Boxey Tech LLC v. N

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Boxey Tech LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00586, W.D. Tex., 06/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and employs personnel within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s micromobility services and associated software infringe patents related to methods for computing navigational paths between geographical locations based on landmark popularity.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to digital navigation systems that generate routes using recognizable landmarks rather than traditional turn-by-turn street directions, aiming to provide more intuitive guidance for users, particularly in areas with unnamed streets.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a family of applications claiming priority to a 2011 Indian patent application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to these patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,560,238 - "Computing paths between geographical localities," Issued October 15, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in conventional navigation services that provide turn-by-turn directions based on street names. This approach is described as unsuitable for users in areas where streets may be unnamed or for people who do not typically navigate using street names, distances, and turns (’238 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that computes travel paths using "geographical localities," such as landmarks, neighborhoods, and parks, instead of or in addition to street names (’238 Patent, col. 3:5-8). The system calculates a "popularity rating" for these localities and, when multiple routes to a destination exist, selects a path that transits through more popular (and thus more easily recognizable) intermediate points (’238 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-34). Figure 1A illustrates this concept using a graph where localities (nodes) have different sizes to represent varying popularity ratings (’238 Patent, Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the generation of more intuitive, landmark-based directions, which can be easier for travelers to follow, especially when asking locals for directions in an unfamiliar area (’238 Patent, col. 3:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted from the patents-in-suit, instead referring to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶10). However, the patent's summary and figures describe a core method reflected in independent method claim 14, which includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving identifications of four or more geographical localities, at least one of which is identifiable by a name or region but not a postal street address.
  • Receiving a set of connections indicating paths between a subset of these localities.
  • Identifying a popularity rating for a first locality that exceeds the popularity rating for a second locality.
  • Receiving a request for directions from a second to a third geographical locality.
  • Determining that at least two paths exist, where a first path includes the more popular first locality and a second path includes a less popular fourth locality.
  • Identifying the first path as preferable because the popularity rating of the first locality exceeds that of the fourth locality.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,731,833 - "Computing paths between geographical localities," Issued May 20, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’238 Patent, the ’833 Patent addresses the same problem: the limitations of traditional turn-by-turn navigation in certain geographical and cultural contexts (’833 Patent, col. 1:29-36).
• The Patented Solution: The ’833 Patent also describes computing paths based on the popularity of intermediate localities. It further details a method for determining these popularity ratings through a "crowd-sourcing" approach, such as by programmatically analyzing content from websites, social networks, and news sources to identify mentions of specific localities (’238 Patent, col. 3:35-44, which is incorporated by reference into the ’833 patent).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a dynamic method for assessing landmark popularity, allowing the navigation system to adapt its recommendations as the public's perception of landmarks changes over time (’238 Patent, col. 3:44-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted from the patent. Independent method claim 9 is representative of the "crowd-sourcing" aspect of the invention and includes the following essential elements:
  • For a plurality of websites, sending a request for content.
  • Receiving the website content.
  • By a processor, determining geographical localities identified in the received content.
  • For at least one determined locality, adjusting its popularity rating.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by a specific product name. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Products" and states they are identified in charts within an external exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶4). The defendant is Neutron Holdings, Inc., which operates under the name Lime.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the features or technical operation of the accused products. The allegations are limited to conclusory statements that the "Exemplary Products practice the technology claimed by the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶10). No details are provided regarding the products' market position or commercial significance.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement but bases its technical allegations entirely on claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was incorporated by reference but not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint contains no narrative explanation of how the accused Lime services allegedly meet the limitations of any patent claim. Consequently, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations or the identification of specific points of contention is not possible from the provided documents. The core infringement theory remains unspecified.

A primary question for the court will be whether the plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused Lime service, which provides routes for short-distance scooter and bike travel, implements the specific multi-step method of path selection based on crowd-sourced "popularity ratings" as claimed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not specify the asserted claims, the following analysis is based on terms from the representative independent claims identified in Section II.

Term: "geographical locality" (’238 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental building block of the claimed navigation method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the points used in the accused system's routing (e.g., street intersections, charging stations, designated parking areas) fall within the patent's definition of a "geographical locality". Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim requires at least one such locality to be identifiable by name but not by a postal address (’238 Patent, col. 12:15-19).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list: "Examples of geographical localities are landmarks, neighborhoods, stores, intersections, religious locations and artifacts, etc." (’238 Patent, col. 3:6-8). This broad language may support an interpretation that includes a wide variety of points of interest.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background emphasizes navigation without street names, and the specification gives examples like "a pillar in the middle of the road, a flyover intersection... or a park" (’238 Patent, col. 3:16-19). A party could argue this context limits the term to prominent, non-addressable landmarks rather than any map coordinate.

Term: "adjusting a popularity rating" (’833 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the "crowd-sourcing" aspect of the invention. The case may turn on whether the accused system's method for ranking or scoring locations, if any, constitutes "adjusting a popularity rating" based on website content as the patent describes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that popularity "can be computed using various means" including "regularly scanning informational sources, e.g., Internet websites" (’238 Patent, col. 3:35-39). This suggests the term could cover any algorithm that modifies a location's score based on web-derived data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patents depicts a specific process where, upon finding a locality in web content, a "count" is "increment[ed]" (’238 Patent, Fig. 6, element 612). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term to a specific implementation, such as a simple frequency count, as opposed to more complex weighting or ranking algorithms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement by asserting that Defendant provides its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶7-8). It alleges contributory infringement by claiming the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶9).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the patents via the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶6-7). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational transparency: Given the lack of technical detail in the complaint, the case will depend heavily on whether discovery reveals that Lime’s routing algorithms actually perform the specific steps of calculating, comparing, and selecting paths based on a "popularity rating" metric derived from external web content, as the patents claim.
2. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "geographical locality," which the patent illustrates with examples like landmarks and parks, be construed to cover the types of nodes (e.g., intersections, drop-off zones) used in a modern micromobility routing system, particularly given the claim requirement that one such locality lacks a postal address?
3. The dispute may ultimately hinge on a question of functional purpose: Does the accused Lime system’s method for route suggestion—which may be optimized for factors like speed, elevation, or bike lane availability—infringe the patents’ distinct method of optimizing for path intuitiveness based on the "popularity" of intermediate waypoints, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical function?