DCT

1:25-cv-01650

Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Mitsubishi Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01650, W.D. Tex., 10/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants operate multiple automobile dealerships within the district, routinely conduct business there, and have committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Telematics Control Unit (TCU) systems, factory-installed in certain Mitsubishi vehicles, infringe five patents related to using sensor data to determine motion activities and trigger subsequent actions.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of using sensors in mobile devices, such as smartphones or embedded vehicle systems, to identify specific human or vehicle activities (e.g., driving, walking, collisions) and initiate responses like automatic notifications or targeted advertisements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-16 Earliest Priority Date for '846, '558, '951, '914 Patents
2012-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for '273 Patent
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
2018-01-01 Approximate Launch of Accused Outlander & Eclipse Cross Models
2019-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 Issues
2020-01-01 Approximate Launch of Accused Mirage Models
2025-10-15 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: December 31, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of accurately identifying a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), such as walking, running, or driving, using sensor data from a device like a smartphone that may not have a fixed orientation relative to the user ('846 Patent, col. 1:21-2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes systems and methods that analyze sensor data (e.g., from an accelerometer, gyroscope) from a wireless communication device (WCD) to determine a specific motion activity. This determination is then used to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the user's device ('846 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:30-43). The system processes raw sensor data, normalizes it to account for device orientation, and compares it against stored "signatures" of known activities to determine a likelihood match ('846 Patent, col. 27:6-28:48).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables a device to understand a user's real-world context through motion, which can then be monetized by delivering relevant advertising based on that activity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶¶19, 29).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method comprising:
    • 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 data comprises three movement values and a time value from sensors measuring movement in 3D space.
    • Selecting an advertisement based on the determined MTMA.
    • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
    • The determination step involves storing reference MTMA signatures, normalizing data sets for analysis in a 3D coordinate system, analyzing the data in frequency and time domains, and selecting a most likely MTMA signature.
  • Independent Claim 12 is a wireless communication device (WCD) comprising:
    • Transceivers to access a remote computer system designed to select and communicate a targeted advertisement.
    • Sensors to produce sensor data indicative of 3D physical movement.
    • Memories and processors executing code to perform steps functionally similar to those recited in method claim 1.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-10 and 13-16, which add limitations such as the communication method (email/text), use of location or user ID for ad selection, and the type of sensors used (accelerometer/gyroscope) (Compl. ¶¶20-28, 30-33).

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 describes prior art attempts to identify user motion with accelerometers as having limited accuracy (e.g., less than 50% for biking/driving) and often requiring the sensor to be in a fixed position, which is impractical for smartphone users ('558 Patent, col. 1:59-2:22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims methods for more accurately determining a motion activity by processing raw sensor data to account for the device's orientation. One method involves receiving data streams, recognizing a set of values as a reference for orientation (e.g., by identifying the vector of gravity when the device is stationary), computing reference data based on that recognition, and then calculating subsequent movement data within the new, normalized coordinate system ('558 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:6-30). This normalized data is then used to determine the specific motion activity.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a more robust way to analyze motion from a device that could be in any orientation, a key challenge for making activity detection practical on mobile phones.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶36, 38, 40, 41, 43).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method comprising:
    • 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 on that recognition.
    • Calculating movement data based upon the reference data.
    • Determining an MTMA based upon the movement data.
  • Independent Claim 17 is a method comprising:
    • Receiving first and second data from sensors indicative of movement.
    • Determining reference data that defines a reference framework from the first data.
    • Normalizing the second data with the reference data.
    • Identifying an MTMA based upon the normalized second data.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 13 and 25, which add the limitation that the method steps can be performed on the WCD, a remote computer system, or a combination of both (Compl. ¶¶37, 39).

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 system that uses sensor data to detect an activity that may require assistance (e.g., an accident or crime) ('951 Patent, col. 28:1-12). Upon detecting a potential event with a first set of sensors, the system can enter a second mode of operation, potentially involving other sensors, to capture additional data to further investigate the activity before communicating that data to a remote system ('951 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶46, 49).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Mitsubishi TCU's ability to monitor for events like hard braking and accidents, and to trigger secondary processes to capture and transmit event data, infringes the ’951 Patent (Compl. ¶46).

