DCT
1:22-cv-01373
Geoscope Tech Pte Ltd v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP; Spotts Fain, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01373, E.D. Va., 12/01/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Apple maintains regular and established places of business in the district, the inventors reside in the district, and the patented technology was developed there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Location Services feature, used in products like the iPhone and Apple Watch, infringes six patents related to improving the accuracy and efficiency of mobile device geolocation.
- Technical Context: The patents concern methods for refining the location of mobile devices by using and processing signals from networks like Wi-Fi and cellular, particularly to overcome inaccuracies caused by environmental factors or errors in underlying data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Apple had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,406,753 and 8,320,264, as well as a related patent family member, due to their appearance as references cited during the prosecution of Apple’s own patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, on May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed disclaimers for all independent claims asserted from U.S. Patent Nos. 7,561,104 (Claim 1), 8,400,358 (Claims 1 and 41), and 8,786,494 (Claims 1 and 25), which may significantly narrow or render moot the infringement contentions for those patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-17 | Earliest Priority Date ('264 Patent) |
| 2007-02-05 | Earliest Priority Date ('104, '358, '494, '753, '784 Patents) |
| 2008-01-01 | Apple allegedly began providing location-based services |
| 2009-07-14 | '104 Patent Issued |
| 2012-11-27 | '264 Patent Issued |
| 2013-03-19 | '358 Patent Issued |
| 2013-03-26 | '753 Patent Issued |
| 2014-07-22 | '494 Patent Issued |
| 2015-08-04 | '784 Patent Issued |
| 2022-12-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104 - "METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT"
- Issued: July 14, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inaccuracies in mobile device geolocation that arise when a device is indoors, causing its received signal strengths to be lower than those recorded in an outdoor-collected calibration database. This mismatch between the observed environment and the calibration environment can lead to a "poor estimated location accuracy" ('104 Patent, col. 1:33-40; Compl. ¶49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes modifying the "observed network measurement data" collected by the mobile device to simulate indoor conditions before comparing it to the outdoor calibration database ('104 Patent, col. 3:45-49). This adjustment is intended to normalize the data, allowing for a more accurate "apples-to-apples" comparison and thereby improving location estimates for indoor users (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 57).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the reliability of non-GPS location services in indoor environments, a key challenge for early smartphone geolocation, without requiring the costly and difficult process of collecting separate indoor calibration data (Compl. ¶53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 11 ('104 Patent, claim 1, 11; Compl. ¶99).
- Claim 1 requires the following steps:
- providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data for a region with at least a first and second transmitter;
- collecting observed network measurement data including a first and second signal characteristic from the respective transmitters;
- determining which of the first and second signal characteristics has a greater magnitude;
- modifying the observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal characteristic; and
- comparing the modified data with the calibration database to determine the mobile station's location.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶99, n.3).
U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 - "METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT"
- Issued: March 19, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the related ’104 Patent, the ’358 Patent addresses the problem of diminished accuracy when comparing signal data observed by an indoor mobile device with a calibration database created from outdoor measurements ('358 Patent, col. 1:38-45; Compl. ¶49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method of improving location accuracy by modifying the observed network measurement data before it is compared to the calibration database ('358 Patent, Abstract). The patent describes various modification techniques, such as adjusting data based on an average value of signal characteristics, to account for environmental discrepancies and make the observed data more comparable to the calibration data ('358 Patent, col. 2:30-34; Compl. ¶51).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a computational method to improve geolocation accuracy, particularly for indoor users, by correcting for known signal disparities rather than relying on more extensive data collection (Compl. ¶53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 41, and dependent claims 10 and 52 (’358 Patent, claims 1, 10, 41, 52; Compl. ¶119).
- Claim 1 requires the following steps:
- providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data;
- collecting observed network measurement data;
- modifying said observed network measurement data; and
- comparing the modified data with the database to determine the location.
- Claim 41 is more specific, requiring the steps of:
- providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data;
- collecting observed network measurement data from a plurality of transmitters;
- determining an average value for select ones of said signal characteristics;
- modifying the observed network measurement data using said average value; and
- comparing the modified data with the database to determine the location.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶119, n.5).
U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494 - "METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT"
- Issued: July 22, 2014.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’494 Patent, part of the same family as the '104 and '358 Patents, is also directed to improving geolocation accuracy by modifying observed network measurement data to account for environmental disparities before comparing it to a calibration database (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 51). The modification can involve techniques like averaging signal characteristics (Compl. ¶56).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 25 are asserted (Compl. ¶148).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple’s Location Services infringes by collecting observed network data, modifying it through averaging or normalization, and comparing the modified data to its crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi and cell tower locations to determine a user's position (Compl. ¶¶ 152-155).
U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A LOCATION ESTIMATE USING UNIFORM AND NON-UNIFORM GRID POINTS"
- Issued: March 26, 2013.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of sparse location data by using existing calibration data to generate additional, non-uniform "grid points." This creates a denser and more robust "map" of locations with associated signal data, allowing for more accurate geolocation by comparing a device's observed signals to a larger set of reference points (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶177).
