DCT
6:23-cv-00133
TrackThings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TrackThings LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Amazon.com Services LLC (Delaware) and eero LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; GILLAM AND SMITH, LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00133, W.D. Tex., 07/20/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having regular and established places of business in the district, including an Austin "Tech Hub" and fulfillment centers, and committing acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s eero mesh WiFi products infringe three patents related to improving wireless network performance, managing network traffic, and dynamically reconfiguring network topologies.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns mesh WiFi systems, a technology that uses multiple access points to create a single, seamless wireless network, which has become a preferred solution for providing reliable whole-home internet coverage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a "Preceding Action" (6:21-cv-00720) involving the same parties and patents was filed on July 13, 2021, and later dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff leverages this history to establish the date of Defendants' knowledge for its willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,642,017 and 9,332,442 |
| 2011-08-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,107,893 |
| 2016-05-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,332,442 Issued |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,642,017 Issued |
| 2018-10-23 | U.S. Patent No. 10,107,893 Issued |
| 2021-07-13 | Plaintiff files "Preceding Complaint" against Defendants |
| 2021-07-15 | "Preceding Complaint" served on Defendants |
| 2023-07-20 | Current Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,642,017, "Apparatus and Method for Improving the Integrity and Performance of an Ad-Hoc Wireless Network," Issued May 2, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the shortcomings of traditional home networking, where a single router can create "dead zones" and the use of conventional "range extenders" leads to bandwidth degradation and requires users to manually switch between networks as they move through a home (Compl. ¶30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an ad-hoc wireless network that uses a "computational unit" to actively manage and improve the network's performance. This unit measures the "link integrity" between wireless relays and, based on this measurement, determines the optimal placement for a new relay to strengthen the overall network (Compl. ¶53; ’017 Patent, Abstract). The system aims to intelligently expand and optimize network coverage, rather than simply repeating a signal.
- Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from passive signal extension to active, intelligent network management, which is a foundational concept for modern mesh WiFi systems that provide seamless, high-performance coverage (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 3-8 (Compl. ¶52).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an ad-hoc wireless network with the following essential elements:
- At least one client
- A plurality of relays each in a known location
- A computational unit distributed within the ad-hoc network measuring a link integrity of each link in the ad-hoc wireless network
- Whereby the computational unit determines a placement of a new relay at a new location into the ad-hoc wireless network to improve the link integrity of the ad-hoc wireless network
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 9,332,442, "Apparatus and Method of a Configurable Network," Issued May 3, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As networks support more devices, a technical challenge arises in efficiently managing simultaneous data streams between the internet and multiple clients without creating bottlenecks or interference (’442 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a configurable network relay that contains multiple "software radios." These radios are configured to partition and route different streams of bits in a highly specific manner. For example, the system can use one radio to handle a data stream for a first device while using a combination of the first and a second radio to handle a data stream for a second device, thereby managing traffic between multiple clients and the internet simultaneously (Compl. ¶103; ’442 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a sophisticated method for traffic management within a single network node, enabling multi-band routers to dedicate specific radios or channels to different tasks (e.g., client communication vs. inter-node backhaul), which is critical for maintaining performance in a dense device environment (Compl. ¶35, ¶106).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claims 1, 7, 12, 15, 20, and 23, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶102).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a configurable network with the following essential elements:
- At least one relay containing a plurality of software radios
- A plurality of streams of bits partitioned into portions
- An input stream from the Internet and an output stream to the Internet
- A plurality of cell phones coupled to the relay
- A first software radio configured to pass a first portion of the input stream to a first cell phone and a first portion of a stream from the first cell phone to the output stream
- A specific configuration where the first software radio transfers a second portion of the input stream to a second software radio, which transmits it to a second cell phone
- A specific configuration where the second software radio transfers a portion of a stream from the second cell phone to the first software radio for transmission to the Internet
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶102).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,107,893, "Apparatus and Method to Automatically Set a Master-Slave Monitoring System," Issued October 23, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses dynamically reconfiguring a network by reassigning the roles of its nodes. The invention describes an "intelligent network" that can switch between topologies (e.g., a "star" topology where all slave nodes connect to a central master, versus a "daisy-chain" where nodes connect sequentially) by designating a different node to act as the "master node" based on changing conditions, with communication between slave nodes occurring exclusively through the designated master (Compl. ¶36, ¶150, ¶153-155).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-3 and 8-12 (Compl. ¶149).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the eero mesh systems, which can be configured in either star or daisy-chain topologies, infringe by dynamically reconfiguring between these states and reassigning which eero device serves as the master node (Compl. ¶152, ¶156-157).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" include a wide range of Amazon eero mesh WiFi systems and extenders (e.g., eero Pro, eero Beacon, eero 6, eero Pro 6E) and the Ring Alarm Pro Base Station (Compl. ¶38). The "eero App" and related services are identified as "Additional Products" used to operate the hardware (Compl. ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are designed to replace traditional routers by creating a single, integrated mesh WiFi network using multiple nodes (Compl. ¶31). One node typically serves as an edge router connected to the internet, while other nodes act as extenders to increase coverage (Compl. ¶31).
