DCT
6:18-cv-00263
Innobrilliance LLC v. Scar Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: InnoBrilliance, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: S.C.A.R., Inc., d/b/a Stinger Certified Asset Recovery (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; Denko & Bustamante LLP
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00263, W.D. Tex., 09/06/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant is incorporated in Texas, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle-mounted license plate recognition systems, used for commercial asset recovery, infringe three patents related to autonomous, multi-lane license plate capture and analysis.
- Technical Context: Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) technology enables vehicles to automatically scan, identify, and check license plates against a database, a function widely used in law enforcement and commercial vehicle repossession.
- Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of a single patent family and share a common specification. U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 was the subject of a Certificate of Correction, which altered the language of asserted claim 1; the complaint appears to quote the pre-correction version of the claim, which may raise questions regarding the scope of the infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-10 | Priority Date for ’150, ’498, and ’870 Patents |
| 2007-01-01 | Defendant S.C.A.R., Inc. established |
| 2010-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 Issued |
| 2010-11-16 | Certificate of Correction for U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 Issued |
| 2011-02-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,881,498 Issued |
| 2011-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870 Issued |
| 2018-09-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 - Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for law enforcement and mobile security to identify vehicles of interest without the "conscious effort" required by then-existing systems, which could divert an operator's attention from driving and lead to accusations of profiling (’150 Patent, col. 1:8-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for a surveillance vehicle that operates "in a truly autonomous fashion" to capture license plate images from surrounding vehicles, including those in adjacent lanes (’150 Patent, col. 1:47-50). As illustrated in the system diagram, on-board cameras (22A, 22B) feed image data to a processor (26) that performs character recognition, checks a database, and alerts the operator only when a problem is found, all without requiring operator input for each scan (’150 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:20-25).
- Technical Importance: By fully automating the surveillance and alert process, the technology aims to improve operator safety, increase the thoroughness of patrols, and provide an objective basis for vehicle stops (’150 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- Essential elements of the corrected version of independent claim 1 include:
- At least first and second cameras mounted on a surveillance vehicle, collectively configured to capture images of license plates of target vehicles in the same or adjacent lanes, without operator input.
- At least one processor that continuously uses character recognition to determine the license plate numbers.
- The processor is configured to alert the operator only upon discovering a potential problem related to the target vehicles, without a need for operator input.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,881,498 - Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’498 Patent, a continuation of the '150 Patent, addresses the same need for law enforcement to "accurately and efficiently identify potential law enforcement problems" with nearby vehicles without the dangers and inefficiencies of manual systems (’498 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the method of performing autonomous surveillance. The method involves operating a surveillance vehicle equipped with a camera system to capture license plate information from multiple moving target vehicles, including in adjacent lanes (’498 Patent, col. 6:33-41). A computer is then used to determine the license plate numbers and alert the operator only when a "potential problem" is detected, all without requiring the operator to trigger the scan (’498 Patent, col. 6:42-49).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a framework for continuous, automated mobile surveillance, which can enhance the operational efficiency and safety of patrols (’498 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Providing or operating a surveillance vehicle with a camera system to capture license plate information from target vehicles in the same or adjacent lanes, while all vehicles are moving.
- Providing or operating the vehicle with a computer programmed to use the captured information to determine license plate numbers.
- The computer is programmed to alert an operator only upon discovering a potential problem related to a target vehicle, all without needing operator input.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870 - Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition
Technology Synopsis
- As part of the same patent family, the ’870 Patent addresses the need for fully autonomous license plate surveillance to improve officer safety and avoid profiling accusations (’870 Patent, col. 1:24-65). The invention claims a system distinguished by a preamble that describes a specific configuration of four target vehicles: one in front, one behind, one in the left lane, and one in the right lane relative to the surveillance vehicle (’870 Patent, col. 5:35-49).