- Accused Features: Apple’s Location Services is accused of infringing by using its collected calibration data to generate additional reference locations (grid points) and then evaluating a device's network measurement report against these grid points to determine its location (Compl. ¶¶ 182, 184, 186).
U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD TO COLLECT AND MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA"
- Issued: August 4, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses errors and imprecision in calibration data used for geolocation. The invention proposes using supplemental geographic information, such as a street database, to compare, verify, and correct collected location data points, thereby improving the accuracy of the underlying calibration database (Compl. ¶¶ 65-66).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶198).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple’s Location Services infringes by using its location information database (i.e., Apple Maps) and device sensor data (e.g., direction and speed of travel) to determine the most likely street a device is on and thereby correct or enhance its location data (Compl. ¶¶ 205, 207-208).
U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264 - "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING PATH LOSS BY ACTIVE SIGNAL DETECTION"
- Issued: November 27, 2012.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses inefficiencies in prior art methods for measuring signal path loss, which required dedicating specific frequency channels and disabling others. The invention enables path loss determination using an existing, active communication channel without disrupting the frequency plan or disabling other channels (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 74).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶222).
- Accused Features: Apple’s Location Services is accused of infringing by determining path loss values using active communication channels (e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular) without designating a separate, dedicated channel for this purpose (Compl. ¶¶ 227, 231).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Apple's "Location Services," a geolocation service provided on mobile devices such as the iPhone and Apple Watch (Compl. ¶¶ 79-81). It comprises hardware and software components on Apple servers and user devices, and is accessible to applications via the Core Location API (Compl. ¶81).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that Apple's Location Services determines a device's approximate location by using GPS and Bluetooth signals along with a "crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations" database (Compl. ¶80). When Location Services is on, devices periodically send geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers to Apple to augment this database (Compl. ¶103). The service gathers data from Wi-Fi, GPS, Bluetooth, magnetometer, barometer, and cellular hardware to determine a device's geographic location, altitude, and orientation (Compl. ¶81).
- The complaint highlights the commercial importance of location-based services, noting they are among the most widely-used smartphone features and that Apple began providing them in 2008 in response to customer demand (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38). The complaint provides a screenshot from Apple Maps showing a user's location indicated by a blue dot surrounded by a larger, translucent blue circle, which is alleged to represent "how precisely your location can be determined" (Compl. ¶106, p. 37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'7,561,104 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data... wherein said network includes a first transmitter and a second transmitter | Apple provides a crowd-sourced database containing information on the locations and signal strengths of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers (Compl. ¶80, 103). | ¶103 | col. 2:10-13 |
| collecting observed network measurement data including a first signal characteristic... and a second signal characteristic | The accused devices collect signal strength data from a plurality of nearby transmitters, including Wi-Fi access points, cell towers, and Bluetooth beacons (Compl. ¶104). | ¶104 | col. 2:14-18 |
| determining which of said first and second signal characteristics has a greater magnitude | On information and belief, the system determines which of at least two signal strength measurements has a greater magnitude (Compl. ¶105). | ¶105 | col. 2:18-20 |
| modifying said observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal characteristic | On information and belief, the system modifies the observed data using the signal characteristic with the greater magnitude to improve accuracy and account for environmental inconsistencies (Compl. ¶106). | ¶106 | col. 2:20-22 |
| comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station | The system compares the modified signal strength data with the previously-gathered calibration data to determine the device's location (Compl. ¶107). | ¶107 | col. 2:22-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "determining" and "modifying" steps on "information and belief." A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that Apple's Location Services actually performs the specific two-step process of first identifying a signal with "greater magnitude" and then using that specific characteristic to modify the data set, as opposed to using a more holistic algorithm like weighted averaging. The complaint ties the "blue circle" on Apple Maps to this modification, but does not explain the specific mechanism (Compl. ¶106).
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on whether "modifying... using the greater magnitude signal characteristic" can be construed to cover modern, complex geolocation algorithms that may factor in the strongest signal as one of many inputs, or if it is limited to a more direct modification based on that single characteristic as exemplified in the patent's detailed description ('104 Patent, col. 5:10-21).
