DCT
1:25-cv-01063
Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Loomis Armored US LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia)
- Defendant: Loomis Armored US, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01063, W.D. Tex., 07/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant operates office locations in Austin and San Antonio, routinely conducts business within the district, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of telematics-enabled dash camera systems in its armored vehicle fleet infringes five patents related to sensor-based analysis of motion activity.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes in mobile devices to identify specific physical activities (e.g., driving, braking, turning) for purposes of safety monitoring and targeted communications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | Plaintiff BWE alleges development of its proprietary technologies began "since at least 2007" |
| 2008-01-16 | Earliest Priority Date for ’951 and ’914 Patents |
| 2012-08-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’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 |
| 2014-02-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’846 Patent |
| 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 |
| 2025-07-07 | 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)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section suggests that the next generation of electronic messaging should be based on accurately identifying a "mobile thing" and its "motion activity" to enable more intelligent, context-based actions (’846 Patent, col. 1:50-2:1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensors in a wireless communication device (WCD), such as an accelerometer, to determine a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) like driving or walking. This identified activity is then used as a basis for selecting a targeted advertisement to be communicated to the WCD, as illustrated in the system architecture of Figure 2D. (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:30-41).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled actions to be triggered by a user's real-world physical context, moving beyond simpler triggers like geographic location. (’846 Patent, col. 2:2-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 12 (a device), as well as dependent claims 2-10 and 13-16 (Compl. ¶20-34).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
- Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with a mobile thing (MT) transporting a wireless communication device (WCD), based on sensor data from the WCD.
- The sensor(s) measure physical movement of the WCD in three-dimensional space, producing data sets with three movement values and a time value.
- Selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA.
- Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
- The determination step further comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, determining and using a normalizing mathematical relationship for the sensor data, analyzing the normalized data in frequency and time domains, determining likelihoods against stored signatures, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
- Independent Claim 12 (Device) includes the following essential elements:
- A WCD with one or more transceivers designed to enable access to a remote computer system.
- The remote system is designed to select a targeted advertisement and enable it to be communicated to the WCD.
- The WCD has sensors to produce 3D movement data, memory to store computer program code, and processors to execute the code.
- The code is designed to determine the MTMA based on sensor data and statistical analysis, and to communicate the sensor data or MTMA to the remote system to enable selection of the targeted advertisement.
- The code is further designed to perform the same signature storage, normalization, analysis, and likelihood determination steps as in claim 1.
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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the difficulty of accurately identifying a person's motion activity using sensors like an accelerometer, particularly when the device has no fixed orientation relative to the person and when attempting to distinguish between activities like biking and driving, which prior art struggled with (’273 Patent, col. 1:59-2:25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for processing raw sensor data to make it more useful for activity identification. It involves establishing a "reference framework" by recognizing a stable sensor reading (e.g., the constant force of gravity when the device is stationary) to define the device's orientation, and then computing subsequent movement data relative to that framework, effectively isolating true motion from gravitational effects (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-25).
- Technical Importance: This method of creating a reference frame and normalizing data allows for more reliable motion detection regardless of how a user is carrying the sensor-equipped device, a critical step for mobile computing. (’273 Patent, col. 1:59-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶37-45).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
- Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a WCD transported by an MT, indicative of movement.
- 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 sample values based upon the reference data.
- Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) based upon the movement data.
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 (Compl. ¶10).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wireless device that uses sensors to detect activities potentially indicating a user needs assistance, such as an accident or a crime. Upon detecting such an activity, the device can enter a second, different mode of operation to capture more detailed sensor data to further investigate the event (’951 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-20).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶48, 51).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused dash-cams infringe by entering a first mode of operation to capture sensor data, determining if that data indicates a safety-related event like hard braking, and then entering a second mode to intensify data acquisition and capture more granular information about the event (Compl. ¶48).
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 (Compl. ¶10).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a system with logic that determines a user's activity and/or surroundings, determines a corresponding surveillance mode based on that activity, facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates the resulting surveillance information to a remote computer device (’914 Patent, Claim 5).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶54, 55).
