DCT

1:26-cv-00100

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. United Parcel Service Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00100, W.D. Tex., 01/15/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including a major distribution facility in Round Rock, Texas, and commits acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s package tracking, logistics management, and wireless communication systems infringe five U.S. patents related to supply chain data analysis, multi-modal position indication, and wireless networking protocols.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are foundational to modern logistics, involving the use of RFID, GPS, and cellular networks to track assets and the use of advanced wireless communication standards to transmit data efficiently.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715 expired on September 21, 2025, prior to the filing of this action, suggesting that infringement allegations for this patent are limited to the period before its expiration. No other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-05-20 ’439 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-01 ’715 Patent Priority Date
2005-06-27 ’176 Patent Priority Date
2006-01-25 ’122 Patent Priority Date
2006-05-02 ’564 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-03 ’715 Patent Issue Date
2008-02-26 ’176 Patent Issue Date
2009-11-24 ’439 Patent Issue Date
2013-11-26 ’122 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-14 ’564 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-21 ’715 Patent Alleged Expiration Date
2026-01-15 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,199,715 - *“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING ID TAGS USING A DATA STRUCTURE OF TAG READS”*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Tag tracking systems, such as those using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), are prone to failures where readers fail to read tags completely or accurately, resulting in missing or incomplete data for supply chain analysis (’715 Patent, col. 1:33-41; Compl. ¶ 15). Prior art systems either ignored this missing data or made inadequate attempts to infer it, affecting the reliability of business process adjustments (Compl. ¶ 64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that populates a database with information from attempted tag reads at successive points in a business process. Crucially, it then uses a tool to "modify" parts of the database where information is missing by using other information already present in the database (e.g., inferring a missed read at point B based on successful reads at points A and C). This modified, more complete data is then used to track the tags and control the business process (’715 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-18).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a tracking system to improve the reliability of its own data, effectively creating a "self-healing" network that can be used to identify and address supply chain disruptions even with imperfect tag-reading hardware (Compl. ¶ 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 10, which incorporates claim 9 and independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 66). The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A method of tracking tags at several successive points of a business process, said method comprising:
    • attempting to read each tag at each successive point;
    • populating a database with information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading;
    • modifying part of the information in the database; and
    • using the modified information to track the tags through the business process.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,176 - *“POSITION INDICATING SYSTEM”*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Location systems based on a single technology, such as GPS, can be insufficient for precise and reliable tracking in all environments (’176 Patent, col. 1:11-25; Compl. ¶ 18).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a position indicating system comprising a single device with at least two different "position indicating modules" (e.g., a GPS module and an RFID tag). The system includes a "selecting module" to selectively activate one module or the other. Corresponding external "reference devices" (e.g., GPS satellites or an RFID reader) receive signals from the activated module to determine the device's position (’176 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-51).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a more versatile and reliable tracking system by allowing a device to leverage the strengths of multiple location technologies, depending on which is best suited for the current environment (Compl. ¶ 81).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶ 83). Its essential elements are:
    • A position indicating system comprising:
    • a position requesting device for outputting a position request;
    • a position indicating device comprising:
      • a first position indicating module for outputting a first signal, activated after the position request;
      • a second position indicating module for outputting a second signal, also activated after the request; and
      • a selecting module for selectively driving the first or second module to output its signal;
    • a first reference device for receiving the first signal and generating first position information; and
    • a second reference device for outputting the second signal.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,623,439 - *“CYCLIC DIVERSITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS”*

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses signal degradation in MIMO-OFDM wireless systems. It proposes using "cyclic advancement" (shifting a portion of a signal's symbol data forward into its guard interval) rather than cyclic delay. This provides temporal decorrelation to combat multipath fading while avoiding techniques that could confuse legacy single-antenna receivers (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26, 48, 97-98).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 100).
  • Accused Features: The UPS Delivery Information Acquisition Device 6 (“DIAD 6”) is accused of infringement. The complaint alleges that because the DIAD 6 supports the IEEE 802.11n standard, it necessarily uses the claimed cyclic shift diversity method for transmitting OFDM signals (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 102).