Asserted Claims
- Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
Accused Features
- The complaint alleges that S.C.A.R.'s LPR system, with its multi-camera setup, satisfies the preamble by being able to surveil vehicles in these surrounding positions (Compl. ¶55, ¶59).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is S.C.A.R.’s license plate recognition (“LPR”) vehicle system, used to provide asset recovery services (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The system is alleged to employ Digital Recognition Network’s (“DRN”) “Reaper Mobile LPR camera kits” and “Car Detector Mobile (‘CDM’)” software (Compl. ¶22). These systems are mounted on S.C.A.R.’s fleet vehicles and use two or four cameras to autonomously surveil and capture images of license plates on surrounding vehicles (Compl. ¶22, ¶27). The system performs optical character recognition (OCR) on the captured images, compares the resulting license plate number to a "hotlist" of vehicles targeted for repossession, and generates a "live in-car alert" for the operator upon finding a match (Compl. ¶24, ¶26, ¶33). A diagram from an instructional video depicts a surveillance vehicle scanning license plates from vehicles in adjacent and angled positions in a parking lot scenario (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as corrected) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least first and second cameras mounted on the surveillance vehicle... | Defendant uses DRN’s mobile LPR package containing two or four cameras, which it mounts on its surveillance vehicles. | ¶27 | col. 5:25-27 |
| ...collectively configured to capture, without a need for input from the operator, images of each of the license plates of the target vehicles regardless of whether the target vehicles are in a same lane as the surveillance vehicle, or in left or right adjacent lanes to that of the surveillance vehicle; and | The multi-camera system is alleged to scan license plates of target vehicles in multiple lanes of traffic without operator input. An instructional video is cited as showing capture at various angles and in adjacent lanes. | ¶28, ¶29 | col. 5:27-33 |
| at least one processor carried by the surveillance vehicle that continuously uses character recognition to determine the first and second license plate numbers, and to alert the operator...only upon discovering that there is a potential problem related to the first or second target vehicles, all without a need for input from the operator. | The system allegedly uses CDM software to perform OCR, continuously scans license plate data, compares it to a "hotlist" for vehicles targeted for repossession, and alerts the operator upon a match, all autonomously. | ¶31, ¶33, ¶34 | col. 5:34-40 |
’498 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing or operating the surveillance vehicle with a camera system disposed to capture license plate information on each of the target vehicles regardless of whether the target vehicles are in a same lane as the surveillance vehicle, or in left or right adjacent lanes...while the surveillance vehicle and the target vehicles are all moving; and | Defendant operates vehicles with DRN's two- or four-camera LPR package, which is alleged to capture plates from vehicles in multiple traffic lanes while moving at speeds up to 120 MPH. | ¶42, ¶43, ¶44 | col. 6:33-41 |
| providing or operating the surveillance vehicle with a computer programmed to use the license plate information to determine license plate numbers for each of the target vehicles, and alert an operator...only upon discovering that there is a potential problem related to one of the target vehicles, all without a need for input from the operator. | The system allegedly uses CDM software to continuously perform OCR on captured images, compares the numbers to a "hotlist," and alerts the affiliate of a "hit" without operator input. An infographic is cited showing this alert process. | ¶47, ¶48, ¶49, p.14 | col. 6:42-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise from the language "only upon discovering that there is a potential problem" in both the ’150 and ’498 patents. The question will be whether the accused system's alleged continuous scanning and OCR, followed by a selective alert upon a "hotlist" match, meets this limitation. Further, the complaint's reliance on the uncorrected language of claim 1 of the '150 Patent, which contains different conditional language, raises the question of whether the infringement theory is properly aligned with the enforceable patent claim (Compl. ¶31; ’150 Patent, Certificate of Correction).
- Technical Questions: For the ’870 Patent, infringement will depend on whether the preamble’s recitation of four specific vehicle locations is deemed limiting. If so, a key evidentiary question will be whether the accused system is "collectively configured" to capture images from all four positions (front, rear, left, and right) as part of its normal, autonomous operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "only upon discovering that there is a potential problem" ('150 Patent, Claim 1; '498 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the condition for the processor's action (in the '150 patent) or the alerting action (in the '498 patent). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a system that continuously scans and performs OCR on all visible plates, but only alerts the operator after finding a database match, infringes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the key inventive step is the autonomous alert and that the "only upon" clause modifies the alerting step, not the continuous background scanning. The patent emphasizes avoiding operator distraction, which supports a system that scans everything but only interrupts the operator when necessary (’150 Patent, col. 1:23-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the phrase requires the entire character recognition and determination process to be initiated "only upon" some pre-discovery of a problem, which could render the claim nonsensical or difficult to meet. The corrected language of '150 claim 1—"continuously uses character recognition... and to alert... only upon discovering"—may suggest that the alerting function is the sole action conditioned by the discovery of a problem.
The Term: "autonomously" (’150 Patent, Abstract; ’870 Patent, Claim 1) / "without a need for input from the operator" (’150 Patent, Claim 1; ’498 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This concept is the core of the asserted invention, distinguishing it from prior art that required manual triggering. The scope of this term is critical to determining the level of automation required to infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems where the operator must "trigger operation of the camera" for a specific target vehicle (’150 Patent, col. 1:35-37). This suggests "autonomous" primarily means the system does not require per-scan or per-vehicle input from the operator.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that any operator interaction, such as aiming the cameras, negates the autonomous nature. However, the specification states the system "can be turned on and off by the operator as desired," which suggests that high-level control does not defeat the autonomy of the core scanning and alerting process (’150 Patent, col. 4:39-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages and a finding that the case is exceptional (Compl. p. 32). However, the complaint does not allege specific facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the phrase "only upon discovering that there is a potential problem" be construed to read on a system that continuously performs OCR on all surrounding license plates but alerts the operator only when a plate number matches a pre-defined "hotlist"? The discrepancy between the complaint's quotation of claim 1 of the '150 patent and the official Certificate of Correction will likely be a significant focus of this dispute.
- A key evidentiary question for the ’870 patent will be the scope of the preamble: if the preamble's description of four distinct target vehicle locations is found to be a binding limitation, Plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that the accused system is "collectively configured" to capture plates from all four positions as part of its autonomous operation.