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

  • Issued: October 15, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a system with logic that determines a user's activity from sensor data, determines a corresponding "surveillance mode," facilitates a user-defined response to that activity, and communicates surveillance information to a remote device ('914 Patent, claim 5). The invention allows for automated, context-aware safety and security monitoring.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 5 and 15 (Compl. ¶¶52, 53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the TCU system infringes by determining driving activities (e.g., hard braking), operating in a "surveillance mode" to capture data on these activities, facilitating responses (e.g., SOS alerts), and communicating that data to remote systems (Compl. ¶¶52, 53).

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 is an early member of the asserted family and focuses on a method for determining motion activity using only accelerometer data ('273 Patent, col. 1:29-37). It describes receiving accelerometer data, computing "reference data" that defines a relationship between data samples and a reference framework (e.g., to account for gravity), calculating movement data based on that reference, and determining the motion activity ('273 Patent, claim 22).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 22 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TCU's use of a 3-axis accelerometer to classify driver behavior, its use of reference data to eliminate non-movement influences like gravity, and its subsequent calculation of movement patterns infringes the ’273 Patent (Compl. ¶¶55-56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s Telematics Control Unit (TCU) system, described as a factory-installed system in certain Mitsubishi vehicle models, including the Outlander (2018+), Eclipse Cross (2018+), Mirage (2020+), and Outlander PHEV (Compl. ¶¶15, 19, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the TCU system uses wireless communication devices (WCDs) equipped with sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes to monitor, analyze, and report on driving behavior (Compl. ¶¶16, 19). An exploded view of a TCU's internal components is provided as visual evidence (Compl. p. 7).
  • Its alleged purpose is to enhance driver safety, reduce accidents, and decrease insurance claims by evaluating behaviors such as "fast accelerations, hard braking and aggressive cornering" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also alleges the TCU system provides "automatic collision notification" by activating an emergency call when a severe collision is detected (Compl. ¶16, p. 8). A diagram illustrates this process, showing the car communicating its location and condition to an emergency response center after a collision (Compl. p. 8).
  • The system is also alleged to leverage this data to deliver "driver-centric advertisements" that "reinforce responsible driving habits" (Compl. ¶10).

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 TCU system monitors accelerometer and other sensor data to detect and track vehicle driving states and safety-related motion activities. ¶19 col. 1:6-9
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 system analyzes acceleration along x, y, and z axes using tri-axis accelerometers. Each data point is time-stamped or temporally referenced to enable statistical analysis. ¶19 col. 81:2-10
selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA; causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD... Mitsubishi leverages collected data to deliver driver-centric advertisements that reinforce responsible driving habits. Servers monitor driver behavior and utilize advertisement notifications. ¶10, ¶19, ¶20 col. 78:28-40
wherein the determining the MTMA comprises: storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in the memory... The system stores reference data comprising accelerometer/gyroscope measurements to identify specific motion activities like hard braking, collisions, and rollovers. ¶10 col. 30:17-25
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... Raw accelerometer data is normalized by removing or accounting for the gravitational component to establish vertical and horizontal axes for analysis in frequency and time domains. ¶10 col. 27:6-14
determining likelihoods associated with the stored MTMA signatures... and selecting a most likely MTMA signature... The system determines the specific motion activity by applying predefined thresholds and ranges to live data and correlating it to stored reference data. ¶11 col. 39:1-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the TCU delivers "driver-centric advertisements" that "reinforce responsible driving habits" and provide "reward-based messaging" (Compl. ¶¶10, 20). A central question may be whether these safety- and performance-related messages meet the ordinary and customary meaning of the term "advertisement" as used in the patent, which practitioners may argue typically implies commercial solicitation.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific multi-step process for determining the MTMA, including storing signatures, normalizing data, and determining likelihoods. A point of contention may be whether the accused TCU performs these exact steps in the claimed sequence, or if it uses a technically distinct method to classify driving events.

