DCT
6:20-cv-00095
NavBlazer LLC v. LG Electronics Inc
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: NavBlazer, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00095, W.D. Tex., 06/23/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. maintaining regular and established places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Android-based mobile devices infringe patents related to systems and methods for providing vehicle operators with navigation and real-time route information.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns real-time, dynamic navigation for mobile devices, a foundational feature of the modern smartphone market that has largely replaced dedicated GPS units.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the '782 patent, the USPTO examiner considered patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of Alice and found the claims to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter. However, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent inter partes review (IPR) at the USPTO. All claims of the '782 patent were cancelled in IPRs IPR2020-00983 and IPR2021-00504. The asserted claims of the '136 patent (Claims 55 and 61) were cancelled in IPR2021-00503. These cancellations bear significantly on the viability of the case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-04 | Priority Date for ’136 and ’782 Patents |
| 2015-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136 Issued |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782 Issued |
| 2020-06-23 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2022-03-11 | IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All '782 Patent Claims |
| 2022-11-08 | IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Asserted '136 Patent Claims |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,885,782, “VEHICLE OPERATOR AND/OR OCCUPANT INFORMATION APPARATUS AND METHOD,” Issued February 6, 2018.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the need for vehicle operators to have real-time information regarding traffic, road conditions, and other factors to navigate more efficiently and avoid congestion (’136 Patent, col. 1:24-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus, such as a mobile device, that integrates several key functions. It uses a global positioning device to find its location, a processing device to calculate a travel route, a receiver to obtain real-time data like traffic conditions from a remote source, and a display or speaker to present this navigation information to the user (’782 Patent, Abstract; ’136 Patent, col. 2:15-20).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a move from static, map-based navigation to dynamic, data-driven routing that can adapt to changing conditions in the physical world (’136 Patent, col. 4:54-65).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶17, ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A global positioning device for determining location.
- A processing device for determining a travel route to a destination.
- A display device or speaker for providing route information.
- A receiver for receiving traffic information from a remote source and providing it to the user.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,075,136, “VEHICLE OPERATOR AND/OR OCCUPANT INFORMATION APPARATUS AND METHOD,” Issued July 7, 2015.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As with its continuation, the '782 patent, this invention seeks to provide drivers with real-time information to better plan their travel and avoid congested routes (’136 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system comprising both a device in the vehicle and a remote central processing computer. The central computer can identify a travel route, transmit it to the vehicle, and then automatically detect when the vehicle has departed from that route. Upon detecting a departure, the central system identifies a second, new route and transmits it to the vehicle (’136 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This architecture outlines a client-server model for navigation, where a central system performs the computationally intensive tasks of route calculation and real-time rerouting, a concept foundational to modern cloud-based mapping services (’136 Patent, col. 2:21-28).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 55 and dependent Claim 61 (Compl. ¶39).
- Independent Claim 55 is an apparatus claim that requires:
- A global positioning device for determining location.
- A processing device for determining a travel route.
- A display or speaker for providing route information.
- A receiver for receiving traffic information from a remote source.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint names a wide range of LG mobile devices that utilize the Android operating system, with the “LG G8 ThinQ” identified as a representative example (Compl. ¶14, ¶18).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the accused devices contain all the necessary hardware for infringement, including GPS receivers (A-GPS and S-GPS), processors (e.g., Qualcomm Snapdragon 855), displays, speakers, and wireless receivers (Compl. ¶19, ¶24, ¶27, ¶30). The complaint cites a specification sheet for the LG G8 ThinQ, which lists "A-GPS, S-GPS, and Qualcomm® Service for Enhanced Location Accuracy" under its connectivity features (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 2).
- The infringement theory relies heavily on the functionality of the Google Maps application, which the complaint alleges is included with the LG G8 ThinQ (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that this application, when run on the accused devices, performs the patented methods of determining routes and providing real-time traffic and maintenance information (Compl. ¶23, ¶31, ¶36).
