DCT
6:22-cv-01018
Backertop Licensing LLC v. Lightspeed Solutions LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Backertop Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Lightspeed Solutions, LLC (d.b.a. Lightspeed Systems) (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fresh IP, PLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01018, W.D. Tex., 09/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile device management software infringes a patent related to controlling mobile application access based on the device's presence within a defined physical location.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using local wireless networks to enforce usage policies on mobile devices, a functionality relevant to educational institutions and enterprises seeking to manage device use in specific environments like a campus or office.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 Priority Date |
| 2016-05-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 Issue Date |
| 2022-09-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 - "Selectively Providing Content to Users Located Within a Virtual Perimeter"
- Issued: May 3, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to control the functionality of mobile devices within a specific, physically defined area. While the background section notes the general trend of users preferring mobile applications over web browsers ('385 Patent, col. 1:11-28), the summary frames the technical problem as creating a conditional network access system based on location-contingent application control ('385 Patent, col. 1:30-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that uses local wireless "beacons" to identify a mobile device's presence within a "virtual perimeter" ('385 Patent, Fig. 1). When a device enters this area, the system sends a message commanding it to disable at least one specific application. Only after the system receives a response from the mobile device confirming the application has been disabled does it authorize the device to connect to the local network ('385 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This creates a "quid pro quo" where network access is granted in exchange for compliance with local application policies.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for organizations to enforce policies (e.g., security, productivity, or safety) by tying network connectivity, a critical resource, directly to the user's agreement to disable certain device functions ('385 Patent, col. 9:20-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 8 (a system).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Identifying a mobile device's present physical location based on wireless communication with at least one beacon.
- Communicating a message to the device, specifying at least one application to be disabled while the device is at that location.
- In response to receiving a message from the device indicating the application is disabled, authorizing the device to establish presence on a network maintained for that location.
- Independent Claim 8 (System):
- A processor programmed to perform operations that mirror the three steps of the method in Claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "cloud based software systems and services," identified as "Lightspeed Systems" and more specifically, "Lightspeed Mobile Device Management" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a Mobile Device Management (MDM) system used to apply policies to mobile devices, such as those used by students in an educational setting (Compl. ¶12). The system allegedly uses "at least one campus WiFi access point" to determine if a device is at a specific physical location (i.g., "on campus") (Compl. ¶12).
- Based on this location determination, the system configures policies that can disable certain applications or restrict web content (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user interface for configuring an "On-Campus Policy" to apply "Restrictions" to devices (Compl. p. 5). A separate screenshot shows settings for configuring how a device connects to a wireless network, including an "Auto-join" feature (Compl. p. 5). The system's alleged purpose is to allow administrators to "securely manage devices, applications, and policies with real-time visibility and reporting" (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'385 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| based on wireless communication between a mobile device and at least one beacon, identifying a present physical location of a mobile device; | The Lightspeed system identifies a device's location ("on campus") based on its wireless communication with a "campus WiFi access point." | ¶12, 19 | col. 1:30-33 |
| responsive to determining that the mobile device is located at a particular physical location, communicating to the mobile device at least a first message, the first message specifying at least one application to be disabled while the mobile device is present at the physical location; | The system communicates a policy message to the mobile device that restricts or disables certain applications and websites while the device is on campus. A screenshot shows a UI for setting such restrictions. | ¶13, 22, p. 5 | col. 1:35-39 |
| responsive to receiving from the mobile device a response to the first message indicating that the at least one application is disabled, authorizing, using a processor, the mobile device to establish presence on a network maintained for the physical location. | The device allegedly acknowledges the policy, which is required for network access, and is then authorized to join the campus network. A screenshot shows an "Auto-join" setting for the wireless network. | ¶15, 23, 24, p. 5 | col. 1:39-43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent claims a "beacon," and its primary embodiment describes a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) device ('385 Patent, col. 3:62-65). The complaint alleges that a "campus WiFi access point" performs the function of the claimed "beacon" (Compl. ¶12). This raises the question of whether the term "beacon," in the context of the patent, can be construed broadly enough to read on a standard WiFi access point.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific causal sequence: a response indicating disablement must be received before network access is authorized. The complaint alleges that "acknowledging the policy based configuration...is required for access" (Compl. ¶15). What evidence demonstrates that the accused system waits for a confirmation of a disabled state before granting network presence, as opposed to simply pushing a policy profile and allowing connection based on other criteria? The presence of an "Auto-join" feature in a settings screenshot could suggest that the authorization step is not necessarily conditioned on a response in the manner claimed (Compl. p. 5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "beacon"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to infringement, as the accused system allegedly uses WiFi access points for location detection (Compl. ¶12), whereas the patent's detailed description emphasizes BLE beacons ('385 Patent, col. 3:62-65). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a WiFi access point constitutes a "beacon."
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "beacon." The related term "virtual perimeter" is defined broadly as a physical region where presence "is detected via one or more electronic devices or systems" ('385 Patent, col. 2:44-48), language that may support construing "beacon" as any wireless device used for location detection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only detailed example of a beacon is a "Bluetooth® low-energy (BLE) transmitter or transceiver" ('385 Patent, col. 3:62-65). A party could argue that the consistent use of "beacon 120" in reference to this specific BLE embodiment limits the term's scope to dedicated, low-energy proximity devices rather than general-purpose network hardware.
The Term: "responsive to receiving from the mobile device a response...authorizing...the mobile device to establish presence on a network"
- Context and Importance: This phrase dictates the specific sequence of operations required for infringement. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs a conditional authorization that is strictly dependent on first receiving a confirmation of disablement from the mobile device.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any communication from the device acknowledging receipt of the policy, which is a prerequisite for network functionality, satisfies the "response" requirement, and that the subsequent connection to the network constitutes the "authorization."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "response to the first message indicating that the at least one application is disabled" suggests more than mere acknowledgment of a policy; it may require a confirmation that a state change has occurred on the device. Practitioners may focus on whether the authorization to "establish presence" is a distinct step that occurs only after this specific confirmation is received, a sequence the complaint's allegations do not detail with specificity (Compl. ¶15, 23-24).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes conclusory allegations that Defendant’s instrumentalities perform or comprise all required elements and infringe when used as intended (Compl. ¶27, 30). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of induced infringement, such as quoting from user manuals that instruct administrators to configure the system in an infringing manner.
Willful Infringement
The complaint requests enhanced damages for knowing and deliberate conduct, but bases this knowledge on notice occurring "at least as early as the service date of this complaint" (Compl. p. 8, ¶d). This constitutes an allegation of post-suit willfulness only; no facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "beacon," described in the patent's primary embodiment as a BLE device, be construed to cover the "campus WiFi access point" used by the accused mobile device management system for location awareness?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: Does the accused Lightspeed system perform the specific, conditional three-step process recited in the claims—(1) send a disable command, (2) receive a response confirming disablement, and only then (3) authorize network access—or does it grant network access based on a different set of conditions, creating a potential mismatch with the claimed method?