DCT

6:22-cv-00474

Auto Telematics Ltd v. United Services Automobile Association

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00474, W.D. Tex., 08/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant USAA maintains a principal place of business and a permanent physical presence in San Antonio, Texas, within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ usage-based insurance applications, USAA SafePilot and the Noblr App, infringe four patents related to using a mobile device’s built-in sensors to monitor and log vehicle behavior.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of vehicle telematics for usage-based insurance (UBI), a system where insurance premiums are influenced by real-time data on a driver's behavior.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are part of a family, with the later patents being continuations of the earlier ones, all claiming priority to a 2010 British patent application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-12-15 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2016-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,311,271 Issues
2017-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487 Issues
2019-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,192,369 Issues
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,198,879 Issues
2019-10-23 Noblr announces its Texas launch
2021-06-01 USAA acquires Noblr (approximate date)
2023-08-04 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,311,271 - “Method and System for Logging Vehicle Behavior”

  • Issued: April 12, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that traditional data logging devices for road vehicles ("black boxes") can be difficult and costly to install and retrofit, limiting their adoption compared to similar devices in aircraft (’271 Patent, col. 1:47-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a generic, portable mobile telecommunications device, such as a smartphone already owned by the driver, equipped with a specialized application to perform the data logging functions (’271 Patent, col. 2:11-26). The application uses the device’s own sensors (e.g., accelerometer, GPS) to register the start of a driving period, process sensor data to derive driving information, and store that information in memory (’271 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach leverages ubiquitous consumer electronics to provide vehicle data logging functionality without the need for specialized, professionally installed hardware (’271 Patent, col. 2:22-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6 (Compl. ¶117).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Registering the start of a driving period during which the mobile device is installed to the vehicle and the vehicle is being driven by a driver;
    • Processing sensor data from the sensor set during the driving period to derive driving information associated with how the vehicle is driven; and
    • Storing a selection of the driving information to the memory.
  • Independent Claim 6 (System):
    • A data-logging system for logging driving information;
    • Comprising a database for storing a plurality of accounts, each with a unique identifier;
    • A communications interface arranged to communicate with a remote mobile device and receive driving information to be logged to a corresponding account.

U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487 - “Method and System for Logging Vehicle Behavior”

  • Issued: April 25, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’271 Patent: the expense and difficulty of retrofitting dedicated "black box" data loggers to road vehicles (’487 Patent, col. 1:45-57).
  • The Patented Solution: Like the parent ’271 Patent, the invention uses an application on a generic mobile device with its own sensors to log driving behavior (’487 Patent, col. 2:11-24). This patent places additional focus on using the system to detect the occurrence of a predetermined event, such as a crash, and taking a predetermined action in response (’487 Patent, col. 5:11-16; col. 6:40-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology adds an automated event detection and response capability to the mobile-device-as-datalogger concept, enabling actions like automatically notifying emergency services or protecting data associated with a crash (’487 Patent, col. 6:40-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶126).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Registering the start of a driving period;
    • Processing sensor data from the sensor set during the driving period to derive driving information;
    • Storing a selection of the driving information to the memory;
    • Detecting the occurrence of a predetermined event of significance; and
    • In response, taking at least one predetermined action.

U.S. Patent No. 10,192,369 - “Method and System for Logging Vehicle Behaviour”

  • Issued: January 29, 2019

Technology Synopsis

This patent, a continuation of the ’487 Patent, describes a mobile telecommunications device configured to log driving information. The claims focus on the memory architecture, requiring both a long-term memory for persistent storage and a short-term memory for transiently storing data at a higher update rate, with the short-term data being overwritten in a predetermined sequence (’369 Patent, col. 31:63-col. 32:12). This allows for a "rolling loop" of high-resolution data that can be transferred to permanent storage upon detection of an event.

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶133).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the SafePilot and Noblr Apps use a customer's mobile device and configure it to log driving information associated with a vehicle (Compl. ¶¶134, 136).

U.S. Patent No. 10,198,879 - “Method and System for Logging Vehicle Behaviour”

