DCT

7:25-cv-00445

Avant Location Tech LLC v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00445, W.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Apple Inc. having multiple regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s crowdsourced device location network, known as the "Find My" network, and associated products infringe a family of seven patents related to monitoring the presence of a mobile device within a defined "special area" and communicating that presence to a network.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for using short-range radio signals to determine a mobile device's location relative to a specific area and leveraging a mobile telephone network to provide location-based services, a foundational concept for modern crowdsourced tracking systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents are all continuations of an application family originating from a 2006 European priority filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-28 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 Issued
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922 Issued
2015-05-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910 Issued
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 Issued
2016-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621 Issued
2017-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 Issued
2018-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 Issued
2019-01-01 Accused "Find My" Feature Launch Year
2025-10-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040, "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area," issued May 27, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a competitive landscape where mobile network operators face challenges from short-range wireless solutions (like Wi-Fi) that can offer cheaper rates in localized areas. The specification suggests a need for mobile operators to offer flexible, location-dependent services (e.g., different tariffs) without needing to modify existing network hardware. (’040 Patent, col. 1:29-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "mobile station" (e.g., a phone) detects a "distinctive defining signal" broadcast by a "radio communication defining device," which marks a "special area." To confirm the area, the mobile station uses "checking data" previously transmitted to it. Upon confirmation, the mobile station sends an "updating signal" over the mobile telephone network to report its presence. This signal is independent of any phone call activity. A server then uses this report to adjust an "operating parameter," such as a billing rate or service flag, for that mobile station. (’040 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-68).
  • Technical Importance: This system architecture allows a network to create and manage location-based services dynamically by associating a user's device with a "special area" through software ("checking data") rather than requiring hardware modifications to network infrastructure.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (’040 Patent, col. 21:58-22:21; Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of claim 13 (a mobile station) include:
    • "observing means" to observe a channel and process a received signal to determine if it is a "defining signal".
    • A "processor" that uses "previously obtained checking data" to determine if the defining signal is a "distinctive defining signal" that defines a "special area".
    • The processor determines if the mobile station is present in the "special area".
    • The processor sends an "updating signal" to a "mobile telephone network" about its presence, either periodically, upon entry/exit, or while remaining in the area.
    • The sending of the updating signal is "uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment" and is based on the station's last determination of its presence.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’040 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 - "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720, "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area," issued June 26, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, from the same family as the ’040 Patent, addresses the same general goal of enabling flexible, location-based services for mobile networks. (’720 Patent, col. 1:8-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’720 Patent adds a layer of context to the system. The "distinctive defining signal" itself is claimed to include information indicating whether the transmitting device is in a "predetermined environment." The mobile station receives this signal, and the "updating signal" it sends to the network servers includes this environmental information. The servers can then use this context to adjust an "operating parameter" like a "service flag." The "special area" is also explicitly defined as potentially being a sum or intersection of multiple signal coverage areas. (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-44).
  • Technical Importance: The inclusion of a "predetermined environment" allows for more complex, context-aware rules for location-based services beyond simple presence within a geographic zone.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’720 Patent, col. 21:5-44; Compl. ¶57).

  • Essential elements of claim 1 (a method) include:

    • Receiving and processing a "distinctive defining signal" in a mobile station.
    • The signal defines a "special area" by its coverage area, a portion of it, or a sum of areas.
    • The signal includes information indicating whether the transmitting "radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment".
    • Sending an "updating signal" from the mobile station via a "mobile telephone network" to servers about its presence in the special area.
    • The updating signal is usable by the servers to adjust an "operating parameter" (e.g., a tariff or "service flag").
    • The updating signal itself comprises the information about the device being in the "predetermined environment".

  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’720 Patent.
    The complaint asserts five additional patents from the same family. Below are synopses for each.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,042,910: This patent relates to systems involving a mobile station capable of receiving first and second distinctive signals from first and second radio devices, where the special area is defined by a sum or intersection of their coverage. The complaint alleges Apple’s Find My network infringes by processing signals from multiple lost devices simultaneously. (Compl. ¶84-85). Asserted claims include at least independent claim 7.