U.S. Patent No. 8,594,122 - *“TRANSMIT ANNOUNCMENT INDICATION”*

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to improve throughput in 802.11 wireless networks by reducing overhead. A first communication includes a "transmit announcement indication" that notifies a recipient that a second communication will follow immediately (after a Short Inter Frame Space, or SIFS) but will not contain the recipient's address. This is particularly useful for efficiency-gaining mechanisms like beamforming (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 52, 111-113).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 27 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 116).
  • Accused Features: The DIAD 6 device is accused of infringing. The complaint alleges the device's compliance with the IEEE 802.11ac standard and its use of the Very High Throughput (VHT) Sounding Protocol for beamforming practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 116, 118).

U.S. Patent No. 11,363,564 - *“PAGING IN A WIRELESS NETWORK”*

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an improved two-stage paging procedure to wake a mobile device from sleep mode for a network-initiated connection. A first, small paging signal on a control channel directs the device to a separate, shared transport channel to receive the second, larger paging message. This is more efficient than transmitting both signals on the same, potentially low-bandwidth, control channel (’564 Patent, col. 10:20-33; Compl. ¶¶ 56, 127).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 130).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses devices that support LTE or 5G NR wireless communication, including the UPS Premier Platinum Label, DIAD 5, and DIAD 6. It alleges these devices infringe by complying with 3GPP standards for paging procedures in idle mode (Compl. ¶¶ 130, 136).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names several accused instrumentalities:
    1. UPS’s “Smart Packages Smart Facilities System” (“SPSF System”) and “Digital Twin System” (accused of infringing the ’715 Patent) (Compl. ¶ 65).
    2. The “UPS Premier” service and its associated package labels (accused of infringing the ’176 and ’564 Patents) (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 130).
    3. The “DIAD 6” and “DIAD 5” mobile computer devices (accused of infringing the ’439, ’122, and ’564 Patents) (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 116, 130).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The SPSF and Digital Twin systems are described as a comprehensive logistics network where packages with RFID labels are tracked by antennas throughout UPS facilities and vehicles. This data creates a "digital twin," or virtual representation of the network, which is used to monitor operations, identify disruptions ("friction points"), and create a "self-healing network" (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 69, 72-73). A screenshot of a UPS executive describes the vision as "creating a self-healing network" (Compl. p. 30).
  • UPS Premier is a premium shipping service for sensitive goods, such as healthcare products, that uses package labels with "advanced sensor-based" technology (Compl. ¶ 85). These labels incorporate multiple technologies, including RFID, mesh networks, and cellular/GPS sensors, to provide different tiers of real-time tracking visibility (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 87-88). A marketing graphic illustrates the different sensor technologies available at the Silver, Gold, and Platinum service tiers (Compl. p. 51).
  • The DIAD devices are described as Honeywell-customized mobile computers used by UPS personnel for field delivery operations that support various wireless standards, including IEEE 802.11n/ac/ax and 4G/5G cellular communication (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 116, 136).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’715 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
attempting to read each tag at each successive point Smart antennas and sensors on UPS assets automatically track packages by attempting to read each package's RFID label at various points in the shipment network. ¶68 col. 2:10-11
populating a database with information corresponding to the reading of each tag at each successive point and the time of each reading Data from each RFID read, including location and time, is inserted into a "digital representation" or "digital twin" of the shipment network. ¶69 col. 2:11-14
modifying part of the information in the database When a sensor fails to read or incorrectly reads an RFID label, the information associated with that failed read is allegedly "changed using other information in the digital representation" of the network. ¶70 col. 2:14-16
using the modified information to track the tags through the business process The system allegedly uses the information associated with a failed or poor read to identify and track packages that may be at risk or impacted by a network disruption. ¶71 col. 2:16-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs the specific function of "modifying" information for a missed read, as required by the claim? The complaint alleges the system "changed" the information (Compl. ¶ 70), but the supporting visuals describe identifying "friction points" or creating a "self-healing network" at a high level. A central question may be whether the system actually interpolates or infers data to fill a gap, versus merely flagging an anomaly for human intervention or higher-level analysis.
    • Scope Question: Does the term "modifying part of the information," as used in the patent, read on the accused system's alleged function of detecting "disruptions or bottlenecks" and enabling "UPS to promptly detect and address" them? (Compl. ¶ 73). Defendant may argue that analyzing data to identify problems is distinct from modifying the underlying data records themselves.

