Big Will Enterprises Inc v. American Automobile Association Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • Defendant: The American Automobile Association, Inc. (Connecticut)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00571, W.D. Tex., 08/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant operates multiple offices within the district, routinely conducts business there, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone-based telematics solutions, AAA OnBoard and AAADrive, infringe six patents related to using device sensors to determine and act upon a user's motion activities.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using sensors commonly found in smartphones, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes, to monitor driver behavior for usage-based insurance products.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,521,846 - "Targeted advertisement selection for a wireless communication device (WCD)"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the evolution of electronic messaging and notification systems, noting that as technology has progressed, there is a need for more intelligent, context-aware actions based on a user's specific activities ('846 Patent, col. 1:50-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides systems and methods for using sensor data from a wireless communication device (WCD), such as a smartphone, to identify a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA), like driving or walking. This accurately identified activity is then used as a trigger to select and communicate a targeted advertisement to the user's device ('846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-20).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows a device not just to know a user's location, but to understand the user's context and activity, which enables more relevant and timely interactions in applications ranging from safety to marketing (Compl. ¶2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 23 (Compl. ¶¶18, 29, 34, 40).
• Independent Claim 1 (a method) includes the elements of:
  • Determining a mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) associated with a mobile thing (MT) transporting a wireless communication device (WCD) based on sensor data from the WCD.
  • The sensor data is produced by one or more sensors measuring physical movement of the WCD in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part upon the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • The determination of the MTMA comprises storing reference MTMA signatures, normalizing live data sets, and analyzing them in frequency and time domains to determine likelihoods and select a most likely MTMA signature.
• Independent Claim 12 (a device) includes, among other elements:
  • A WCD with transceivers, sensors, memory, and processors.
  • The processor executes code designed to determine the MTMA based on sensor data and statistical analysis.
  • The code is further designed to communicate sensor data to a remote computer system, receive a targeted advertisement from that system, and locally communicate the advertisement to a user interface.
• The complaint asserts numerous dependent claims for the ’846 Patent (Compl. ¶¶19-28, 30-33, 35-39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,049,558 - "Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using sensor data of wireless communication device (WCD) and initiating activity-based actions"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art attempts to identify user motion with accelerometers as inaccurate, particularly due to challenges in accounting for the device's position and orientation ('558 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to improve accuracy by first using sensor data to establish a stable frame of reference. It involves recognizing a set of data sample values (e.g., when the device is stationary and only subject to gravity) to define an orientation in a coordinate system. Subsequent sensor data is then normalized against this reference, allowing for more reliable calculation of movement and determination of the MTMA (’558 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-20).
• Technical Importance: By creating a method to normalize sensor data against a consistent reference point like Earth's gravity, the invention aims to provide more reliable motion detection regardless of how a user is carrying or holding their device, a fundamental challenge in mobile sensor analysis (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, 27, 36, 42, and 52 (Compl. ¶¶68, 84, 94, 103, 109, 119).
• Independent Claim 1 (a method) includes the elements of:
  • Receiving a time value and at least three streams of data sample values from sensors of a WCD.
  • Recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation of the WCD in a coordinate system.
  • Computing reference data based upon the recognition of that particular set.
  • Calculating movement data in the coordinate system based upon the reference data.
  • Determining an MTMA associated with the mobile thing based upon the movement data.
• Independent Claim 36 (a system) includes, among other elements:
  • One or more memories and processors.
  • Computer program code comprising code to perform the steps recited in claim 1.
• The complaint asserts numerous dependent claims for the ’558 Patent (Compl. ¶¶69-83, 85-93, 95-102, 104-108, 110-118, 120-127).

U.S. Patent No. 8,977,230 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a computer system that communicates with a remote device to provide interactive surveillance. The system receives sensor data, compares it to reference data, and communicates a message to the device indicating a user need for assistance, such as after an accident (Compl. ¶191).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶191, 192).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the AAADrive/Floow application's alleged crash detection service, which uses sensor data to detect an accident and communicate a message to the user's device (Compl. ¶191).

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a wireless communication device with code to determine a "human body physical activity" (HBPA) from sensor data and then select a mode of operation from a set of modes based on that activity. The selected mode initiates different investigation processes (Compl. ¶195).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶198, 195).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the AAA applications' ability to determine that a user is driving a vehicle and, based on that determination, start monitoring the user’s driving behavior to identify unsafe events (Compl. ¶195).

U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - "Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system with logic that determines a user's activity and a corresponding "surveillance mode." The system then facilitates a user-defined response and communicates surveillance information to a remote computer (Compl. ¶201).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶201, 205).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the AAA applications determine when a user is driving (the activity), which activates a surveillance mode that monitors for risky driving behaviors and communicates that information to remote servers to determine a discount score (Compl. ¶201).

