Contiguity LLC v. Conduent Business Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Contiguity LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Conduent Business Services, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00038, W.D. Tex., 06/09/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to automated detection and citation of vehicle infractions based on traffic flow data.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns automated traffic enforcement systems that use imaging at multiple locations to calculate vehicle speed and issue citations for violations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the patent’s prosecution, an amendment was filed on March 7, 2011, to distinguish prior art by highlighting the novelty of transmitting a citation signal. The current action is a First Amended Complaint, with the Original Complaint having been served on January 23, 2023, a fact used to support allegations of post-suit willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-09-22	’084 Patent Priority Date
2010-10-19	’084 Patent Application Filing Date
2011-03-07	’084 Patent Prosecution Amendment Filed
2011-10-04	’084 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-23	Service of Original Complaint
2023-06-09	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,031,084 - "Method and system for infraction detection based on vehicle traffic flow data"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the dual problems of inaccurate traffic congestion reports based on personal observation and the dangers posed to police officers and motorists when officers must manually detect and pull over speeding vehicles (’084 Patent, col. 1:65-2:18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system that solves these problems by using multiple imaging systems to capture images of vehicles at different locations along a road (’084 Patent, col. 3:20-24). By identifying the same vehicle in images from two locations and knowing the distance between them, a processor can calculate the vehicle's speed (’084 Patent, col. 7:7-10). If the calculated speed exceeds a predetermined limit, the system generates a "citation signal" that can be transmitted to alert the vehicle's owner or law enforcement, enabling automated ticketing (’084 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:13-19).
• Technical Importance: This automated approach was presented as a way to improve the safety and efficiency of traffic enforcement by removing the need for an officer's physical presence to witness the speeding violation (’084 Patent, col. 2:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20, ¶26).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • acquiring first imagery of a plurality of vehicles at a first location at a first time;
  • acquiring second imagery of a plurality of vehicles at a second location at a second time;
  • identifying a first vehicle from the acquired first imagery and the acquired second imagery;
  • determining a speed of the first vehicle;
  • generating a citation signal when the speed of the first vehicle exceeds a predetermined speed; and
  • attempting to transmit the citation signal to a device of a person associated with the vehicle.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert dependent claims as the case proceeds (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products," which it states are detailed in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶26, ¶31). This exhibit was not filed with the public version of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused products. The infringement allegations imply that the accused instrumentalities are systems and methods used by Defendant for traffic management, which allegedly perform the functions of capturing vehicle data at multiple points, calculating vehicle speed or a proxy thereof, and generating signals related to infractions or tolls based on that data (Compl. ¶26, ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibit B) that were not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶31-32). The infringement theory, based on the complaint's narrative, is that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice all steps of the method claimed in the ’084 Patent. This includes the alleged acts of making, using, and selling systems that acquire vehicle data at distinct points, identify specific vehicles, determine their speed, generate a signal when a violation (e.g., speeding) occurs, and transmit that signal to a device associated with the vehicle's owner or operator (Compl. ¶26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "citation signal." The complaint emphasizes this term as an inventive concept distinguished from prior art (Compl. ¶17-20). The court may need to determine if a signal related to a commercial transaction, such as an electronic toll collection, falls within the scope of a "citation signal," which the patent repeatedly links to a speeding "infraction" or "violation" (’084 Patent, col. 2:22, col. 7:13-14).
• Technical Questions: The claim requires "identifying a first vehicle from the acquired first imagery and the acquired second imagery" (’084 Patent, col. 8:8-10). The patent specification discusses image recognition algorithms for this purpose (e.g., ’084 Patent, col. 5:52-62). A key factual question will be what technology the accused products use for identification (e.g., license plate recognition, radio-frequency transponders) and whether that technology meets the claim limitation as construed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"citation signal"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the final two limitations of Claim 1 and is described in the complaint as a key inventive concept that distinguished the patent from the prior art (Compl. ¶17-19). Its construction will be critical, as Defendant may argue that its systems, which may relate to tolling or other traffic management, do not generate a "citation signal" in the punitive, law-enforcement sense implied by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "citation signal may be a data signal that includes the speed of the vehicle and/or the difference between the vehicle speed and the posted speed limit" (’084 Patent, col. 6:1-4). The permissive "may be" could support an argument that the signal is not strictly limited to formal legal citations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Method and system for infraction detection" and consistently frames the invention in the context of "speeding infraction," "speeding violation," and "ticketing speeding motorists" (’084 Patent, col. 2:13-22). The flowchart in Figure 4 shows the step "GENERATE CITATION SIGNAL" (430) is followed by "ISSUE CITATION" (435) and "NOTIFY VEHICLE OF SPEED AND TRAFFIC FINE" (440), strongly suggesting the signal's purpose is for issuing a punitive fine.

"a device of a person associated with the vehicle"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the destination of the "citation signal" and is the final functional step of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "device" (e.g., a driver's phone, an officer's computer, a back-office billing server) and the "person" (e.g., driver, owner, police officer) will be crucial for determining infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides multiple, varied examples, including transmission to a "law enforcement agency" (’084 Patent, col. 8:20-21), an "on board navigation system of the vehicle" (’084 Patent, col. 9:5-6), or wirelessly to a "mobile phone of the owner" (’084 Patent, col. 4:55-56). This variety could support a broad definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the claim requires transmission to a device that provides a real-time or near-real-time notification to a person, as opposed to a back-end database or server that merely stores a record for later processing (e.g., mailing a paper bill). The patent's emphasis on improving safety by making drivers "aware of speeding" in "real-time" could support this narrower view (Compl. ¶24).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’084 Patent, Compl. ¶29).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of infringement" since at least the service of the Original Complaint on January 23, 2023, and that its continued alleged infringement since that date has been willful (Compl. ¶28-29).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "citation signal," which is heavily contextualized in the patent as relating to a punitive speeding "infraction" or "fine," be construed to cover the data signals generated by Defendant's accused systems, which may pertain to commercial activities like electronic tolling?
• A second central question will concern the functional requirements of transmission: does the final claim step—"attempting to transmit the citation signal to a device of a person associated with the vehicle"—require a direct or near-real-time notification to a human-operated device (like a phone or in-car display), or can it be satisfied by transmitting a data record to a back-end billing server for later, non-real-time processing?