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,934,922: This patent claims a server-side method where a provider of services electronically stores data linking a mobile station to first and second special areas, transmits checking data to the mobile station, and receives separate updating signals from the station regarding its presence in each area to enable or disable services. The complaint maps this to the functionality of Apple's iCloud servers managing the Find My network. (Compl. ¶110-111). Asserted claims include at least independent claim 1.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030: This patent claims another server-side method similar to the ’922 Patent but focused on a single radio device and a single special area. The method involves storing linking data, transmitting checking data, receiving an updating signal, and deriving the mobile station's presence to enable or disable a service. (Compl. ¶135). Asserted claims include at least independent claim 1.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621: This patent claims a server-side method where the provider of services (distinct from the mobile telephone network) stores checking data and receives an updating signal from the mobile station to derive its presence and enable/disable a service. The complaint again accuses Apple's iCloud servers. (Compl. ¶155). Asserted claims include at least independent claim 1.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032: This patent claims a method where a mobile station uses a first checking data to determine its presence and sends an update, and a server subsequently sends second, different checking data back to the mobile station to modify the special area. This suggests a dynamic, server-driven update mechanism for the special area's definition. (Compl. ¶180). Asserted claims include at least independent claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Apple products that implement the "Find My" network and/or the "Home App," including but not limited to iPhone, iPad, AirTag, Apple Watch, Mac, and HomePod devices (Compl. ¶23). The infringement allegations focus predominantly on the "Find My" functionality for locating offline devices.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Apple's "Find My" feature creates a crowdsourced network of hundreds of millions of Apple devices to locate lost items, even when those items are offline or powered off (Compl. ¶31, Exhibit 8). The system allegedly operates in two roles: a "lost device" (e.g., a lost AirTag or iPhone) acts as a "radio communication defining device," and a nearby Apple device (e.g., a passerby's iPhone) acts as a "finder device" or "mobile station" (Compl. ¶34). A technical diagram included in the complaint illustrates that the lost device broadcasts a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) signal with a public key, which is detected by the finder device. (Compl. ¶35, Exhibit 11). The finder device then securely reports the lost device's public key and its own location to Apple's iCloud servers, allowing the owner to see the item on a map (Compl. ¶41, 44). The complaint characterizes this system as creating a "dynamic-crowdsourced special area" defined by the collective signal coverage of all offline devices at a given time (Compl. ¶38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,738,040 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
observing means to observe a channel and process any received signal in order to determine whether or not it is receiving a defining signal... Apple's "finder" devices (e.g., iPhones) observe Bluetooth channels to detect BLE advertisement signals from nearby "lost" devices. ¶30 col. 2:58-61
a processor to process any received defining signal and to determine, based on a previously obtained checking data, whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal that at least partially defines a special area... A processor in the finder device processes the received BLE signal and uses stored data related to the "offline finding" (OF) advertisement format to determine if the signal is a distinctive signal from a device on the Find My network, thereby defining a special area. ¶37 col. 2:61-66
...to determine whether or not it is present in one or more special areas... Upon identifying a distinctive signal, the finder device consequently identifies that it is present within the special area defined by the signal's coverage. ¶39 col. 3:1-3
...to send an updating signal... to a mobile telephone network about its presence in one or more of the special areas... The finder device sends an encrypted location report (the updating signal) via its cellular or Wi-Fi connection to Apple's iCloud servers, indicating its proximity to a lost device. ¶42, ¶44 col. 2:3-5
where said updating signal sending is uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment and is based on the last determination performed by the mobile station... The updating signal is sent automatically over a data connection, independent of any voice call, and is based on the finder device's last determination that it detected a lost device. ¶48, ¶49 col. 5:2-6

