DCT

1:25-cv-00179

Big Will Enterprises Inc v. OSRAM GmbH

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00179, W.D. Tex., 02/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: The provided documents do not specify the basis for venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe patents related to systems for determining a user's motion activity via sensors in a wireless device and triggering responsive actions.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to motion and activity detection using sensors embedded in common consumer devices like smartphones, a field crucial for applications ranging from fitness tracking and personal security to targeted advertising.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents do not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, licensing history, or significant prosecution history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-16 Earliest Priority Date for '914 and '951 Patents
2012-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for '846, '558, and '273 Patents
2013-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 Issues
2013-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 Issues
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 Issues
2015-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Issues
2019-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 Issues
2025-02-07 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 accurately identifying a user’s physical activity—termed a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA)—such as walking, running, or driving, in order to enable more intelligent, context-aware actions on a mobile device ('846 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides systems and methods for using sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD) to determine a user's MTMA. This determination is then used to select and communicate a targeted advertisement to the user. The system processes sensor data indicative of physical movement in three-dimensional space to perform the analysis ('846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-61). Figure 2D illustrates an exemplary architecture where an MTMA Identification System and an Action Determination System reside within the WCD's memory ('846 Patent, Fig. 2D).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables contextual advertising based on a user's real-time physical activity, a key development in monetizing mobile device capabilities.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific claims being asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope and includes the following essential elements:

  • A method for use in connection with a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing (MT).
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT, based at least in part upon sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the WCD.
  • The sensor data comprising three movement values and a time value, indicative of physical movement of the WCD relative to a respective axis in a three dimensional coordinate system.
  • Selecting a targeted advertisement that is suited for the determined MTMA.
  • Locally and/or remotely communicating the advertisement to a user interface of the WCD.

The complaint does not state whether it reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

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 2, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior attempts to determine a person's activity using an accelerometer were often inaccurate, particularly for activities like biking and driving, and sometimes required the device to be placed in a specific location on the body ('558 Patent, col. 2:1-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a more "efficient and accurate" method for identifying an MTMA. The core of the solution is a process of receiving sensor data, using some of that data to determine "reference data that defines a reference framework," and then "normalizing" subsequent sensor data with that reference data to enable analysis in a consistent framework ('558 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-53). This normalization step is intended to make the activity detection robust against changes in the device's orientation.
  • Technical Importance: The normalization process sought to improve motion detection accuracy irrespective of device orientation, a critical step toward making such applications practical for everyday use in consumer devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific claims being asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope and includes the following essential elements:

  • A method comprising: receiving first and second data from one or more sensors associated with a WCD, indicative of movement of the WCD.
  • Determining reference data that defines a reference framework from the first data.
  • Normalizing the second data with the reference data so that the second data can be analyzed in the reference framework.
  • Identifying an MTMA associated with the MT based upon the normalized second data.

The complaint does not state whether it reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 an interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) system. The system uses a WCD to capture surveillance information based on a user's determined activity (e.g., travel method, motion) and location, and then interacts with a remote server to determine if security measures are necessary ('951 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
  • Asserted Claims: Not identified in the provided documents.
  • Accused Features: Not identified in the provided documents.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) system," Issued October 15, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The '914 Patent discloses an IPSS system where a WCD automatically captures surveillance information based on user-definable parameters, the user's activities, and location. The system establishes interactivity with a remotely located surveillance system to verify the user's status and determine whether alarms or other responsive actions are needed ('914 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Not identified in the provided documents.
  • Accused Features: Not identified in the provided documents.

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 discloses a method for identifying a motion activity using only accelerometer data from a WCD. The method involves determining a "reference framework in two dimensions (2D) of space" from initial accelerometer data, normalizing subsequent data against that framework, and then identifying the MTMA from the normalized data ('273 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Not identified in the provided documents.
  • Accused Features: Not identified in the provided documents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not identify the asserted claims or the accused instrumentality, precluding an analysis of the infringement allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations, it is not possible to identify key claim terms whose construction will be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willful infringement.

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

Because the provided documents do not identify an accused instrumentality or articulate a specific theory of infringement, it is not possible to formulate the key technical or legal questions that will define the case.