- The complaint does not detail the products’ market positioning beyond identifying LG as a global manufacturer and distributor of wireless mobile devices (Compl. ¶2, ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'782 Patent 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," which necessarily requires a GPS device to determine the apparatus's location. | ¶19-20 | col. 3:20-23 |
| a processing device, wherein the processing device processes 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 uses its Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Octo-core processor to run the Google Maps application, which calculates a travel route to a destination. | ¶23-25 | col. 10:50-58 |
| 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 LG G8 ThinQ has a display and speaker that Google Maps uses to present visual and audio navigation information, as shown in a mock-up display. (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 4) | ¶27-29 | col. 2:5-6 |
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information or information regarding a traffic condition ... transmitted from a computer, a transmitter, or a device, located at a location remote from the vehicle... | The Google Maps application on the LG G8 ThinQ receives "Real-time traffic updates," which requires a receiver to obtain this remotely transmitted data. | ¶30-32 | col. 4:54-58 |
'136 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 55) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus, comprising: a global positioning device, wherein the global positioning device determines a position or a location of a vehicle; | The LG G8 ThinQ uses A-GPS and S-GPS technology to determine the location of the device. | ¶40-42 | col. 3:20-23 |
| 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 processor runs the Google Maps application to process location and destination information to determine a travel route. | ¶45-48 | col. 10:50-58 |
| a display device or a speaker, wherein the display device displays information regarding the travel route...; | The device's display shows the calculated travel route via the Google Maps interface. A screenshot shows a map with a blue line identifying the route. (Compl. p. 18, Fig. 4) | ¶49-51 | col. 2:5-6 |
| a receiver, wherein the receiver receives traffic information ... transmitted from a computer, a transmitter, or a device, located at a location remote from the vehicle... | The device necessarily includes a receiver to obtain the "Real-time traffic updates" provided by the Google Maps application. | ¶52-54 | col. 4:54-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 55 of the ’136 patent reads very similarly to Claim 1 of the ’782 patent, describing a device-centric system. This raises the question of whether its scope should be limited by the ’136 patent's specification, which heavily emphasizes a centralized server that detects route departure and transmits a new route, a limitation absent from Claim 55 itself. A defendant may argue that the claim should be interpreted in light of these repeated descriptions in the specification.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory for both patents relies on the functionality of the Google Maps application. A key question is whether the act of manufacturing and selling a device with a third-party application pre-installed is sufficient to establish direct infringement by LG for all functions of that application. The complaint frequently alleges that the device "must necessarily include" certain components (e.g., a receiver) to support the app's functions, a logical inference that may require specific factual evidence to prove in court (Compl. ¶31).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "apparatus" (Independent Claims 1 of '782 and 55 of '136)
- Context and Importance: Both patents are titled "VEHICLE OPERATOR... APPARATUS AND METHOD." The infringement case depends on this term being construed to cover a general-purpose smartphone, which is not exclusively used in a vehicle. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the claims to vehicle-specific devices or extend them to the broader smartphone market.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use disjunctive language, such as "determines a location of the apparatus or a location of a vehicle" (’782 Patent, Claim 1), suggesting the two are not coextensive. The specification also contemplates the use of a "personal computer" to access the system's information, broadening the context beyond an integrated vehicle system (’136 Patent, col. 4:45-50).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title, abstract, and background section repeatedly frame the invention in the context of a "vehicle" (’136 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:24-25). The specification also describes an embodiment where the "vehicle computer" is mounted in the vehicle's dashboard or console, suggesting a more integrated, vehicle-specific device (’136 Patent, col. 2:18-20).
The Term: "maintenance information" (Dependent Claims 7 of '782 and 61 of '136)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement allegations against dependent claims. The complaint alleges that symbols for "road closures" and "construction" in Google Maps constitute "maintenance information" (Compl. ¶36, ¶58). The complaint supports this by referencing a Google support page explaining these symbols (Compl. p. 14, Fig. 7). The viability of these claims hinges on whether these common mapping features fit the claim term's definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not explicitly define the term, leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could plausibly include information about road upkeep, closures, or construction activities.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifications do not provide specific examples or an explicit definition of "maintenance information". A defendant may argue that this lack of specific disclosure renders the term indefinite or requires it to be construed narrowly, potentially excluding the general "road closure" icons shown in the complaint's exhibits.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement liability but does not dedicate a separate count to it or plead specific facts supporting the requisite knowledge and intent beyond the general sale and distribution of the accused devices (Compl. ¶6).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' notice of the patents "at least as early as the date [they] received service of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶38). The allegations are based on post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The disposition of this case appears to be overwhelmingly influenced by post-filing procedural events. The central questions are therefore:
Mootness and Preclusion: A dispositive issue is the legal effect of the USPTO's cancellation of all asserted claims from both patents-in-suit via inter partes review. With no valid claims remaining to be asserted, the question for the court will be whether the entire infringement case is moot, precluding any recovery for past damages.
Claim Scope (Hypothetical): Assuming the claims had survived IPR, a core issue would have been one of definitional scope: can the term "apparatus", derived from patents focused on "vehicle" systems, be construed broadly enough to cover general-purpose smartphones used in any context, or is its meaning limited by the specification's vehicular focus?
Liability for Third-Party Software (Hypothetical): An essential evidentiary question would have been one of causation and control: does a manufacturer's act of selling a device with a third-party application (Google Maps) pre-installed suffice for direct infringement liability, or would the plaintiff need to prove the specific elements of indirect infringement, for which the complaint offers minimal factual support?