10,009,720 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...receiving and processing the distinctive defining signal in the mobile station, the distinctive defining signal at least defining a special area by one or more of: (1) a coverage area... (3) a sum of the area of coverage... A finder device receives and processes a BLE signal from a lost device. The "special area" is defined by the signal's coverage area, or the sum of coverage areas from multiple lost devices. ¶58, ¶64, ¶65 col. 2:19-25
...the distinctive defining signal including information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment... The BLE signal from a lost device inherently indicates that the device is "offline," which the complaint alleges constitutes the "predetermined environment." The offline status implies it is outside the range of its owner's other devices. ¶68, ¶70 col. 2:25-28
...sending from the mobile station via a mobile telephone network an updating signal to one or more servers... about the mobile station's presence in the special area... The finder device sends a location report via a mobile network to Apple's iCloud servers, indicating its presence near a lost device (i.e., within the special area). ¶69, ¶71 col. 2:28-33
...the updating signal being useable by the one or more servers... to adjust an operating parameter, which comprises one or more of a tariff and a service flag... Apple's iCloud servers use the location report to adjust a "service flag," such as marking a device as "Found," activating a "Notify When Found" feature, or updating the device's location on a map for the owner. A screenshot shows a "Notify When Left Behind" toggle, which is presented as an example of such a service. ¶71, ¶73, Exhibit 16 p. 60 col. 2:33-39
...and the updating signal comprising the information indicative of whether or not the radio communication defining device is located in the predetermined environment. The location report sent by the finder device is inherently related to the "offline finding service" and thus indicates the found device is in an "offline status" (the alleged predetermined environment). ¶76 col. 2:40-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory rests on construing claim terms written for traditional mobile operator networks to cover a modern, internet-based, crowdsourced system. A central question may be whether the dynamic, non-contiguous, and constantly changing aggregation of BLE signal ranges from millions of unrelated lost devices constitutes a "special area" as contemplated by the patents, which provide examples such as homes, airports, and specific cell coverage zones (’040 Patent, col. 3:11-13).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "offline" status of a lost device satisfies the "predetermined environment" limitation of the ’720 Patent (Compl. ¶68). A point of contention may arise over whether a device's network status can be equated with a physical or geographical "environment" as described in the patent specification (e.g., "a car, a plane or a boat") (’720 Patent, col. 8:62-64). Further, a question may be whether adjusting a service (e.g., "Notify When Found") for the owner of the lost device constitutes adjusting an "operating parameter... provided to the mobile station" (i.e., the finder device) as required by claim 1 of the ’720 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "special area" (’040 Patent, cl. 13; ’720 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental. The complaint's theory requires "special area" to be broad enough to encompass a "dynamic-crowdsourced special area" (Compl. ¶38) created by the aggregated, transient signal coverage of millions of independent, unrelated "lost" devices. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this expansive interpretation is adopted.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the special area by its "coverage," including a "sum of the area of coverage" from multiple devices (’720 Patent, cl. 1), which may support the Plaintiff's theory of an aggregated, crowdsourced area.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more bounded examples, such as "airports, company's premises or business centres" (’040 Patent, col. 3:12-13) and rural versus urban environments (’040 Patent, col. 10:3-5). These examples may suggest that a "special area" is a more discrete, defined, and persistent zone than the one alleged by the complaint.

The Term: "checking data" (’040 Patent, cl. 13)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 13 of the ’040 Patent requires the mobile station to use "previously obtained checking data" to verify that a signal is "distinctive." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement theory maps this to the finder device's pre-existing knowledge of the "offline finding" advertisement format (Compl. ¶37). The case may turn on whether this software-based format recognition qualifies as using "checking data" that was "transmitted to the mobile station" for the purpose of "associating" it with a special area, as described in the patent (’040 Patent, col. 2:54-58).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the checking data is "used by the mobile station for determining whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal" (’040 Patent, Abstract), a functional definition that could encompass any pre-stored data used for that purpose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the transmission of checking data as a discrete step to "associate" the station with a special area, with examples including sending data via "encrypted short messages" or entry by a person (’040 Patent, col. 12:40-60). This may support a narrower interpretation requiring a more explicit act of provisioning data for a specific area, rather than relying on generally available software protocols.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing the accused products along with instructions, marketing materials, and user manuals that instruct and encourage customers to use the infringing "Find My" functionality (Compl. ¶50-51, 77-78).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It alleges that Apple has had "actual notice of the Asserted Patents, at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶24). This pleading structure suggests a basis for alleging willful infringement for any infringing conduct that occurs post-filing.

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

The dispute appears to center on whether patent claims, drafted in the context of early-2000s mobile operator networks, can be read to cover Apple's modern, decentralized, and internet-based crowdsourcing system. The outcome will likely depend on the construction of several key terms.

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "special area," rooted in the patent's examples of discrete locations like homes or airports, be construed to cover the dynamic, non-contiguous, and ephemeral aggregation of signal bubbles from millions of independently owned "lost" devices in the accused "Find My" network?
  • A second key issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the function of Apple's system align with the patent's claimed architecture? Specifically, does a finder device's ability to recognize a BLE advertisement format constitute using "previously obtained checking data" to verify a signal, and does providing a location service for a third party's lost device constitute adjusting an "operating parameter" for the finder device itself?
  • For patents like the ’720 Patent, a critical question of contextual interpretation will arise: can a device's network "status" (i.e., being offline) satisfy the claim requirement of being in a "predetermined environment," a term the patent illustrates with physical locations like a car or a boat?