  • Issued: February 5, 2019

Technology Synopsis

Also a continuation of the ’487 Patent, this patent describes methods and systems for logging vehicle behavior using a mobile device's sensors. The asserted claims include a method claim similar to those in prior patents and a non-transitory computer readable medium claim (i.e., a software claim) where instructions are stored that, when executed, cause the mobile device to perform the logging method (’879 Patent, col. 33:20-col. 34:6).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claims 1 and 21 are asserted (Compl. ¶140).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the SafePilot and Noblr Apps perform the claimed method of logging driving information and constitute the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium (Compl. ¶¶141-142, 144-145).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the USAA SafePilot program and application ("SafePilot App") and the Noblr program and application ("Noblr App"), which is also marketed as the USAA Pay As You Drive application (Compl. ¶¶78, 90).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Both the SafePilot App and Noblr App are mobile applications for iOS and Android devices that use the phone’s built-in sensors, including GPS and accelerometers, to monitor driving behavior (Compl. ¶81, ¶98). The complaint alleges the apps automatically log trips without requiring user initiation and collect data on location, time of day, phone handling, hand-held vs. hands-free calling, harsh braking, and mileage (Compl. ¶¶80, 82, 101). A screenshot in the complaint shows that the SafePilot app advertises "Automatic and Smart Trip Logging" using the phone's GPS and built-in sensors (Compl. ¶81).
  • This collected data is used to calculate a "driving score," which in turn is used to determine a user's discount on their USAA auto insurance policy (Compl. ¶¶82, 83, 103). The complaint also states that the SafePilot app includes a "Crash Detection" feature that uses the device's sensors to identify a potential collision and provide options for contacting 911 or filing a claim (Compl. ¶84).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external claim chart exhibits that were not provided. Therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

'271 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that the SafePilot and Noblr Apps infringe method claim 1 by configuring a customer's mobile device to perform the claimed steps of logging driving information (Compl. ¶¶118, 121). Specifically, it alleges the apps use the device's sensors to register a driving period, process data from those sensors, and store the resulting driving information. The complaint further alleges infringement of system claim 6, asserting that USAA and Noblr maintain a back-end data-logging system that receives and logs the driving information transmitted from its customers' mobile devices running the apps (Compl. ¶¶119, 122).

'487 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that the accused apps infringe method claim 1 by performing the core logging steps and by including features that meet the "event detection" and "predetermined action" limitations (Compl. ¶¶127, 129). The complaint's description of the SafePilot App's "Crash Detection" feature, which uses device sensors to "identify a potential collision" and then sends a push notification to the user with options for filing a claim, may form the basis for this allegation (Compl. ¶84). The complaint includes a screenshot illustrating the app's "Crash Detection" pop-up notification asking, "Were you in an accident?" (Compl. ¶81).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"register the start of a driving period"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the asserted method claims depends on whether the accused apps perform this step. The complaint alleges the apps "automatically log and score your trips" without user initiation (Compl. ¶80), raising the question of what constitutes "registering" a start. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the continuous, passive monitoring performed by the apps meets the more discrete action implied by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the start can be triggered automatically "in response to the sensor data having predetermined values," such as speed exceeding a 20 kph threshold, which could support an interpretation covering the accused apps' automatic logging function (’271 Patent, col. 3:39-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes registering the start "in response to an initialisation input," which can be a manual user input or an automatic trigger (’271 Patent, col. 3:32-34). A defendant may argue this language requires a distinct, one-time "input" event, rather than the continuous background monitoring and trip segmentation allegedly performed by the accused apps.

"predetermined event of significance"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’487 Patent. The complaint highlights the accused "Crash Detection" feature (Compl. ¶84). The parties will likely dispute whether the events detected by this feature (e.g., a "sudden stop") qualify as a "predetermined event of significance" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides "(such as a crash)" as an example, but does not limit the term to only crashes, leaving the scope open to other significant occurrences (’487 Patent, col. 5:12-13). The specification also discusses detecting events by correlating sensor data against an "event indication model," which could encompass various types of incidents beyond a severe collision (’487 Patent, col. 5:30-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context surrounding the term repeatedly emphasizes serious events, such as a "serious crash" where accelerometer data exceeds thresholds representing "a sustained vehicle deceleration beyond a threshold level" (’487 Patent, col. 5:40-45). This could support an argument that the term is limited to high-impact events and does not cover the "potential collision" or "sudden stop" that the accused apps may detect (Compl. ¶81, ¶84).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused apps' function of "automatically log[ging] and scor[ing] your trips" in the background (Compl. ¶80) meet the claim requirement to "register the start of a driving period," or does the patent's disclosure of an "initialisation input" require a more discrete triggering event that is absent in the accused systems?
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope for the ’487 Patent: Can the "Crash Detection" feature, which identifies a "potential collision" or "sudden stop" (Compl. ¶81, ¶84), be construed as detecting a "predetermined event of significance," a term the patent specification often associates with serious crashes involving high deceleration?
  • A third central question will be evidentiary: How do the data storage and overwriting architectures of the SafePilot and Noblr apps actually function, and do they map onto the "short term memory" and "long term memory" structures recited in claims of the later patents, such as Claim 1 of the ’369 Patent? The complaint provides high-level allegations but lacks the technical detail needed to resolve this question.