approximately 1g, using the vector of that point to define the positive z-axis, and then determining a rotation matrix to orient subsequent data points to that reference frame (’273 Patent, col. 7:22-67, Fig. 5). A party could argue the claim should be construed to require these specific acts.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect or contributory infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin such infringement, but the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus exclusively on Defendant's direct acts of making, using, and selling the accused systems (Compl. p. 63).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages due to "Defendant's willful infringement" of the asserted patents (Compl. p. 63). However, the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents or any correspondence between the parties.

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 is central to that patent's infringement theory, be construed to cover the operational feedback, driver scores, and safety notifications provided by the accused telematics system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused trackers perform the specific mathematical steps for orientation-independent analysis recited in the ’558 and ’273 patents, such as creating a reference framework based on Earth's gravity, versus simply using thresholds on raw sensor data?
• A final question concerns infringement allocation: how does the single, integrated functionality of the accused system map to the distinct claims of four different patents, which cover targeted advertising, orientation-independent data processing, and interactive security surveillance? The court will need to analyze if each patented concept is distinctly practiced by the accused instrumentality.