'8,400,358 Infringement Allegations
Claim 1
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data | Apple provides a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi and cell tower locations (Compl. ¶123). | ¶123 | col. 2:54-56 |
| collecting observed network measurement data | The accused devices collect signal strengths from various transmitters (Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth) (Compl. ¶124). | ¶124 | col. 2:56-57 |
| modifying said observed network measurement data | On information and belief, the system modifies the observed data by "averaging and/or normalizing" it and using other data like barometric pressure to account for environmental conditions (Compl. ¶125). | ¶125 | col. 2:57-58 |
| comparing said modified network measurement data with said database... to thereby determine the location | The system compares the modified signal data against the calibration database to determine the device's location (Compl. ¶126). | ¶126 | col. 2:58-61 |
Claim 41
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 41) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining an average value for select ones of said signal characteristics | On information and belief, the system determines an average value of signal strength information from the observed network data (Compl. ¶134). | ¶134 | col. 2:30-32 |
| modifying said observed network measurement data using said average value | On information and belief, the system modifies the observed data using the determined average value to account for inconsistencies and improve accuracy, as reflected by the "blue circle" feature (Compl. ¶135). | ¶135 | col. 2:32-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: For both claims, the "modifying" step is pleaded on "information and belief." The key evidentiary question will be whether Apple's algorithms actually perform "averaging and/or normalizing" (for claim 1) or a specific "modifying... using said average value" (for claim 41) as part of the location calculation. The complaint's reference to the use of barometric pressure suggests a modification, but the link to the claimed methods requires further proof (Compl. ¶125). A screenshot of a "Dropped Pin" in Apple Maps is provided as evidence of Apple using a street database to enhance location data (Compl. ¶205, p. 75).
- Scope Questions: The term "modifying" in claim 1 is broad. The dispute will likely involve whether this term should be limited by the patent's specification to methods that specifically "simulate an indoor facility," which is the primary problem described, or if it covers any data adjustment made to improve accuracy ('358 Patent, col. 1:45-47).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: U.S. 7,561,104
- The Term: "modifying said observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal characteristic" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase recites the central inventive concept. Its construction will be critical because the infringement allegation hinges on whether Apple's complex location algorithms, which are alleged to involve averaging and normalization, meet this specific limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific sequence of operations that may not be present in a system using a different computational approach.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses several different modification procedures, such as adjusting power levels based on "differences in parameters between the serving cell and the NC" or based on the "NC having the highest cell power" ('104 Patent, col. 5:5-9, 5:58-64). A party could argue this shows the inventors contemplated various ways of using relative signal strengths, including the strongest signal, as a basis for modification, and the claim should not be limited to one specific formula.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language creates a direct link between the "determining" step and the "modifying" step. A party could argue this requires the modification to be a direct function of the single "greater magnitude" value identified in the prior step. The patent's primary example of modification shows a direct subtraction using one signal's power level as a baseline (e.g.,
NMR_modified=[0, P1-P2, P1-P3, TA1]), which may support a narrower construction limited to such a direct, baseline-driven adjustment ('104 Patent, col. 5:10-21).
Patent: U.S. 8,400,358
- The Term: "modifying said observed network measurement data" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is broad and forms the core of the infringement theory for claim 1. Whether it covers any and all adjustments to observed data, or is limited to the specific context of the patent, will likely be a central point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not limit the purpose or method of "modifying." The specification describes a variety of modification techniques, including adjusting based on differences between base stations, using the highest power level, or using an average power level, suggesting the inventors envisioned a range of possible modifications ('358 Patent, col. 5:11-6:51). Plaintiff alleges this covers averaging, normalizing, and using environmental data like barometric pressure (Compl. ¶125).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section is exclusively focused on solving one problem: the inaccuracy caused by comparing indoor measurements to outdoor calibration data. The specification states, "Modifying the calibration data obtained outdoors may provide a way to simulate indoor calibration data characteristics" ('358 Patent, col. 1:45-47). A party could argue that "modifying" should be construed in light of this stated purpose and limited to adjustments that are specifically intended to simulate an indoor environment, not general-purpose accuracy enhancements that are unrelated to the indoor/outdoor problem.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement by providing customers with the Accused Instrumentality and encouraging its use through marketing, advertising, and user documentation (Compl. ¶¶ 113, 142). For example, Apple allegedly "touts the benefits of, and encourages the use of, the Accused Instrumentality by its customers and end-users" (Compl. ¶113).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It alleges pre-suit knowledge of the '753 and '264 patents because publications of their underlying applications were cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of Apple's own patents (Compl. ¶¶ 88-89). Knowledge of the other patents is alleged based on their relation to the cited patents and because Apple was allegedly developing technology in the same field and monitoring the patent landscape (Compl. ¶¶ 92-94). The filing of the complaint itself is cited as establishing knowledge for ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶97).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a broad challenge to the core technology behind Apple's Location Services. The dispute will likely center on the following key questions:
- A primary question will be one of procedural finality: Given that Plaintiff has disclaimed all asserted independent claims for the '104, '358, and '494 patents after the complaint was filed, can infringement allegations for those patents proceed, or are those counts now moot?
- For the remaining patents, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can broad claim terms like "modifying said observed network measurement data" ('358 Patent) or "generating... grid points" ('753 Patent) be construed to read on the specific, proprietary, and likely complex algorithms used by Apple's modern Location Services, or are the claims limited by their specifications to the particular problems and solutions described, such as indoor/outdoor simulation?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: The complaint's allegations regarding the internal workings of Apple's software (e.g., that it "modifies" data by "averaging" it or "using the greater magnitude signal") are made largely on "information and belief." A central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence from Apple's source code or technical documents that demonstrates the accused system performs the specific, ordered steps recited in the method claims.