- The eero App is used for initial setup, management, and providing user guidance, such as recommendations for placing new nodes to optimize the network (Compl. ¶57-58). The system is alleged to use multiple frequency bands (dual- or tri-band), with one band potentially used as a dedicated "backhaul" to connect the nodes to each other (Compl. ¶104, ¶106).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products have "emerged as the preferred solution for whole-home connectivity" due to their superior performance over range extenders (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a YouTube video showing a user testing the placement of a new relay and receiving instructions to adjust its placement based on test results (Compl. ¶58).
'017 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ad-hoc wireless network comprising: at least one client; | The eero network connects hardware and software clients, such as a smartphone or computer, to the internet. | ¶54 | col. 6:29-33 |
| a plurality of relays each in a known location; | The network includes multiple eero mesh edge routers and extenders which are assigned physical location names (e.g., "living room," "office") during setup. | ¶55-56 | col. 6:34-36 |
| a computational unit distributed within the ad-hoc network measuring a link integrity of each link in the ad-hoc wireless network; | The eero App, in conjunction with the eero nodes, allegedly forms a distributed computational unit that records access point locations, determines connectivity, and measures/displays connection strength via color coding and signal bars. | ¶57-58 | col. 6:37-41 |
| whereby the computational unit determines a placement of a new relay at a new location ... to improve the link integrity of the ad-hoc wireless network. | The eero App provides users with recommendations for placing new eero extenders, tests the placement, and instructs the user to adjust placement based on the test results. | ¶58, ¶75 | col. 6:42-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the combination of the eero hardware and the "eero App" running on a user's separate device (e.g., a smartphone) meets the claim limitation of a "computational unit distributed within the ad-hoc network."
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system "determines a placement"? The complaint alleges the system provides recommendations and instructions to a human user, which raises the question of whether this user-guided process satisfies a claim limitation that may be interpreted to require an automated determination by the computational unit itself.
The complaint references a YouTube video that provides instructions on how to set up an eero network (Compl. ¶72).
'442 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A configurable network comprising: at least one relay, each relay containing a plurality of software radios; | The Accused Products are described as dual-band or tri-band systems, which allegedly constitute a plurality of software radios within each relay. | ¶104 | col. 8:1-3 |
| a plurality of cell phones coupled to the first relay; | The eero network is designed to connect multiple client devices, which the complaint alleges includes cell phones. | ¶105, ¶107 | col. 8:13-14 |
| a first software radio... configured to pass a first portion of the input stream of bits received from the Internet as a first portion of a first stream of bits transmitted to a first cell phone; | The complaint alleges that in an eero mesh extender, one software radio is used for communications to/from the internet (backhaul) and can send data to a first device (e.g., a first cell phone). | ¶106-107 | col. 8:15-20 |
| the first software radio configured to transfer a second portion of the input stream ... to a second software radio ..., the second software radio configured to transmit the second portion ... to a second cell phone; | The complaint alleges that an extender uses multiple software radios/bands to communicate with client devices. A second software radio in communication with a second device allegedly reaches the internet via connection to the first (backhaul) software radio. | ¶107 | col. 8:24-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the claim term "cell phone" limit the scope of the claim to devices with cellular capability, or can it be construed to cover any generic wireless client device (e.g., a laptop, smart TV) that the Accused Products connect?
