DCT
6:20-cv-00095
NavBlazer LLC v. LG Electronics Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NavBlazer, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Korea); LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00095, W.D. Tex., 02/07/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. having regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, including in Austin and Fort Worth.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Android-based mobile devices infringe patents related to systems and methods for providing users with navigation information, including travel routes and real-time road or traffic conditions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamic, network-assisted navigation systems that provide real-time information to a user's mobile device, a foundational feature of modern smartphone mapping applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the ’782 patent, the patent examiner found the claims patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against both patents-in-suit. These IPRs resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of the ’782 patent and a majority of the claims asserted from the ’136 patent, a development that substantially impacts the scope and viability of the litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-04 | Priority Date for U.S. Patents 9,075,136 and 9,885,782 |
| 2015-07-07 | U.S. Patent 9,075,136 Issue Date |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent 9,885,782 Issue Date |
| 2020-02-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782 - “VEHICLE OPERATOR AND/OR OCCUPANT INFORMATION APPARATUS AND METHOD,” Issued Feb. 6, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes the problem of increasing traffic congestion and the corresponding need for vehicle operators to have timely information about conditions along their travel routes and at their destinations (’136 Patent, col. 1:23-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus and method for providing a user with navigation and condition information. The system architecture, as shown in the parent patent, involves a vehicle computer, a central processing computer, and a network of remote location computers with video cameras, all communicating over a network like the Internet to provide real-time information to the user (’136 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:14-26).
- Technical Importance: At the time of the invention's priority date (1998), the concept of a networked system providing real-time, dynamic route and traffic information from remote sensors to a mobile device represented a significant step beyond static, map-based navigation systems (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 7 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A global positioning device for determining the apparatus or vehicle location.
- A processing device for determining a travel route to a destination based on location information.
- A display device or speaker for providing information regarding the travel route.
- A receiver for receiving traffic information or information regarding a traffic condition.
U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136 - “VEHICLE OPERATOR AND/OR OCCUPANT INFORMATION APPARATUS AND METHOD,” Issued Jul. 7, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as its continuation, the ’782 Patent: the need for vehicle operators to have real-time awareness of road and traffic conditions to navigate more efficiently (’136 Patent, col. 1:23-41).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is an apparatus that identifies a travel route, generates a message with route information, and transmits it to a communication device at the vehicle. The abstract highlights a key feature: the ability to automatically detect when a vehicle departs from a travel route and to identify a second, alternate route in response (’136 Patent, Abstract). The system relies on communication between a central computer and a vehicle computer (’136 Patent, col. 2:21-26).
- Technical Importance: The invention's focus on automatically detecting off-route events and dynamically rerouting was a key technical improvement for navigation systems of the era, moving toward the automated, responsive systems common today (’136 Patent, col. 4:32-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 55 and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶42).
- Independent Claim 55 requires:
- A global positioning device for determining the vehicle's position or location.
- A processing device for determining a travel route to a destination.
- A display device or speaker for providing information about the travel route.
- A receiver for receiving traffic information transmitted from a remote computer, transmitter, or device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses a wide range of LG mobile devices that utilize the Android operating system, identifying the "LG G8 ThinQ" as a representative example (Compl. ¶14, ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The infringement allegations focus on the functionality provided by the Google Maps application when running on the accused LG devices (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges the devices contain all the necessary hardware components to practice the claimed inventions: a GPS for location (A-GPS and S-GPS), a processor (Qualcomm Snapdragon 855) for route calculation, a display for showing the route, and a receiver for getting real-time data (Compl. ¶22, ¶26, ¶30, ¶33). The complaint presents a screenshot of the LG G8 ThinQ as an example of the accused mobile device apparatus (Compl. ¶21, Fig. 1). The devices are alleged to be sold and distributed throughout the United States (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent 9,885,782 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a global positioning device, wherein the global positioning device determines a location of the apparatus or a location of a vehicle; | The LG G8 ThinQ utilizes A-GPS and S-GPS for "Enhanced Location Accuracy" to determine its location. | ¶22-23 | col. 10:47-49 |
| a processing device for processing information regarding the location of the apparatus or the location of the vehicle and information regarding a destination, wherein the processing device determines or identifies a travel route... | The LG G8 ThinQ's Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 processor is used to process location and destination information via the Google Maps application to determine a travel route. | ¶26-28 | col. 9:1-5 |
