Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Matrix Telematics Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
  • Defendant: Matrix Telematics Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00871, W.D. Tex., 08/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that 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 telematics and fleet management systems infringe five U.S. patents related to determining motion activity using sensor data from wireless communication devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing data from sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes in mobile devices to identify specific activities, such as driving, and to characterize movements like hard braking or collisions for applications in fleet management and driver safety.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference 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)

• Patent Identification: 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 addresses the need for electronic systems to accurately identify a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) using sensor data from a portable wireless device in order to enable more intelligent, activity-based actions ('846 Patent, col. 1:47-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods to determine a specific motion activity (e.g., driving, walking) by analyzing sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD). This determination is then used as a basis for selecting and delivering a targeted advertisement to the device. The process involves creating and storing reference "signatures" for various motions, normalizing the incoming sensor data, and analyzing it in both time and frequency domains to select the most likely matching signature ('846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-30).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for actions to be triggered based on a user's real-world physical context, which is derived from sensors commonly found in devices like smartphones, creating a link between physical activity and digital content delivery (Compl. ¶2-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9 and 11 (Compl. ¶17-26).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method involving a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing (MT).
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based on sensor data from the WCD, where the sensors measure physical movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • The determination step comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, determining and applying a normalizing mathematical relationship to create normalized data sets, analyzing these sets in frequency and time domains, determining likelihoods based on the analysis, and selecting the most likely MTMA signature.

---

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 June 02, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background notes that prior attempts to identify human motion using accelerometers were often inaccurate, particularly for activities like biking and driving, and were limited by the requirement that the sensor-equipped device be held in a fixed position relative to the user ('558 Patent, col. 2:1-24). The complaint highlights the core challenge as identifying movement when the device has "no fixed orientation with respect to the human" (Compl. ¶3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to achieve orientation-independent motion analysis. It involves using sensor data to recognize a reference point—typically by identifying the constant force of Earth's gravity when the device is stationary—to define an orientation. Subsequent sensor data is then computationally rotated or normalized against this reference frame. This allows the system to distinguish between vertical and horizontal accelerations regardless of how the device is held, leading to more accurate activity identification ('558 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:30-44).
• Technical Importance: By solving the orientation problem, this technology enabled more reliable motion detection from devices carried casually in pockets or bags, a critical step for real-world applications in consumer and commercial devices (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶28, 44, 53, 62, 68, 77).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method of receiving 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 upon the computed reference data.
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based upon the calculated movement data.

---

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

• Patent Identification: “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” issued May 27, 2014 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system on a wireless device that uses sensors to monitor for events indicating a user may need assistance, such as an accident. Upon detecting such an event, the system can enter a second, different mode of operation that involves different sensors to capture more detailed data about the activity ('951 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶87, 92).
• Accused Features: The accused telematics system's functionality for monitoring driving behavior, detecting unsafe events, and then sending captured surveillance information (e.g., location, time, g-force) to fleet management (Compl. ¶87).

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods

• Patent Identification: “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” issued October 15, 2013 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The technology covers a system with logic to determine a user activity, select a corresponding surveillance mode based on that activity, facilitate a user-defined response, and communicate surveillance information to a remote computer system ('914 Patent, Claim 5).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶94, 97).
• Accused Features: The accused system's use of logic to enter a driving surveillance mode, facilitate alerts for events like accidents, and communicate driver habit information to remote computers that log the events (Compl. ¶94, 97).