U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - "Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a method of processing accelerometer data by recognizing a reference set of data in a 3D coordinate system to define a relationship with a 2D coordinate system. This allows for subsequent movement data to be calculated and analyzed in the 2D system to determine a motion activity (Compl. ¶216).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 22 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶216, 227, 232).
• Accused Features: The accused feature is the AAA applications' use of accelerometer data to determine an orientation of the smartphone (e.g., via gravity) to create a measurement system for analyzing driving behavior like hard braking and acceleration (Compl. ¶¶216, 219).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "AAA OnBoard" and "AAADrive" mobile applications and associated systems (Compl. ¶¶9, 17, 42). The complaint notes that the AAADrive solution integrates telematics products and services from a third party, Floow (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as smartphone-deployed driver-behavior monitoring and reporting solutions offered as part of Defendant's insurance products (Compl. ¶¶9, 17). The applications allegedly use a smartphone's internal sensors, including the accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS, to collect data on driving habits such as location, speed, braking, acceleration, and phone usage (Compl. ¶¶7, 18, 24). This data is then reportedly analyzed to generate a "Driving Score," which can be used to provide insurance discounts to policyholders (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also alleges the AAADrive/Floow system includes a crash detection service that uses sensor data to identify an accident (Compl. ¶¶24, 103). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for the "Floow" application offering to "Save on your insurance" based on driving scores (Compl. p. 31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'846 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether an insurance discount score or a message about potential savings, as generated and displayed by the accused applications (Compl. p. 27), constitutes an "advertisement" as the term is used in the '846 Patent. The infringement theory depends on this term covering internally generated benefits rather than just third-party commercial solicitations.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a multi-step process for determining the MTMA involving "signatures," "normalizing," and "likelihoods." A point of contention will likely be whether the accused products' algorithms actually perform these specific claimed steps, or if they use a different, non-infringing method to analyze sensor data and classify driver behavior.

'558 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may arise over whether the accused products actually perform the specific claimed sequence of "recognizing" a reference set, "computing" reference data, and then "calculating" movement data relative to that reference. The defendant may argue its algorithm for handling device orientation and analyzing motion is fundamentally different from this claimed process.
  • Scope Questions: What constitutes "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference" may be a point of contention. The patent may disclose specific criteria for this recognition (e.g., dependent claim 2 recites a magnitude indicative of Earth gravity) (Compl. ¶69), and the infringement analysis will question whether the accused system's method meets that definition.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "advertisement" (from '846 Patent, e.g., Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegations against the ’846 Patent hinges on this term. The complaint's theory is that the insurance discount scores and messages about potential savings generated by the AAA apps are "advertisements" (Compl. ¶18). Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to mean only traditional third-party product or service promotions, the infringement case for this patent could be significantly weakened.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract mentions the invention is for "accurately identifying a mobile thing motion activity... so as to enable or initiate a further one or more intelligent ID-based actions," suggesting the "advertisement" is one example of a broader category of activity-based actions ('846 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description may provide specific examples of advertisements that are all from third-party commercial entities, which could support an argument that the term does not cover self-generated service benefits like an insurance discount score.

• The Term: "recognizing a particular set of data sample values as a reference for defining an orientation" (from '558 Patent, e.g., Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the foundational step of the claimed method in the ’558 Patent for achieving accurate motion analysis. The infringement dispute will likely center on whether the accused apps' algorithms perform this specific "recognizing" step to establish a coordinate system. A narrow construction could allow the defendant to argue its method of handling device orientation is different.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe "recognizing" in general terms, potentially covering any algorithm that identifies a baseline state (like stillness) from which to orient subsequent data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 specifies that this recognition occurs "when a combined value has a magnitude that is indicative of a relationship to Earth gravity" (Compl. ¶69). A defendant could argue this limits the "recognizing" step to a specific gravity-based threshold test that its products do not perform.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant offers for sale and sells its applications to customers and that these products are used by Defendant and its customers within the district (Compl. ¶9). These allegations could form a basis for future claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement of all asserted patents (Compl. p. 135). The complaint does not, however, allege any facts indicating that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Any claim for willfulness may therefore depend on Defendant's conduct after the complaint was filed.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does an insurance discount score or a system-generated message about potential savings, as provided by the accused AAA applications, constitute an "advertisement" within the meaning of the '846 patent's claims?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: do the accused applications perform the specific, multi-step data normalization process claimed in patents like the '558 Patent—namely, "recognizing" a reference data set based on gravity, "computing" reference data, and then "calculating" movement data relative to it—or do they use a fundamentally different algorithmic approach to analyze sensor data?
• A central case management question will be claim differentiation: given the assertion of six related patents with similar priority dates and overlapping technical disclosures, the parties and the court will need to determine whether the asserted claims cover distinct, non-redundant inventions and whether the accused systems infringe the unique elements of multiple independent claims across the patent family.