- Technical Questions: The claim recites a very specific method of partitioning and transferring four different bit streams among two software radios, the internet, and two cell phones. A key question will be whether the actual data handling protocol of the Accused Products, particularly their use of different frequency bands for client access and backhaul, maps precisely onto this complex, recited architecture.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "computational unit distributed within the ad-hoc network" (’017 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’017 patent depends on the eero App (on a user's phone) and the eero nodes collectively constituting this "unit." Defendants may argue this limitation requires the unit to be fully contained within the dedicated network hardware itself, and not rely on a user's general-purpose device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’017 patent specification is silent on the specific location of the "computation unit," which could support an interpretation that it can be distributed across both dedicated relays and connected client devices running management software. The term "distributed" itself may suggest components in different locations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures (e.g., Fig. 2) depict the "Computation Unit" as a single block that interacts with the network, which could be argued to imply a centralized or integrated component rather than one partially hosted on a non-dedicated, third-party device like a smartphone.
Term: "cell phone" (’442 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The Accused Products are general-purpose WiFi devices. If "cell phone" is interpreted narrowly, it may be difficult to prove infringement for networks that connect other types of devices. Plaintiff's case may depend on this term being construed broadly to mean any wireless client device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint consistently uses "cellphone" as an example of a client device, suggesting an intent to treat it as representative (Compl. ¶105, 107). The patent's focus is on managing wireless data streams, a problem not unique to cell phones, which may support a broader reading in light of the overall invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "cell phone" is an explicit limitation in the claim text. Defendants will likely argue that if the inventor meant "wireless client device," they could have used that term, and the choice of the more specific term "cell phone" must be given its ordinary, narrower meaning.
Term: "exclusively communicates" (’893 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’893 patent's core reconfiguration claim requires that communication between two slave nodes happens only through the master node. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the accused eero network architecturally enforces this exclusive communication path.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of star and daisy-chain topologies inherently implies a hierarchical structure where communication is funneled through a master or central point, which may support the allegation of exclusivity in practice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the ’893 patent states, "each said slave node exclusively communicates information with another slave node through said master node" (col. 25:4-7). This explicit language could be interpreted strictly, meaning any capability for direct slave-to-slave communication, even if unused, would defeat infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations of induced infringement. It claims Defendants provide detailed instructions, support websites, product documentation, and YouTube videos that actively encourage and instruct customers to set up and use the Accused Products in an infringing manner—for example, by guiding users on placing new nodes (’017 patent), connecting multiple devices (’442 patent), and establishing multi-node networks that can change topology (’893 patent) (Compl. ¶66, ¶71-73, ¶115, ¶166).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit no later than the filing of a prior lawsuit on July 13, 2021. The complaint asserts that in the prior case, Defendants admitted to this date of first awareness in an interrogatory response and subsequently "took no action whatsoever" to alter the accused products or avoid infringement (Compl. ¶46, ¶49, ¶68, ¶79, ¶99).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "computational unit distributed within the ad-hoc network" (’017 patent) be construed to encompass a user's smartphone running a management application, and can the term "cell phone" (’442 patent) be interpreted to cover the generic WiFi client devices that connect to the accused eero systems? The outcome of claim construction on these terms will significantly impact the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the accused system's use of different frequency bands for client access and backhaul perform the highly specific, multi-step partitioning and routing of data streams as precisely recited in the intricate independent claims of the ’442 and ’893 patents, or is there a functional or architectural mismatch?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: Given the detailed allegations regarding the "Preceding Action" and Defendants' purported admission of taking no remedial action after being put on notice, a jury will have to determine if the continued alleged infringement was objectively reckless, which could expose Defendants to a finding of willfulness and the potential for enhanced damages.