- Accused Features: The accused system is alleged to use logic to determine driver activity (e.g., hard braking), dynamically adjust its surveillance mode (e.g., increase sensor sampling rate), provide alerts that facilitate a user response, and communicate event data to remote servers (Compl. ¶54).
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 (Compl. ¶10).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for identifying motion activity using only accelerometer data. The core of the method is computing "reference data" from the raw sensor output to create a framework that enables the comparison of 3D data sets, which allows the system to isolate true vehicle movement from static forces like gravity (’273 Patent, Abstract; Claim 22).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 22 is asserted (Compl. ¶58).
- Accused Features: The accused system allegedly infringes by receiving three streams of data from an accelerometer, computing reference data to create a framework that excludes gravitational acceleration, calculating movement data based on that reference framework, and determining a driving activity from that movement data (Compl. ¶58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the telematics systems used by Defendant Loomis in its fleet of over 3,200 vehicles, specifically including Netradyne's Driveri D-430 video safety devices (Compl. ¶8, 14, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused Driveri D-430 is described as an AI-powered, IoT dash-camera system installed in vehicles to detect and assess high-risk driving behaviors (Compl. ¶15, 16). The system uses built-in three-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes to collect real-time, time-stamped motion data, allowing it to identify events like hard braking, rapid acceleration, and sharp cornering (Compl. ¶15). A diagram provided in the complaint shows the device includes internal sensors (IMU - Accelerometer + Gyro), connectivity (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth), and enhanced edge computing capabilities (NVIDIA TX2 processor) (Compl. p. 8). When an event is detected, an alert and associated data are uploaded to a cloud dashboard for review by a fleet manager (Compl. ¶16). Loomis allegedly implemented 3,000 of these units to improve safety and reduce accidents across its fleet (Compl. ¶7, 15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for use in connection with a wireless communication device (WCD) transported by a mobile thing (MT)... comprising: 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 Loomis telematics-equipped cameras are WCDs installed in fleet vehicles (MTs) that determine driver behaviors (MTMA) using embedded accelerometer sensors. | ¶20 | col. 23:30-41 |
| 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 cameras are equipped with three-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes that measure physical movement and generate time-stamped data sets representing acceleration along x, y, and z axes. | ¶20 | col. 89:60-90:5 |
| selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA; causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD | When specific driving patterns are detected, the system initiates targeted messaging, including real-time alerts, performance feedback, or promotional messages, which are delivered to the in-cab device. | ¶20 | col. 78:26-34 |
| wherein the determining the MTMA comprises: storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in the memory... | The system maintains a library of reference motion signatures in memory, each representing a distinct driving behavior like hard braking, which consist of characteristic accelerometer data. | ¶20 | col. 2:27-33 |
| determining a normalizing mathematical relationship... using the normalizing mathematical relationship, determining normalized data sets; analyzing the normalized data sets in the frequency and time domains | The system processes raw accelerometer data, which is mathematically normalized to eliminate gravitational bias and align motion data. The normalized data is then evaluated across time and frequency domains. | ¶20 | col. 27:4-29 |
| determining likelihoods associated with the stored MTMA signatures... and selecting a most likely MTMA signature from the plurality of MTMA signatures based at least in part upon the likelihoods. | The system compares normalized accelerometer data against the stored library, assesses the degree of correlation, assigns likelihood values, and selects the behavior classification with the highest correlation score. | ¶20 | col. 39:9-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "selecting an advertisement." The complaint alleges the accused system delivers "real-time alerts, performance feedback, or promotional messages" (Compl. ¶20). A central dispute may be one of claim scope: whether internal driver safety alerts and performance feedback, which are not necessarily commercial in nature, fall within the meaning of the term "advertisement" as used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The patent describes a multi-step statistical process for determining an MTMA, including normalization, frequency/time domain analysis, and likelihood scoring against stored signatures. An evidentiary question will be what proof exists that the accused Netradyne system performs each of these specific sub-steps, as opposed to a different proprietary AI-based method for classifying driver behavior.