| a display device or a speaker, wherein the display device displays information regarding the travel route or the speaker provides audio information regarding the travel route; | The device's display shows the calculated travel route, as depicted in a screenshot of the Google Maps navigation display. | ¶30, ¶32 | col. 9:25-34 |
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information or information regarding a traffic condition... | The device necessarily includes a receiver to obtain the "Real-time traffic updates" provided by the Google Maps application. | ¶33-34 | col. 9:5-9 |
U.S. Patent 9,075,136 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 55) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a global positioning device, wherein the global positioning device determines a position or a location of a vehicle; | The LG G8 ThinQ uses its A-GPS and S-GPS capabilities to determine the position of the device/vehicle. | ¶47-48 | col. 10:47-49 |
| a processing device, wherein the processing device processes information regarding the position or the location of the vehicle and information regarding a destination...and further wherein the processing device determines or identifies a travel route... | The device's Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 processor processes location and destination data within the Google Maps application to identify a route. | ¶51-53 | col. 9:1-5 |
| a display device or a speaker, wherein the display device displays information regarding the travel route or the speaker provides audio information regarding the travel route; | The device's display presents the travel route to the user, as shown in the provided Google Maps navigation mock-up. | ¶55, ¶57 | col. 9:25-34 |
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information...wherein the traffic information...is transmitted from a computer, a transmitter, or a device, located at a location remote from the vehicle. | The device's receiver obtains "Real-time traffic updates" from a remote source (i.e., Google's servers) for use in the Google Maps application. | ¶58-59 | col. 9:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by general-purpose smartphones. A potential issue is whether the term "apparatus", which is extensively described in the patent specifications in the context of a dedicated "vehicle computer" (’136 Patent, col. 2:14-20), can be construed to cover these devices.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the functionality of the Google Maps application. This raises the question of whether the accused LG device itself performs all claimed steps, or if essential steps like "determining... a travel route" are performed on remote Google servers. This may create a divided infringement issue for the plaintiff.
- Maintenance Information Scope: Dependent claims in both patents recite "maintenance information." The complaint alleges that Google Maps symbols for "road closures" and "construction" meet this limitation, supported by a screenshot of the Google Maps legend (Compl. ¶39, ¶64, Fig. 7). A point of contention may be whether this interpretation is supported by the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "apparatus"
- Context and Importance: The claims are directed to an "apparatus," while the specification frequently refers to a "vehicle computer" and vehicle-specific contexts. The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the patent's scope is limited to dedicated in-vehicle systems or can extend to general-purpose smartphones as alleged.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Asserted claim 1 of the ’782 patent recites determining "a location of the apparatus or a location of a vehicle," language which may suggest the two are not necessarily the same. The claims consistently use the general term "apparatus."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title is "VEHICLE OPERATOR... APPARATUS." The specification predominantly describes the invention in a vehicular context, mentioning a "vehicle computer" (’136 Patent, col. 2:14), a "head up display device" on a windshield (’136 Patent, col. 9:35-40), and an abstract that discusses detecting "a departure of the vehicle" (’136 Patent, Abstract).
The Term: "processing device... determines or identifies a travel route"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is central to a potential divided infringement defense. The key question is whether the accused smartphone's onboard processor performs this step, or if it merely acts as a terminal for a remote server that performs the computationally intensive route determination.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that from the user's perspective, the "apparatus" as a whole determines the route, and the claim language does not preclude the processor from working in concert with remote resources to achieve this outcome.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "apparatus" to comprise a "processing device" that itself "determines or identifies" the route. A defendant may argue that the specification's description of a system with both a "vehicle computer" and a "central processing computer" (’136 Patent, Fig. 1) suggests a distributed architecture where the claimed "apparatus" does not solely perform the determination step as required by the claim language.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe by "encouraging" customers to use the accused devices in an infringing manner and by providing technical support for their use (Compl. ¶18-19, ¶43-44).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the patents only from the date of service of the complaint, not pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶16, ¶41). Any claim for willful infringement would therefore be based on alleged post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue is one of claim viability: given that post-complaint inter partes review proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of the ’782 patent and most asserted claims of the ’136 patent, the fundamental question is what, if any, part of the original case remains for adjudication.
- For any surviving claims, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "apparatus", rooted in the specification's descriptions of a dedicated "vehicle computer", be construed to cover the accused general-purpose smartphones?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of locus of operation: does the accused LG phone’s onboard processor perform the claimed step of "determining or identifying a travel route", or is that function performed by remote Google servers, raising a potential divided infringement challenge?