DCT
1:25-cv-01929
Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Frotcom Intl SA
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
- Defendant: Frotcom International, S.A. (Portugal)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01929, W.D. Tex., 11/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States, and further alleges that Defendant conducts business and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle telematics and fleet management systems infringe four patents related to using sensor data to determine motion activity and trigger responsive actions.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes in vehicle-mounted devices, to identify specific driver behaviors and vehicle movements for safety monitoring and fleet management.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or specific prosecution history events that would limit claim scope.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | Plaintiff begins technology development |
| 2008-01-16 | Earliest Priority Date for '846 and '951 Patents |
| 2012-08-30 | Earliest Priority Date for '558 and '273 Patents |
| 2013-05-28 | '273 Patent Issued |
| 2014-05-27 | '951 Patent Issued |
| 2015-06-02 | '558 Patent Issued |
| 2019-12-31 | '846 Patent Issued |
| 2025-11-25 | 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)"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that can accurately identify the motion activity of a person or object (a "mobile thing") by using sensor data from a wireless device they are transporting. (’846 Patent, col. 1:40-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensors like accelerometers to capture movement data in three dimensions. This data is processed through normalization (to account for device orientation), analyzed in the time and frequency domains, and compared against a library of "reference signatures" for known activities (e.g., walking, driving). Once an activity is identified, the system selects and delivers a targeted advertisement based on that activity. (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 25:17-33).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables a device to understand its user's real-world context and trigger context-aware digital actions, such as delivering relevant advertisements based on detected physical activities. (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method Claim 1 and independent device Claim 12. (Compl. ¶18, ¶28).
- Claim 1 (Method) requires the essential elements of:
- Determining a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) using sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD).
- The sensor measures physical movement in 3D space, producing data sets with movement and time values.
- Selecting an advertisement based on 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" to analyze data sets in 3D, analyzing the normalized data in frequency and time domains, and determining likelihoods to select the most likely MTMA signature.
- Claim 12 (Device) requires a WCD with transceivers, sensors, memory, and processors executing code to perform functions analogous to the steps of Claim 1, including determining the MTMA, communicating with a remote system for advertisement selection, and receiving/displaying the advertisement.
- The complaint explicitly references and alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-10 and 13-16, reserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶19-27, ¶29-32).
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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of reliably identifying a user's motion activity using sensors in a device, like a smartphone, that has no fixed orientation relative to the user's body. (Compl. ¶3). Prior art struggled with accuracy when a device was placed arbitrarily, for instance, in a pocket or bag. (’273 Patent, col. 1:60-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves the orientation problem by establishing a stable frame of reference from the sensor data itself. It receives initial sensor data (a "first data" set), uses it to determine a "reference framework" (e.g., using the constant of gravity to identify the vertical axis), and then normalizes subsequent sensor data (a "second data" set) against this framework. This allows for consistent and accurate analysis of movement regardless of the device's initial or changing orientation. (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-67).
- Technical Importance: This orientation-agnostic processing is a foundational technique that enables reliable motion and activity detection on modern mobile and wearable devices. (Compl. ¶3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 42, and 52. (Compl. ¶35, ¶37, ¶39, ¶40, ¶42).
- Claim 1 (Method) requires the essential elements of:
- Receiving at least three streams of data from sensors of a WCD.
- Recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference to define the WCD's orientation.
- Computing reference data based on that recognition.
- Calculating movement data for subsequent non-reference data based on the reference data.
- Determining an MTMA based upon the calculated movement data.
- Claim 17 (Method) requires the essential elements of:
- 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 for analysis in the reference framework.
- Identifying an MTMA based upon the normalized second data.
- The complaint also alleges infringement of dependent claims 13, 25, and 50. (Compl. ¶36, ¶38, ¶41).
U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for interactive surveillance using a wireless device. The system uses sensors to detect an activity that may require assistance (e.g., an accident). Upon detection, it enters a "first mode of operation" to capture initial data; if that data suggests a safety-relevant event, it enters a "second mode of operation" involving a different, more intensive investigation process to capture additional data. (’951 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶45).
- Asserted Claims: Independent system Claim 1 and independent device Claim 10. (Compl. ¶45, ¶48).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Frotcom’s telematics systems infringe by initiating a "first mode of operation" upon detecting preliminary motion activity (e.g., sudden acceleration), and upon determining that this data may indicate an abnormal event, initiating a "second mode of operation" that involves an enhanced investigation process. (Compl. ¶45).
U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - "Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’558 Patent, describes a method for orientation-agnostic motion detection. It claims receiving three streams of accelerometer data, recognizing a reference set of values to define a relationship between the 3D sensor orientation and a 2D coordinate system, computing reference data, and then calculating subsequent movement data within that 2D coordinate system to determine the motion activity. (’273 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶51).
- Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶51).
