DCT

6:20-cv-01011

Murolet, LLC v

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01011, W.D. Tex., 01/09/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Schindler Holding being a foreign defendant and Schindler Elevator Corporation having committed acts of infringement and maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s destination dispatch elevator control systems infringe five patents related to elevator group management, including technologies for limiting call assignments, optimizing passenger traffic, and managing group boarding.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns destination dispatch control systems, a technology that enhances efficiency in large buildings by allowing passengers to select their destination floor before entering an elevator, enabling a central controller to group passengers and assign cars for optimal traffic flow.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of the filing of the original complaint, which may form the basis for allegations of post-filing willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-03-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,172,044
2007-03-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,162,109
2007-05-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,286,755
2007-07-12 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,196,711
2008-05-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,316,997
2012-04-24 U.S. Patent No. 8162109 Issued
2012-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 8172044 Issued
2012-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 8196711 Issued
2012-10-16 U.S. Patent No. 8286755 Issued
2012-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 8316997 Issued
2023-01-09 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,162,109 - "Elevator system which limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to the single car"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional destination dispatch systems where an excessive number of elevator cars can be dispatched to a single floor to service destination calls, particularly during non-peak hours, which results in lowered overall travel efficiency (’109 Patent, col. 5:30-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a group supervisory control apparatus that sets a "limit value" for the number of destination calls originating from the same floor (in the same direction) that can be assigned to a single elevator car. The system counts new destination call registrations against this limit and, if the limit is exceeded, allocates subsequent calls to a different car (’109 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 5). The patent also discloses that this limit value can be set differently for "crowded floors" versus "general floors" to further optimize performance (’109 Patent, col. 6:6-12).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to prevent a single elevator car from becoming over-burdened with too many stops from one popular floor, thereby improving system-wide efficiency and balancing workloads across the elevator group (’109 Patent, col. 6:54-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A plurality of cars.
    • A plurality of landing destination operating panels for enabling destination call registration.
    • A group supervisory control apparatus for selecting a car in response to a call.
    • Setting a "limit value" in the apparatus for the number of destination call registrations for stop floors in the same direction from the same stop floor.
    • The apparatus "counts" the number of destination call registrations and "limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to a single car according to the limit value."

U.S. Patent No. 8,172,044 - "Elevator system"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that destination dispatch systems can experience a remarkable increase in processing load during peak busy hours, which may degrade performance (’044 Patent, col. 5:45-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system with a bifurcated control logic. It uses a "specially-assigned floor judgment section" to determine if a call originates from a high-traffic floor (e.g., a lobby). If it does, a "traffic condition judgment section" is used to perform a complex, dynamic assignment. If the call is not from a "specially-assigned floor," the system uses a simpler assignment method based on pre-stored "building specification" data. This dual-mode operation is designed to manage controller processing load while maintaining efficiency where it matters most (’044 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a strategy for managing computational resources in elevator control systems by applying complex, resource-intensive algorithms only where necessary (i.e., on high-traffic floors) and using simpler, less-intensive logic elsewhere.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A car call registration device.
    • A building specification data storage section storing data including "specially-assigned floors."
    • A "specially-assigned floor judgment section" to determine if a departure floor is specially-assigned.
    • A "traffic condition judgment section" to judge elevator traffic conditions.
    • An "assignment control section" that uses one of two different assignment methods: one based on the traffic condition judgment (for specially-assigned floors) and another based on the stored building specification (for non-specially-assigned floors).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,196,711

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,196,711, "Elevator system", issued June 12, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inaccuracies in predicting elevator arrival times when a car's maximum speed or acceleration changes based on its load or the distance of its trip. The invention calculates a change in the moving distance of a car after a new call is assigned and then recalculates the arrival prediction time using a speed or acceleration profile that corresponds to the new, updated travel plan ('711 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the PORT system infringes by calculating changes in moving distance and arrival prediction times based on call assignments and destination floors (Compl. ¶83).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,286,755

