Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Knight Swift Transportation Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • Defendant: Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00941, W.D. Tex., 06/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant operates a corporate terminal in El Paso, Texas, and conducts business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telematics systems, including fleet management platforms and dash cameras used in its trucking fleet, infringe five patents related to using sensor data from mobile devices to identify motion activities and trigger subsequent actions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes in mobile devices to distinguish between different physical activities (e.g., walking, running, driving) and specific events within those activities (e.g., hard braking, rapid acceleration), which is significant for fleet management, driver safety, and telematics.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-01	Plaintiff alleges development of its proprietary technologies began (earliest date mentioned)
2008-01-16	Earliest Priority Date for ’846, ’558, ’951, and ’914 Patents (Provisional App. No. 61/021,447)
2012-08-30	Earliest Priority Date for ’273 Patent (Provisional App. No. 61/694,981)
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
2025-06-18	Complaint Filed

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 addresses the need for more accurate and timely electronic messaging and notification systems by identifying the specific motion activity of a person or "mobile thing" (MT) carrying a wireless communication device (WCD) (’846 Patent, col. 1:50-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensor data, such as from an accelerometer, to determine a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) like walking, running, or driving. It does so by processing the sensor data to account for the device's variable orientation, comparing it to stored "signatures" of known activities, and then selecting a targeted advertisement based on the identified activity (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-13). This process involves normalizing the sensor data so that data captured at different times and orientations can be reliably compared (’846 Patent, col. 90:16-22).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for activity-based actions, such as targeted advertising, to be triggered automatically without requiring fixed sensor placement or user input, making it suitable for devices like smartphones that are carried in various ways (’846 Patent, col. 25:27-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent Claim 1 (method) and 12 (device) are asserted (Compl. ¶21, ¶31).
• Claim 1 essential elements include:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based on sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing (MT).
  • The sensor measures physical movement in 3D space, producing data sets with three movement values and a time value.
  • Storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in memory.
  • Determining a normalizing mathematical relationship for the sensor data.
  • Analyzing normalized data sets in frequency and time domains.
  • Determining likelihoods associated with stored MTMA signatures and selecting the most likely one.
  • Selecting an advertisement based upon the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-10 and 13-16 (Compl. ¶22-30, ¶32-35).

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 Jun. 2, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the technical challenge of accurately determining a person's motion activity using only accelerometer data from a device, like a smartphone, that has no fixed orientation relative to the user's body (’273 Patent, col. 1:59-65, incorporated by reference into the ’558 Patent). Prior art systems struggled with accuracy, particularly for activities like biking and driving (’273 Patent, col. 2:1-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to establish a stable coordinate system from raw sensor data. It involves receiving streams of data, recognizing a particular set of data samples (e.g., when the device is stationary and only gravity is acting on it) as a reference to define the device's orientation, and then computing subsequent "movement data" relative to this reference frame (’558 Patent, col. 10:11-25; FIG. 4A). This normalized movement data is then used to identify the specific MTMA (’558 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: By creating a reliable reference framework from the sensor data itself, the invention enables consistent and accurate motion activity detection regardless of how a user carries or orients the device, solving a key problem in mobile sensor analysis (’558 Patent, col. 10:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent Claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52 are asserted (Compl. ¶38, ¶41, ¶43, ¶44, ¶46).
• Claim 1 essential elements include:
  • Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a WCD transported by an MT.
  • 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 other non-reference data sample values based upon the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA associated with the MT based upon the movement data.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 13, 16, 25, and 50 (Compl. ¶39, ¶40, ¶42, ¶45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951

• Patent Identification: 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 communication device that uses sensors to monitor for events indicating a user may need assistance, such as an accident or crime. Upon detecting such an event, the system can enter a second, different mode of operation to capture more detailed data using the same or different sensors (’951 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶49, ¶52).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Knight-Swift's dash cameras use logic to monitor vehicle movement, determine operating modes (driving, idling, accident detection), and enter a second mode to expand data capture (e.g., higher-frequency sampling) when a safety event like hard braking is detected (Compl. ¶49, ¶52).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914, "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods," issued October 15, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a system with logic for determining a user's activity, selecting a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitating a "user-defined response" to the activity, and communicating surveillance information to a remote computer (’914 Patent, col. 2:48-55).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 5 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶55, ¶56).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused dash cameras use logic to identify driver activity (e.g., hard braking), adapt their surveillance mode by increasing monitoring sensitivity, facilitate user responses via on-screen prompts, and transmit the captured event data to remote servers (Compl. ¶55, ¶56).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273