- Accused Features: Frotcom's telematics systems are accused of infringing by executing code that receives 3-axis accelerometer data, computes a reference orientation (e.g., by determining the vertical direction of gravity), and calculates subsequent movement data relative to that reference to identify a vehicle motion activity. (Compl. ¶51).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s vehicle telematics and video-analytics systems, which include hardware such as onboard tracking units, plug-and-play On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) devices (identified as "C4OBD"), and Telematic Control Units (TCU/OBU), as well as the associated software and backend data platform. (Compl. ¶14, ¶15, ¶18, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The Frotcom systems are installed in vehicles to provide fleet management and safety solutions. (Compl. ¶14). Onboard hardware, such as the OBD device shown in a photograph in the complaint, incorporates sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture real-time vehicle motion data. (Compl. ¶14-15, p. 6). This data, along with GPS and vehicle CAN-Bus data, is processed by embedded algorithms to detect and classify driver behaviors such as acceleration, braking, cornering, and collisions. (Compl. ¶14). This processed information is then transmitted to the "Frotcom Data Center" for analysis, alarm generation, and reporting to users. (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... | Frotcom's TCU/OBU incorporates embedded logic for processing motion-related data derived from integrated accelerometers and orientation sensors. | ¶18 | col. 89:56-62 |
| 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... | Frotcom’s solutions include onboard sensors, including accelerometers, that continuously monitor vehicle motion characteristics. | ¶18 | col. 90:1-5 |
| selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA; causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD... | The Frotcom TCU/OBU executes logic to select driver-targeted advertising content or informational messages based on motion analysis and delivers them. | ¶18 | col. 90:5-9 |
| wherein the determining the MTMA comprises: storing a plurality of reference MTMA signatures in the memory... | The Frotcom TCU/OBU determines motion activities by referencing a stored library of predefined motion-activity signatures maintained in onboard memory. | ¶18 | col. 90:10-14 |
| determining a normalizing mathematical relationship so that different data sets separated in time can be analyzed in the 3D coordinate system... | The TCU/OBU implements logic that establishes a normalizing mathematical relationship to interpret sensor data, using gravitational acceleration for orientation. | ¶18 | col. 90:18-22 |
| analyzing the normalized data sets in the frequency and time domains... | The TCU/OBU analyzes normalized data in both the time and frequency domains to identify and classify driver-related motion activities. | ¶18 | col. 90:18-22 |
| determining likelihoods associated with the stored MTMA signatures... and selecting a most likely MTMA signature... based at least in part upon the likelihoods. | The system computes likelihood values for each stored signature by evaluating the correlation between incoming signals and reference models. | ¶18 | col. 90:23-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the "contextually relevant advertisements or informational messages, including those related to safety performance, fuel efficiency, or driver coaching" (Compl. ¶18) allegedly delivered by the accused system meet the legal definition of an "advertisement" as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system's process for classifying driver behavior performs the specific multi-step process recited in the "wherein" clause of Claim 1, including storing "signatures", applying a "normalizing mathematical relationship", and "determining likelihoods" to select a "most likely" match.
U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving first and second data from one or more sensors associated with a wireless communication device (WCD)... | Frotcom telematics units integrate sensors (accelerometers) that generate time-stamped acceleration data, collected over defined sampling intervals. | ¶37 | col. 10:33-40 |
| determining reference data that defines a reference framework from the first data... | From a first set of motion-sensor values, the system determines reference data that defines a framework for interpreting subsequent motion. | ¶37 | col. 10:33-40 |
| normalizing the second data with the reference data so that the second data can be analyzed in the reference framework... | A second set of motion-sensor data is normalized with the established reference data so it can be consistently interpreted within the defined framework. | ¶37 | col. 10:33-40 |
| identifying a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with the MT based upon the normalized second data. | The system identifies a motion activity by analyzing time-stamped acceleration and orientation inputs against the established reference framework. | ¶37 | col. 10:33-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute concerns the interpretation of the terms "first data" and "second data". The question will be whether the accused system’s continuous data processing can be mapped onto the claim’s more discrete, sequential language of determining a "reference framework" from a distinct "first data" set and applying it to a subsequent "second data" set.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what specific technical process the Frotcom devices use to "normalize" sensor data. Evidence will be required to show that this process aligns with the claim requirement of using a framework derived "from the first data" to analyze "the second data."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "advertisement" (’846 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused system is alleged to deliver "informational messages, including those related to safety performance, fuel efficiency, or driver coaching." (Compl. ¶18). Whether these messages constitute "advertisements" will be a central point of the infringement analysis for the ’846 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges the delivery of "promotional content, and incentive-based updates" (Compl. ¶19), which may support an interpretation that extends beyond traditional third-party product offers to include messages intended to promote or incentivize certain user behaviors.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent Claim 5 recites "receiving a payment for or otherwise monetarily benefiting from causing the advertisement to be communicated." (Compl. ¶22). A defendant may argue this language suggests the term "advertisement" implies a commercial transaction or context, which may not encompass internal driver safety alerts or coaching feedback.
- The Term: "reference framework" (’558 Patent, Claim 17)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the foundation of the patented orientation-agnostic solution. The infringement case for the '558 and '273 patents hinges on whether Frotcom's method for establishing a stable coordinate system for its sensors qualifies as determining a "reference framework from the first data".
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes a general process of "determining reference data that defines a reference framework from the first data." (’558 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue this language should be read broadly to encompass any method of establishing a baseline for orientation, such as using the constant of gravity, as alleged in the complaint. (Compl. ¶24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a sequence: receiving "first" data, determining a framework "from" the first data, and then normalizing "second" data. A defendant may argue this requires discrete temporal steps that are absent in a system using continuous calibration, suggesting a more limited construction tied to the specific embodiments shown.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts or factual allegations for induced or contributory infringement in its body. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "contributory infringement, and/or inducing infringement." (Compl. p. 51).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement and seeks enhanced damages. (Compl. p. 50). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Therefore, any basis for willfulness would likely arise from Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving notice of the patents via the filing of this 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 coaching, safety alerts, and performance feedback allegedly provided by the accused fleet management system, or is its meaning limited to more traditional commercial offers?
- A key technical question will be one of process equivalence: does the accused system's method for orienting its sensors and processing data map onto the specific, sequential steps recited in the asserted claims of the '558 and '273 patents, particularly the requirement to determine a "reference framework" from a "first data" set to "normalize" a "second data" set?
- An evidentiary question will center on operational modes: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused telematics systems perform the multi-stage investigation process claimed in the '951 Patent, transitioning from a standard monitoring mode to a distinct, secondary investigation mode in response to specific motion-based triggers?