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,286,755, "Group management controller of elevator including limit value setting means for setting a limit value for limiting a count of car calls", issued October 16, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to prevent the concentration of too many car calls on a single elevator, which harms efficiency. The system sets a "limit value" for the number of calls that can be assigned to one car, obtains a "call count" for each car when a new call is made, and uses a "candidate car selecting means" to compare the count to the limit, thereby selecting an appropriate car from among those not exceeding the limit (’755 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the PORT system’s main controller software infringes by collecting passenger information, analyzing requests, gauging traffic, and having a "candidate car selecting means" to assign calls (Compl. ¶¶97-99).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,316,997

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,316,997, "Elevator group control system", issued November 27, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inconvenience for groups of people using an elevator, who traditionally had to manually confirm their party size for the system. The invention provides a "group boarding registering device" (e.g., a "group" button) and a "user head-count storage section" that stores a pre-determined or learned number of users for such group trips. The system then uses this stored head-count to determine car assignments ('997 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the PORT system’s functionality as a "group boarding device" and its use of a "head count storage section" to estimate passenger numbers and determine car assignments (Compl. ¶¶112-114).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's elevator systems, such as the Schindler 7000, that incorporate the "PORT destination control system" (Compl. ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The PORT system is a destination dispatch technology where passengers select their destination floor at a terminal in the elevator lobby—such as a "PORT pedestal" or "PORT wall-mounted" device—before entering a car (Compl. ¶50). A diagram in the complaint illustrates the system architecture, showing these lobby devices communicating with a main controller that manages the elevator group. (Compl. p. 11). The system’s group supervisory controller analyzes these requests and assigns an optimal elevator, directing the passenger to that specific car (Compl. ¶50). This technology is alleged to create a "seamless link to destination-dispatch technology" by grouping passengers traveling to similar floors, which reduces the number of intermediate stops and improves traffic flow (Compl. ¶¶50, 51). Another visual depicts this grouping functionality, showing how passengers are directed to specific cars to minimize stops. (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'109 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An elevator system comprising: a plurality of cars; Schindler provides an elevator system comprising a plurality of elevator cars. ¶48 col. 5:49-50
a plurality of landing destination operating panels provided to landings on a plurality of stop floors, each of the landing destination operating panels being for enabling a destination call registration; Schindler's systems use the PORT destination control system with "PORT pedestal and PORT wall-mounted devices" on landing floors for call registration. A visual shows these devices in a lobby setting. (Compl. p. 11). ¶¶49, 50 col. 5:50-54
and a group supervisory control apparatus for selecting the car responding to the destination call registration... The "PORT destination operating system is a group supervisory control apparatus for selecting the car responding to the destination call registration." ¶50 col. 5:54-58
wherein a limit value of the number of destination call registrations for the stop floors existing in the same direction from the same stop floor is set in the group supervisory control apparatus for each of the stop floors, and The PORT system "can limit and organize the number of destination call registrations by grouping both passengers and stops existing in the same direction." ¶51 col. 5:58-63
the group supervisory control apparatus counts the number of destination call registrations...and limits the number of destination call registrations to be allocated to a single car according to the limit value... The PORT system "can count the number of destination call registrations" and "groups the destination call registrations to a single car based on the request that it receives, reducing the number of stops the elevator car has to make." ¶52 col. 6:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the PORT system's method of "grouping" and "organizing" calls (Compl. ¶51) constitutes "setting a limit value" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that its dynamic, algorithm-based optimization does not use a fixed, pre-set "limit value" in the manner described by the patent's flowchart, which shows a direct comparison of a count to a value 'N' (’109 Patent, FIG. 5).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system "can count" and "can limit" registrations. A factual question will be what evidence supports the assertion that the PORT system performs these specific steps of counting registrations from a single floor and comparing that count to a set limit, as opposed to using a more holistic cost-function algorithm to achieve an efficient outcome that indirectly limits stops.