• 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 May 28, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for identifying motion activity using only accelerometer data from a WCD. The method involves receiving data, computing reference data that defines a framework for comparison, calculating movement data based on that reference framework, and determining the MTMA from that movement data (’273 Patent, col. 32:48-67).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 22 is asserted (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused dash cameras use 3-axis accelerometer data to create reference data (e.g., to remove gravity), calculate movement data from live sensor inputs relative to that reference, and identify motion activities like harsh braking by normalizing the live data against the reference data (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Knight-Swift’s "telematics systems," which include fleet management platforms, Eleos driver workflow applications, and specifically the Netradyne Driveri D-450 and D-215 dash cameras (Compl. ¶8, ¶14, ¶16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused systems are designed to enhance driver safety and performance by monitoring driving behavior (Compl. ¶14). The Driveri dash cameras are equipped with integrated three-axis accelerometers and/or gyroscopes to capture motion data in real time (Compl. ¶16). This data is used to detect and analyze high-risk driving behaviors such as "hard braking" and "rapid acceleration" (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The complaint includes a screenshot from the accused system's user interface displaying alerts for "Hard Acceleration" and "Hard Braking" events, which supports the allegation that the system identifies specific motion activities (Compl. p. 8). The systems also provide functionalities like "Driver Performance Reporting," "Customised Reporting," and "LIVE IN-CAB COACHING" to provide feedback to drivers and managers (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges Defendant is the industry's largest full truckload company and has made significant investments in these telematics systems (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 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 sensor data derived from one or more sensors associated with the WCD,	The accused dash cameras determine driver behaviors such as hard braking and rapid acceleration based on data from integrated three-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes.	¶21	col. 23:33-40
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... to permit statistical analysis of the physical movement;	The sensors in the accused dash cameras measure physical movement in three dimensions and generate time-stamped data sets with x, y, and z acceleration values, enabling statistical analysis of motion.	¶21	col. 31:32-47
storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in the memory, each of the MTMA signatures including frequency and/or time information associated with sensor data pertaining to a specific MTMA;	The accused system stores multiple reference patterns or "signatures" in memory that correspond to motion activities like hard braking and rapid acceleration, and these signatures contain time and frequency-based information from accelerometer data.	¶21	col. 30:5-10; Fig. 2E
determining a normalizing mathematical relationship so that different data sets separated in time can be analyzed in the 3D coordinate system; using the normalizing mathematical relationship, determining normalized data sets; analyzing the normalized data sets in the frequency and time domains;	The accused system processes and normalizes raw accelerometer data to remove gravitational bias and align motion data in a consistent 3D coordinate system over time. The normalized data is then analyzed in the time and frequency domains (e.g., duration, rate of change, intensity, vibration patterns).	¶21	col. 27:5-18
determining likelihoods associated with the stored MTMA signatures based at least in part upon the analyzing; and selecting a most likely MTMA signature from the plurality of MTMA signatures based at least in part upon the likelihoods.	The accused system analyzes normalized accelerometer data against stored signatures, evaluates the correlation, assigns likelihood values to potential matches, and selects the motion activity with the highest likelihood as the current driving behavior.	¶21	col. 39:32-46
selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA; causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD...	When specific motion patterns are identified, the system uses "targeted messaging and driver-centric advertisements" (e.g., encouraging behavior improvement, promoting services/incentives) and delivers them to the in-cab device based on the determined motion activity. The complaint provides a visual of "LIVE IN-CAB COACHING" with audio coaching as an example (Compl. p. 10).	¶21	col. 78:26-44