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)... The TCU detects, analyzes, and transmits real-time motion and driver behavior data from tri-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes in vehicles like the Outlander and Eclipse Cross. ¶19 col. 10:5-12
recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system; The TCU collects continuous accelerometer data and algorithmically processes gravitational components to establish a baseline vertical and horizontal orientation for the sensors. ¶19 col. 10:13-17
computing reference data based upon the recognition of the particular set... The system distinguishes reference frames based on the presence or absence of gravitational acceleration in sensor readings to interpret motion events and isolate directional forces. ¶20 col. 10:18-24
calculating movement data in the coordinate system of one or more other non-reference data sample values based upon the reference data; and The TCU continuously monitors vehicle dynamics by calculating real-time acceleration values across x, y, and z axes using integrated accelerometer data. ¶20 col. 10:25-28
determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the movement data. The TCU identifies and classifies events such as hard braking, rapid acceleration, and sharp cornering by analyzing the real-time accelerometer and gyroscopic data. ¶20 col. 10:29-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference." Practitioners may focus on what constitutes "recognizing" this reference set. Does the system’s alleged use of gravitational vectors for "autonomous calibration" (Compl. ¶19) meet this limitation, or does the claim require a more explicit, discrete recognition step as described in the patent's embodiments?
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be how the accused TCU "computes" and "calculates" the claimed data. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the specific mathematical operations performed by the TCU to process sensor data and identify events align with the steps of "computing reference data" and "calculating movement data" as defined by the intrinsic evidence of the ’558 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Patent: ’846 Patent

    • The Term: "advertisement"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the "advertisement notifications and reward-based messaging" (Compl. ¶20) allegedly delivered by the accused system fall within the claim's scope. The dispute may focus on whether "advertisement" is limited to traditional commercial offers or can be construed more broadly to include safety- or performance-related feedback.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not explicitly limited to commercial sales, mentioning actions like initiating a communication session or providing recommendations ('846 Patent, col. 72:20-40). This may suggest that "advertisement" could encompass a wider range of communications intended to influence user behavior.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses advertisers and monetization, for example, "enabling an advertiser to communicate the advertisement to the WCD" (claim 6) and "receiving a payment for or otherwise monetarily benefiting from causing the advertisement to be communicated" (claim 5). This language may support a construction limited to commercial communications.

  • Patent: ’558 Patent

    • The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference"
    • Context and Importance: This step is foundational to the claim, as it establishes the baseline orientation against which subsequent motion is measured. The case may turn on whether the TCU's alleged method of "autonomous calibration by detecting gravitational vectors" (Compl. ¶19) constitutes "recognizing" a "particular set of data sample values" as claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal is to define a relationship between the WCD's orientation and a coordinate system, which could arguably be achieved through various calibration methods ('558 Patent, col. 12:1-5).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example of "recognizing" the reference set by identifying when the resultant magnitude of acceleration is equal to one (i.e., only gravity is acting on it) within a predefined error range ('558 Patent, col. 14:46-52). This may support a narrower construction requiring the identification of a specific, stationary data point as the reference.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "contributory infringement, and/or inducing infringement" (Compl. p. 37). The complaint's body does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims.
  • Willful Infringement: Willful infringement of all five patents-in-suit is alleged in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 37). The complaint does not plead any specific facts suggesting Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The basis for willfulness may therefore rest on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the court's determination of several key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "advertisement," as used in the ’846 Patent, be construed to cover the safety- and performance-related feedback and reward messaging allegedly delivered by the accused TCU, or is its meaning limited to traditional commercial solicitations?
  • A second central issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused TCU’s method of using gravitational vectors for "autonomous calibration" perform the specific functions of "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" and "computing reference data" as required by the claims of the '558 patent family?
  • An evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the software and hardware architecture of the accused TCU performs each of the specific data processing steps—such as storing signatures, normalizing data, and determining likelihoods—in the manner and sequence required by the asserted claims?