'044 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a car call registration device by use of which an elevator user registers a car call before riding on a car; The PORT system acts as a car call registration device, using "PORT pedestals and PORT wall-mounted devices" for passengers to register requests. ¶64 col. 5:64-67
a building specification data storage section in which building specification data including specially-assigned floors is stored; The PORT system has a "building specification data storage section in which building specification data is stored." ¶65 col. 6:2-5
a specially-assigned floor judgment section that makes a judgment as to whether or not a departure floor is a specially-assigned floor...; The PORT system has a "floor judgment section that makes a judgment as to whether or not a departure floor is a specially-assigned floor." ¶66 col. 6:5-8
a traffic condition judgment section that judges the traffic condition of elevators within a building; and The PORT system has a "traffic condition judgment section that constantly tracks traffic flow and intensity, identifying journey patterns and peak periods, to respond to passenger demand." ¶67 col. 6:9-11
an assignment control section that performs assignment of the car on the basis of judgment results of the traffic condition judgment section when it is judged... that the departure floor is a specially-assigned floor, and performs assignment of the car on the basis of a building specification... when it is judged... that the departure floor is not a specially-assigned floor. The PORT system has an "assignment control section that performs assignment of the car on the basis of results of the traffic condition judgment section." The complaint does not explicitly allege the second, alternative assignment path based on building specification alone for non-specially-assigned floors. ¶68 col. 6:11-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the PORT system's control logic employs the specific two-track, conditional structure mandated by the claim. The complaint alleges the existence of the component parts (e.g., traffic judgment section) but only maps to one of the two required logical paths for assignment.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system uses a bifurcated assignment algorithm ("if special floor, then Method A; else, Method B") rather than a single, unified algorithm that simply weighs inputs like floor type and traffic conditions differently? The complaint's allegations may not fully capture the operational reality of the accused software.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "limit value" (from '109 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the '109 patent hinges on this term. Its construction will determine whether a dynamic, algorithmically-derived constraint can meet a limitation that, in the patent, appears to be a pre-set numerical cap. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the PORT system "can limit" calls, while the patent specification depicts a more rigid process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify how the limit value must be set or that it must be a static number, only that one "is set." A party could argue this covers any constraint, fixed or dynamic, that has the function of limiting call allocations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart (FIG. 5) illustrates the process as counting registrations (D) and comparing them to a limit value (N) in a direct "D>N?" step (’109 Patent, FIG. 5, S5). This suggests "limit value" is a specific numerical threshold against which a running count is compared, supporting a narrower definition that may not read on a flexible optimization algorithm.
  • Term: "specially-assigned floor" (from '044 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the switch that dictates which of the two claimed assignment methods is used. The entire logic of Claim 1 depends on its meaning. Whether the PORT system's handling of different floors constitutes infringement will depend on how this term is defined.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not define the term, which could support an argument that any floor treated differently by the control algorithm for any reason is "specially-assigned."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of what may constitute a specially-assigned floor, such as "a main floor that provides an entrance," a "VIP floor," or floors with cafeterias that are "crowded only during specific times" (’044 Patent, col. 4:1-8). This suggests the term refers to floors designated based on their function or known, scheduled traffic patterns, not merely floors that happen to have high traffic at a given moment.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents, asserting that Schindler provides "operation materials, user guides, and instructions" that encourage and instruct customers on how to use the accused PORT technology in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 55, 71, 86, 102, 117).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents "at least as early as the filing and service of the Complaint in this action" and its continued infringement thereafter (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 54, 59, 70, 75). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

  • A core issue will be one of algorithmic equivalence: Can the patents’ claims, which describe control systems using more straightforward, rule-based logic (e.g., "count and compare to a limit," "if-then logic for special floors"), be proven to read on the accused PORT system, which likely employs a modern, dynamic, and holistic optimization algorithm to manage traffic? The case may turn on whether the effect of the PORT algorithm is legally equivalent to the specific methods recited in the claims.
  • A second central question is one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely focus on the construction of key terms such as "limit value" ('109 Patent) and "specially-assigned floor" ('044 Patent). Can these terms, which are described with specific embodiments and examples in the patents, be interpreted broadly enough to encompass the features of a sophisticated, modern control system, or will they be narrowed to their specific disclosures, potentially creating a path for non-infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: For patents like the '044, discovery will be critical to determine if the accused software architecture actually contains the bifurcated control logic required by the claims. The plaintiff will need to show not just that the system considers traffic conditions and floor types, but that it does so through the specific two-track assignment process claimed in the patent.