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: “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device,” issued May 28, 2013 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for identifying motion by using accelerometer data to establish a reference that defines a relationship between the device's 3D orientation and a 2D coordinate system. Subsequent movement data is calculated within this 2D system to determine the motion activity ('273 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶101, 112, 121).
• Accused Features: The telematics system's alleged use of accelerometer data to determine the vertical direction of gravity, thereby creating an orientation for a two-dimensional measurement system used to analyze driving events like hard braking and cornering (Compl. ¶101).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s “Nano” self-installed vehicle tracker and its “Tab” plug-in vehicle GPS tracker, which the complaint collectively refers to as the “telematics system” (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as devices equipped with accelerometers, gyroscopes, processors, and memory for collecting, evaluating, and reporting on driving behavior (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶28). The system tracks driver performance metrics such as hard braking, rapid acceleration, and collisions (Compl. ¶15). A marketing screenshot in the complaint highlights features including "Full driver behaviour reporting," "Instant crash notification," and "FNOL [First Notice of Loss] notifications" (Compl. p. 7). Data is transmitted to an online dashboard for fleet managers, enabling them to monitor vehicle status, location, and driver performance through automated reports and alerts (Compl. ¶14; p. 7). Defendant is alleged to be a supplier of vehicle telematics and fleet management software on a "world-wide basis" (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the system's "coaching," "reward messages," and notifications intended to "promote better driving and reduce insurance" (Compl. ¶17) fall within the scope of the term "advertisement" as used in the patent. The defense could argue this constitutes operational feedback, not commercial advertising.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system performs normalization and analysis in frequency and time domains (Compl. ¶17), but provides limited detail on how the accused products implement these steps. The case may turn on evidence demonstrating that the specific algorithms used for normalization and signature matching in the accused system align with the methods described in the patent.

---

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

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent specification heavily emphasizes using Earth's gravity to establish the "reference for defining an orientation" ('558 Patent, col. 27:30-44). A key question will be whether claim 1, which does not explicitly recite "Earth gravity," can be limited by the specification to require this specific method, and whether the accused system practices it.
• Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the accused system performing a multi-step process of (1) recognizing a reference set, (2) computing reference data, and then (3) calculating subsequent movement data based on that reference. The technical evidence will need to show that the accused system's software architecture separates these functions in a manner that maps onto the claim elements, as opposed to using a different, integrated analytical model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’846 Patent: "advertisement"

• Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement theory for the '846 Patent relies on construing driver "coaching," "reward messages," and other system communications as "advertisements" (Compl. ¶17). The viability of this infringement count may depend entirely on whether these system-generated feedback messages meet the legal definition of the claim term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the source or commercial nature of the "advertisement," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any persuasive message.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, "Targeted advertisement selection," and the language of dependent claim 6, which recites "enabling an advertiser to communicate the advertisement" ('846 Patent, col. 90:40-45), may suggest the term is intended to mean a commercial message from a third-party entity, not operational feedback from the system provider itself.

Term from ’558 Patent: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the foundational step of the claimed invention, which overcomes the problem of orientation-dependent sensors. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely involve a technical comparison between the patent's specific method for establishing this reference (i.e., using Earth's gravity) and the method used by the accused system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Independent claim 1 does not explicitly require the use of "Earth gravity" to establish the reference, suggesting that any method of "recognizing" a set of data to define an orientation could infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the process of finding this "reference" by identifying stationary points where the net acceleration magnitude is equal to Earth's gravity ('558 Patent, col. 27:30-44). Further, dependent claim 2 explicitly adds a limitation requiring the reference set to have a magnitude "indicative of a relationship to Earth gravity," which could be used to argue the proper scope of the broader term in claim 1.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 57). The body of the complaint, however, does not plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents or objectively reckless behavior.

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 the specification links to "advertisers," be construed broadly enough to cover the driver safety scores, coaching, and insurance-related feedback allegedly provided by the accused telematics system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical identity: do the algorithms in the accused "Nano" and "Tab" devices establish an orientation-independent reference frame for analyzing sensor data in a way that practices the specific multi-step methods claimed in the '558 and '273 patents, particularly concerning the use of Earth's gravity to define an initial orientation?
• A third question will be one of patent differentiation: with five patents asserted, all related to motion-sensing from a wireless device, the case may require a detailed analysis of whether the accused system infringes the distinct inventive concepts of each patent—from targeted advertising ('846), to orientation-independent analysis ('558, '273), to interactive security surveillance ('951, '914).