’176 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a position requesting device for outputting a position request A user visits the UPS website or uses the UPS mobile app to enter a tracking number and initiate a request for the package's position. ¶86 col. 3:5-8
a position indicating device comprising: The UPS Premier package label, which contains multiple sensors. A photo in the complaint shows the internal circuitry of an accused label (Compl. p. 65). ¶¶87-89 col. 2:37-38
a first position indicating module for outputting a first signal... An RFID sensor within the UPS Premier label that transmits location information in response to a position request. ¶87 col. 2:50-51
a second position indicating module for outputting a second signal... A cellular/GPS sensor within the UPS Premier label that transmits location information in response to a position request. ¶88 col. 2:50-51
a selecting module...for selectively driving the first position indicating module...or driving the second position indicating module... A processor within the label that allegedly "selects which of at least the RFID and GPS/cellular sensors will transmit information" and causes a signal to be sent. ¶89 col. 2:40-45
a first reference device...for receiving the first signal and generating first position information... An RFID tag reader in a UPS warehouse receives the signal from the RFID sensor and the system determines the package's position based on that signal. ¶90 col. 2:45-47
a second reference device...for outputting the second signal A cellular network, including base stations, is used for "relaying GPS location information" from the GPS sensor to the UPS customer. ¶91 col. 2:48-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Does the processor on the accused UPS Premier label function as a "selecting module" that "selectively driv[es]" one module or the other? The complaint alleges the processor "selects which...will transmit" (Compl. ¶ 89), but it is unclear if this is an exclusive selection as the claim language may require, or if the modules operate concurrently or opportunistically based on signal availability.
    • Scope Question: Does a cellular network that "relay[s]" a GPS signal from the package label meet the claim limitation of a "reference device...for outputting the second signal"? A dispute may arise over whether simply relaying a signal from one component (the GPS module) to another (the UPS system) is equivalent to the reference device itself "outputting" the signal as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’715 Patent

  • The Term: "modifying part of the information in the database"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept distinguishing the patent from prior art that allegedly ignored or poorly inferred missing data. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’715 patent may depend heavily on whether UPS's "Digital Twin" system is found to perform this specific action.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. The specification describes a "data modification tool" that "modifies part of the information stored in the database as a function of other information stored in the database" (’715 Patent, col. 4:25-29). This could support a reading that encompasses any change to a data record based on other records, including flagging it as anomalous.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary example of modification is inferring missing data, such as filling in an expected read time when a read was missed between two successful reads (’715 Patent, col. 5:45-53, TABLE 5). A defendant may argue that "modifying" is limited to this type of data inference and insertion, rather than a higher-level analysis or error-flagging function.

’176 Patent

  • The Term: "selecting module... for selectively driving"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires an active, selective choice between the different position-indicating modules. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will hinge on whether the accused device contains a component that performs this specific function, as opposed to having modules that operate independently or simultaneously.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes the selecting module "can select an appropriate module according to received signals" and can "simultaneously select a plurality of modules...to determine the current position...more accurately" (’176 Patent, col. 4:5-12). This could suggest the "selecting" function is a logical choice of which data to use, even if multiple modules are active.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "selectively driving the first...module to output the first signal or driving the second...module to output the second signal" (’176 Patent, col. 7:18-21) suggests an exclusive-OR function where only one is driven at a time. The specification also states the module "will only select the WLAN module...and will disable other modules to save power," supporting an interpretation of active and exclusive control (’176 Patent, col. 4:1-5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's five counts focus on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 83, 100, 116, 130). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: For each of the five asserted patents, the complaint alleges that "Defendant knew of the [‘XXX] Patent or should have known of the [‘XXX] Patent, but was willfully blind to its existence." It further alleges that "Defendant has known of the [‘XXX] Patent since at least when it received a copy of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 92, 107, 123, 145). This asserts willfulness based on alleged pre-suit willful blindness and post-suit knowledge via service of the complaint itself.

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional operation: does UPS's "Digital Twin" system perform the specific step of "modifying" database records to infer missing tag reads as claimed by the '715 patent, or does it perform a technically distinct function of analyzing complete-but-imperfect data to identify operational "friction points"?
  • A second key question will be one of component equivalence: does the processor in the multi-sensor UPS Premier label function as a "selecting module" that actively and exclusively "drives" one positioning technology over another, as the '176 patent's claim language may require, or do the different sensors operate in a concurrent or opportunistic manner not contemplated by the claims?
  • A third central theme will be infringement by standard: for the three wireless networking patents ('439, '122, and '564), the infringement allegations rest on the accused products' compliance with the IEEE 802.11 and 3GPP standards. The case will likely turn on whether implementation of those standards necessarily requires practicing the patented methods, or if non-infringing configurations or modes of operation exist within the standards.