DCT

1:24-cv-01392

Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Huzhou Dingchen Trading Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01392, W.D. Tex., 11/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendants are not residents of the United States and routinely conduct business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ dashcam products infringe five U.S. patents related to using sensor data from mobile devices to identify motion activities and trigger responsive actions.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves processing data from sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, within mobile electronic devices to automatically distinguish between activities like driving, walking, or specific events like collisions for safety and surveillance purposes.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-16 ’951 and ’914 Patents Priority Date
2012-08-30 ’846, ’558, and ’273 Patents Priority Date
2013-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 Issued
2013-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 Issued
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 Issued
2015-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Issued
2019-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 Issued
2024-11-14 Complaint Filing Date

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 Dec. 31, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for more intelligent electronic messaging and notification systems that can take action based on the real-world physical activities of a user or vehicle. (Compl. ¶2; ’846 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensors in a wireless communication device (WCD), such as an accelerometer, to generate data about the movement of a "mobile thing" (MT). This sensor data is analyzed to determine a specific "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking or driving, by comparing it to stored reference signatures. Based on the identified MTMA, the system selects and delivers a targeted "advertisement" to the user's device. (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables context-aware functionality, allowing automated actions to be triggered by a device's understanding of its user's physical state or activity. (Compl. ¶2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 12 (a device). (Compl. ¶22, ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the elements of:
    • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with a mobile thing (MT) based on sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by the MT.
    • The sensor data is derived from sensors measuring physical movement in three-dimensional space.
    • The determining step comprises storing reference MTMA signatures and comparing normalized sensor data against those signatures to select a most likely MTMA.
    • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA.
    • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • Independent Claim 12 recites a WCD comprising transceivers, memory, and processors configured to execute code for determining MTMA from sensor data, communicating that data to a remote system for advertisement selection, and receiving the selected advertisement. (Compl. ¶33).
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-11. (Compl. ¶23-32).

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” (issued June 02, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of accurately identifying a person's motion activity using only accelerometer data, as the device's orientation is often unknown and can corrupt the data. (’558 Patent, col. 1:60-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to improve accuracy by first establishing a stable frame of reference. It receives sensor data streams, recognizes a specific set of data values (e.g., a vector corresponding to Earth's gravity) to define the device's orientation, and then computes "reference data" (such as a rotation matrix) based on that recognition. Subsequent sensor data is then normalized using this reference data before being analyzed to determine the motion activity. (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-24).
  • Technical Importance: This normalization process allows for more reliable analysis of motion by filtering out the effects of arbitrary device positioning, a key challenge in mobile sensor applications. (Compl. ¶2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52. (Compl. ¶36, ¶42, ¶47, ¶50, ¶56).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the elements of:
    • 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 the recognition of the particular set.
    • Calculating movement data in the coordinate system based upon the reference data.
    • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based upon the movement data.
  • The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims. (Compl. ¶37-41, ¶43-46, ¶48-49, ¶51-55, ¶57-60).

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 wireless device with a multi-stage process for event detection. Programmed instructions direct the device to enter a first mode of operation to capture initial sensor data, determine from that data whether an event requiring assistance (like an accident) may be occurring, and if so, enter a second, different investigation mode to capture additional data further indicative of the event. (Compl. ¶63).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10. (Compl. ¶63, ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the dashcams' function of using a G-sensor to detect a potential accident and then triggering a secondary process to lock video and activate alerts infringes the ’951 Patent. (Compl. ¶47, ¶63).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system with logic that determines a user activity, selects a corresponding surveillance mode based on that activity, facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates surveillance data to a remote computer. (Compl. ¶72). The invention automates surveillance protocols based on the device's understanding of the user's context.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15. (Compl. ¶72, ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality includes the dashcams' automatic activation of an "accident surveillance mode" upon detecting a collision, which then triggers on-screen notifications as a user-defined response. (Compl. ¶51, ¶72).

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 focuses on a method of processing accelerometer data by first using a set of data sample values in a 3D coordinate system to define a relationship with a 2D coordinate system. This establishes a reference that is then used to compute reference data, calculate subsequent movement data in the 2D system, and ultimately determine the motion activity. (’273 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the dashcams infringe by using a 3-axis accelerometer, creating reference data to distinguish driving movements from non-movement data like gravity, and computing movement data in a two-dimensional system to identify events. (Compl. ¶54, ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are various models of dashcams sold under the WolfBox and RedTiger brands, including the WolfBox i07, X5, and G930, and the RedTiger F77, F17, and F9. (Compl. ¶9, ¶10, ¶18, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as wireless communication devices (WCDs) that integrate 3-axis accelerometers (referred to as G-sensors), GPS tracking, processors, and memory. (Compl. ¶17, ¶18, ¶19). Their core accused functionality is using the G-sensor to detect "unsafe events like harsh braking, rapid acceleration, and collisions." (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). Upon detecting such an event, the devices are alleged to automatically record video, lock the footage to prevent overwriting, and in some cases provide on-screen notifications or alerts to the driver. (Compl. ¶18, p. 11, ¶24). An image from a product manual explains that the built-in G-sensor detects changes in acceleration and triggers the dash cam to start recording. (Compl. p. 17). Another marketing image shows a "Collision Warning" feature that "promptly locks the video from being overwritten." (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'846 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT that is transporting the WCD based at least in part upon sensor data... The accused dashcams are wireless communication devices that use accelerometer and other sensor data to monitor and determine driver behaviors such as hard braking and accidents. ¶22 col. 25:17-24
the one or more sensors measuring physical movement of the WCD in three dimensional space and producing data sets comprising three movement values and a time value... The dashcams analyze x, y, and z axis accelerations from a 3-axis accelerometer along with time values to capture movements and vibrations. ¶22, ¶25 col. 31:36-40
wherein the determining the MTMA comprises: storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in the memory... analyzing the normalized data sets in the frequency and time domains... The devices allegedly compare live accelerometer data to reference motion activity data to create signatures that include frequency and timing for identifying activities. ¶26 col. 2:9-20
selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA; causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD... The dashcams allegedly use servers and software to provide drivers with "account-based notifications via email, SMS, and proprietary mobile applications" regarding risky driving events; these notifications are asserted to be advertisements. ¶26 col. 2:5-9