U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method, comprising: 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 time-stamped, real-time motion data from built-in three-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes while installed in vehicles. | ¶37 | col. 3:5-13 |
| recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system; | The system processes accelerometer input to identify stable reference patterns, such as stationary intervals or consistent gravitational force readings, to define the sensor's alignment and establish device orientation. | ¶37 | col. 3:14-19 |
| 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... | Once calibrated, the system constructs reference data structures that establish a baseline for evaluating future sensor readings, enabling the system to detect deviations from stable gravitational patterns. | ¶37 | col. 3:20-25 |
| 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 motion vectors by analyzing raw accelerometer data relative to the previously established orientation frame. | ¶37 | col. 3:26-30 |
| determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data. | The system analyzes the computed motion data to categorize specific driving behaviors such as hard braking and rapid acceleration, which form the basis for alerts and safety interventions. | ¶37 | col. 3:31-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The patent's inventive concept appears to relate to determining activity for a device without a fixed orientation (e.g., a phone in a pocket), for which "defining an orientation" is a critical, non-trivial step. The accused device is a dash-cam with a generally fixed orientation inside a vehicle. A potential point of contention is whether the accused system's process of merely accounting for gravity constitutes "recognizing a particular set... as a reference for defining an orientation" in the manner claimed, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical problem being solved and the solution being performed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from ’846 Patent: "advertisement"
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’846 Patent hinges on whether the "targeted messaging," "real-time alerts," and "performance feedback" (Compl. ¶20) generated by the accused safety system qualify as an "advertisement." If this term is construed narrowly to mean only commercial solicitations, the infringement case for this patent may be substantially weakened.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes initiating "one or more intelligent ID-based and/or activity-based actions" (’846 Patent, col. 2:8-10). The complaint alleges the system sends "promotional messages" (Compl. ¶20). This language may support an interpretation that includes non-commercial but targeted communications intended to influence behavior.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is Targeted advertisement selection... and the abstract refers to enabling "targeted communication of an advertisement" (’846 Patent, Title, Abstract). The consistent use of this specific term, rather than a broader term like "message" or "communication," may suggest an intended scope limited to commercial advertising.
Term from ’558 Patent: "defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system"
- Context and Importance: This step is foundational to the patent's method of normalizing data. The accused product is a fixed-mount dash-cam, whereas the patent family appears focused on devices with variable orientation. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused system's method of accounting for gravity meets this limitation, or if this limitation requires a more complex process of discovering an unknown orientation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A related patent states that stationary points can be found where the only force is gravity, and "Use this direction of this vector as the positive z-axis," which establishes an orientation (’273 Patent, col. 7:4-11, Fig. 5). The complaint alleges the accused system does something similar by identifying "stable reference patterns—such as stationary intervals" (Compl. ¶37). This suggests the patent may cover any process that uses gravity to establish a reference frame.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem statement in the complaint emphasizes the challenge when sensors "have no fixed orientation with respect to the human" (Compl. ¶3). A defendant may argue that the term "defining an orientation" implies an active process of discovering an unknown orientation, a problem not faced by a fixed dash-cam, which may simply subtract a known gravitational vector without "defining" its orientation anew.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement or provide specific factual allegations detailing knowledge and intent to induce or contribute to infringement by another party. The prayer for relief, however, requests that Defendant be enjoined from contributory and inducing infringement (Compl. p. 45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief alleges willful infringement and seeks enhanced damages for all five asserted patents (Compl. p. 45). The complaint body, however, does not plead specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct that would typically underpin a willfulness allegation.
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 context of the ’846 Patent, be construed to cover the driver safety alerts and performance feedback messages generated by the accused fleet management system, or is its meaning limited to commercial promotions?
- A key technical question will be one of operational context: does the accused dash-cam system, which is installed in a relatively fixed position, perform the step of "defining an orientation" as claimed in the ’558 Patent family, or was that claim language intended to cover the distinct technical problem of orientation-independent analysis for a free-floating device like a smartphone?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: beyond the general allegations, what specific evidence will show that the accused system's AI-driven algorithms perform the particular multi-step statistical processes recited in the claims, such as storing and comparing against "reference MTMA signatures" and calculating "likelihoods," as opposed to employing an alternative technical method to achieve a similar result?