Big Will Enterprises Inc v. Overhaul Risk Advisory Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Big Will Enterprises Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
  • Defendant: Overhaul Risk Advisory Services, LLC d/b/a Overhaul Risk & Insurance Services & Overhaul Group, Inc. (Texas & Delaware, U.S.)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00774, W.D. Tex., 11/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendants operating corporate offices in Austin, Texas, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TruckShield driver monitoring applications and services infringe four patents related to using mobile device sensors to determine motion activities and trigger responsive actions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors embedded in wireless devices, such as smartphones, to analyze movement and identify specific human or vehicle activities, a foundational capability for the telematics and risk management industries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to 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),” Issued December 31, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the evolution of electronic messaging and notification systems, implying a need for more intelligent, context-aware actions based on a user's activity and identity (’846 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where sensors in a wireless communication device (WCD), such as an accelerometer, are used to determine a "mobile thing motion activity" (MTMA) like walking or driving. This determination is made by processing sensor data, often normalizing it to account for the device's variable orientation, and comparing it to stored reference signatures. The identified activity is then used as a basis for selecting and delivering a targeted advertisement to the user's device (’846 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-36).
• Technical Importance: This technology creates a direct link between a user's real-world physical activities, as detected by sensors in a mobile device, and a commercial or informational response, such as targeted advertising (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-23, with independent claims 1 (method), 12 (device), 17 (system), and 23 (means-plus-function system) forming the core of the allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 29, 34, 40).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the essential 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 measures physical movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Selecting an advertisement based at least in part on the determined MTMA.
  • Causing the advertisement to be communicated to the WCD.
  • The determination process includes storing reference MTMA signatures, normalizing sensor data, and determining likelihoods to select the most likely MTMA.

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,951 - “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” Issued May 27, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for a personal surveillance system that is not fixed to a location but is mobile with the user, capable of proactive and automatic activation in response to the user's activities or environment, particularly in potentially unsafe situations (’951 Patent, col. 1:40-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system on a WCD that uses sensor data to monitor user activity. It can operate in multiple modes, beginning with a "first investigation process" to capture initial data. If this data indicates a potential "user need for assistance, an accident, or a crime," the system can enter a "second mode of operation" involving a different investigation process to capture further data, effectively escalating its surveillance and response capabilities based on the detected context (’951 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17).
• Technical Importance: The technology shifts personal security from a purely reactive, user-initiated model to a proactive, context-aware system that can autonomously escalate its functions in response to sensor-detected events (Compl. ¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-10, with independent claims 1 (system) and 10 (device) as the lead claims (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 51).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the essential elements of:
  • A WCD with memory and processors executing computer program code.
  • Instructions to enter a first mode of operation with a first investigation process using sensors to capture first data.
  • Instructions to determine if the first data indicates a need for assistance, an accident, or a crime.
  • Instructions to enter a second, different mode of operation with a second investigation process to capture second data when the first data may involve such an activity.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,914 - “Interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems and methods,” Issued October 15, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’951 Patent, describes a system on a computing device that uses logic to determine a user's activity and/or surroundings. Based on this determination, it selects a corresponding surveillance mode, facilitates a user-defined response, and communicates surveillance information to a remote computer (’914 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 5 (system) and 15 (method) are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 57).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TruckShield’s logic for determining driving activity, selecting a surveillance mode to monitor for risky behaviors (e.g., phone usage, hard braking), and communicating that data to remote servers infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 57).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,452,273 - “Systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using accelerometer of wireless communication device,” Issued May 28, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of accurately identifying motion activities from an accelerometer in a device with no fixed orientation relative to the user (’273 Patent, col. 1:59-64; Compl. ¶3). The solution involves receiving 3D accelerometer data, establishing a 2D reference framework from that data (typically by isolating the vector of gravity), normalizing subsequent data against this framework, and then identifying the motion activity based on the normalized data (’273 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (method), 12 (method), and 22 (method) are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 73, 82).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TruckShield’s use of smartphone accelerometers to determine driver motions like hard braking and cornering, which requires accounting for the phone’s variable orientation, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Overhaul's TruckShield applications and services (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is described as a "telematics application and system that monitors driver behavior for risk management purposes" for the commercial trucking industry (Compl. ¶15). The system uses a driver's smartphone, equipped with sensors like an accelerometer and gyroscope, to detect and monitor driving behaviors such as "phone usage while driving," "aggressive driving such as cornering," hard braking, and fast acceleration (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 43). This data is used to generate driver scores and risk profiles, which can be used by motor carriers and insurance companies (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 18). A screenshot in the complaint shows a "Driver Behavior" dashboard that graphically displays "Total Driver Risk Events" categorized by speed, cornering, and braking over time (Compl. p. 24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’846 Patent Infringement Allegations

’951 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’846 Patent infringement theory is definitional: does an insurance "discount score" or a safety reminder constitute an "advertisement" as that term is used in the patent? The complaint's theory appears to depend on a broad construction of this term. A similar question arises for the ’951 Patent: does the need to "improve driving skills" constitute a "user need for assistance, an accident, or a crime" sufficient to trigger the claimed shift between different modes of operation?
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that TruckShield performs a two-step, multi-modal investigation as claimed in the ’951 Patent, rather than a single, continuous mode of monitoring? The allegations frame the reporting of unsafe driving as a distinct "second mode," which may be a point of factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "advertisement" (’846 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’846 Patent hinges on whether the "driving discount advertisements" and safety-related messages generated by the TruckShield system fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive for this patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the invention can initiate various "activity-based actions," including but not limited to advertisements, which may support a broader reading that includes any responsive commercial communication (’846 Patent, col. 1:53-55). The specification also mentions "solicitation or offering of goods and services, including that of an advertisement" as an example action (’846 Patent, col. 72:26-28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is "Targeted advertisement selection," and the claim language recites "enabling an advertiser to communicate the advertisement" (’846 Patent, claim 6), which may suggest a more traditional commercial context involving a third-party advertiser, rather than a system-generated score or safety message.

The Term: "a user need for assistance, an accident, or a crime" (’951 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for shifting from the "first investigation process" to the "second." The infringement allegation depends on construing "risky driving" detected for coaching purposes as meeting this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background discusses enhancing security in "unsafe or unknown environments," which could be argued to encompass any situation, including risky driving, where a user's well-being is potentially compromised (’951 Patent, col. 2:10-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit enumeration of "assistance, an accident, or a crime" may imply events of a particular nature or severity. The abstract refers to "determining secure or dangerous environments" and "logging events," which might suggest a scope limited to more acute safety or security incidents rather than routine driver behavior monitoring.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or contributory infringement. While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin such acts, the body of the complaint does not allege the requisite elements, such as knowledge of the patents and intent to induce infringement (Compl. p. 48).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement in the prayer for relief but provides no factual basis in the pleadings to support a claim of pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. p. 48).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "advertisement," as used in the ’846 Patent, be construed to cover the "driving discount scores" and safety messages within the accused risk-management platform, or is it limited to more traditional third-party commercial solicitations?
• A second key issue will be one of functional scope: does routine monitoring of "risky driving" for coaching purposes, as alleged to be performed by the accused product, rise to the level of a "user need for assistance, an accident, or a crime" as required to trigger the multi-modal process claimed in the ’951 Patent?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: beyond high-level descriptions, the case will likely require a detailed factual inquiry into whether the accused system’s data processing methods—particularly its techniques for normalizing sensor data and comparing it to reference signatures—operate in a manner that maps onto the specific steps recited in the asserted claims of the ’273 and ’846 Patents.