'558 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from one or more sensors of a wireless communication device (WCD)... The dashcams use accelerometers to detect 3D accelerations on the x, y, and z axes, which are indicative of movement at corresponding times. ¶36 col. 34:39-44
recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system; The dashcams allegedly collect accelerometer data that includes the effect of gravity, which is then processed to determine a direction and orientation for the device. ¶32 col. 34:1-15
computing reference data based upon the recognition of the particular set, the reference data defining a relationship between each set of subsequent non-reference data sample values and the particular reference set... The accused systems allegedly determine reference data based on whether gravitational accelerations are included in the sensor data sample values. ¶33 col. 34:45-56
calculating movement data in the coordinate system of one or more other non-reference data sample values based upon the reference data; and The dashcams are alleged to continually monitor driver behaviors by calculating real-time movement accelerations across the x, y, and z axes based on the reference data. ¶33 col. 34:57-61
determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data. The systems are alleged to use the processed movement data to detect unsafe driving activities such as hard braking, rapid acceleration, and accidents. ¶33 col. 34:62-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’846 Patent may be whether the term "advertisement" can be construed to cover the "account-based notifications" and "reward messages" allegedly provided by the accused systems (Compl. ¶26, ¶27). The patent’s claims and specification, which reference enabling an "advertiser" and receiving "payment," may suggest a narrower, commercial meaning that could be misaligned with the safety-alert functionality of the accused products.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’558 Patent and others, a key dispute may arise over the technical operation of the accused devices. The complaint alleges infringement of claims reciting complex data processing steps, such as "computing reference data based upon the recognition of the particular set" and normalizing data sets (Compl. ¶36). The question will be what evidence the complaint provides that the accused G-sensors, which are marketed as triggering on impacts (Compl. p. 17), actually perform these specific, multi-step mathematical transformations, rather than simply detecting when an acceleration value exceeds a predefined threshold.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’846 Patent appears to depend on construing the safety alerts and driving notifications from the accused products as "advertisements." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean only commercial solicitations, the infringement case for this patent could be significantly impacted.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention enables "more intelligent ID-based and/or activity-based actions," which could be argued to encompass more than just commercial ads. (’846 Patent, col. 1:44-48). The claims themselves do not explicitly limit "advertisement" to a commercial context.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s claim 6 recites "enabling an advertiser to communicate the advertisement," and claim 5 recites "receiving a payment for... causing the advertisement to be communicated." (’846 Patent, col. 90:40-45). This language strongly suggests a commercial transaction is contemplated, potentially narrowing the term's scope to exclude non-commercial safety alerts.

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

    • Context and Importance: This term is a crucial first step in the claimed data processing method. The dispute may center on whether the accused G-sensor's use of gravity data constitutes "recognizing" a "reference" in the manner claimed, or if it is a more basic operation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad and does not specify how the recognition must occur. The specification mentions that the reference set has a magnitude "indicative of a relationship to Earth gravity," a property inherent in any accelerometer data not accounting for motion. (’558 Patent, col. 34:1-5).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific embodiments where this step involves identifying "effectively stationary points" where the net force vector has a magnitude of approximately 1 g, and then using that vector to compute a "rotation matrix" which serves as the reference data. (’558 Patent, col. 8:4-14). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more sophisticated process than what may be present in the accused devices.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint's Prayer for Relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and a corresponding award of increased damages. (Compl. p. 58). The complaint does not, however, plead any specific facts alleging that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "advertisement," which is described in the context of payments and advertisers in the ’846 Patent, be construed broadly enough to read on the safety alerts and driving-behavior notifications allegedly sent by the accused dashcam systems?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the G-sensor functionality of the accused dashcams, described as triggering recordings upon detecting "sudden braking, rapid acceleration, or impacts," perform the specific, multi-step data normalization and analysis methods recited in the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the complexity and nature of the technical operations?
  • A third question will be one of patentability and obviousness: given the number of patents asserted with overlapping priority dates and similar subject matter (processing accelerometer data to determine motion), the case may involve significant scrutiny of whether the distinctions between the claims of the five different patents represent non-obvious advances over one another and the prior art.