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of "advertisement." Defendant may argue that safety alerts, driver coaching feedback, or reward messages (Compl. ¶22) do not constitute "advertisements" as contemplated by the patent, which could be construed to require a commercial offer for a product or service. Plaintiff may counter that the patent specification supports a broader definition covering any targeted, activity-based messaging.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis of infringement may turn on the specific algorithms used by the accused system. A key question will be whether the accused system's method for processing sensor data to account for gravity and orientation meets the claim limitation of "determining a normalizing mathematical relationship" as taught in the patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 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) that is transported by a mobile thing (MT)...	The accused dash cameras receive simultaneous, time-stamped data streams from integrated three-axis accelerometers and/or gyroscopes.	¶38	col. 4:5-13
recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system;	The accused system analyzes accelerometer outputs to identify reference data patterns, such as stationary periods or constant gravitational force readings, which are used to define the sensor's position within a coordinate framework and calibrate its orientation.	¶38	col. 6:23-30
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... in the coordinate system;	Once orientation is established, the system computes reference data structures that relate future sensor readings to the baseline frame, allowing comparison of deviations. This involves accounting for gravitational forces to distinguish them from true vehicle movements.	¶38	col. 6:31-39
calculating movement data in the coordinate system of one or more other non-reference data sample values based upon the reference data; and	The system continuously computes dynamic movement vectors from raw accelerometer readings, aligned to the established reference frame, to recognize directional changes and abrupt motions.	¶38	col. 6:40-45
determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data.	Based on the computed movement data, the system classifies specific motion activities such as hard braking, rapid acceleration, or potential collisions, which form the basis for driver alerts and reporting.	¶38	col. 6:46-49

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's method of handling sensor data constitutes "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference." Plaintiff alleges this includes using stationary periods or constant gravity readings (Compl. ¶38). Defendant may argue its method is fundamentally different from the process disclosed in the patent's specification for establishing a reference frame.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be what specific data set the accused system "recognizes" as a reference. The patent describes using a set of values where the device is effectively stationary to establish a gravity vector (’273 Patent, col. 8:3-12). The case may require discovery into whether the accused dash cameras perform an analogous step or use a different technique for orientation and normalization.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the core purpose of the ’846 Patent's asserted method claim is to "select an advertisement." The complaint alleges infringement based on "targeted messaging," "driver-centric advertisements," and "reward messages" (Compl. ¶21, ¶22). The viability of the infringement claim against the ’846 Patent hinges on whether these alleged communications fall within the scope of "advertisement."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an advertisement can be part of a system that provides "solicitation or selection and output of an advertisement, pushing a recommendation to the WCD" (’846 Patent, col. 72:26-29). This language could be interpreted to include recommendations for behavior change or rewards, not just commercial sales.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description includes an example where "advertisement pertains to runners to consumers determined to be running and communicated to the user of the WCD 104" (’846 Patent, col. 78:40-43). This example, tied to a consumer product, may support a narrower construction limited to commercial promotions.

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

  • Context and Importance: This step is foundational to the claimed invention in the ’558 Patent, as it establishes the stable frame of reference needed to analyze subsequent motion. The infringement allegation rests on the accused system performing an equivalent step by using "stationary periods or constant gravitational force readings" (Compl. ¶38). Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical details of how the accused system calibrates its sensors will be compared directly to the patent's teachings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying what the "particular set" must contain, only that it is used "as a reference for defining an orientation." This could encompass any data set used for calibration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification incorporated by reference describes a specific method: finding "effectively stationary, points" by selecting data points where the magnitude of the acceleration vector is "sufficiently close to 1" (i.e., gravity) and using that vector as the positive z-axis (’273 Patent, col. 8:3-12). A defendant may argue that "recognizing" requires performing this specific gravity-vector-isolation technique.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for indirect infringement or allege facts supporting knowledge and intent for inducement, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit and requests increased damages (Compl. p. 45). The complaint does not allege any facts related to pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. The basis for willfulness appears to be predicated on Defendant’s continued infringement after the filing of the complaint.

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 safety alerts, coaching messages, and reward notifications allegedly provided by the accused telematics system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system's method for handling raw sensor data meet the patented steps of "recognizing a particular set of data... as a reference" (’558 Patent) and "determining a normalizing mathematical relationship" (’846 Patent), or does it use a non-infringing algorithm to achieve a similar result?
• A central factual dispute will likely concern the functionality of the accused products: what specific "motion activities" do the accused dash cameras actually "determine" and what is the precise nature and trigger for the "targeted messaging" that follows, as these facts map directly onto the primary limitations of the asserted claims.