DCT
2:25-cv-00713
OBD Sensor Solutions LLC v. Xirgo Holdings Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: OBD Sensor Solutions LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Xirgo Technologies, LLC (Delaware) and Xirgo Holdings, Inc. (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kaleo Legal; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01943, E.D. Va., 11/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain an established and regular place of business in the district, specifically an office in Reston, Virginia, and have committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle telematics and tracking devices infringe a patent related to an on-board device for monitoring and processing motor vehicle operating data.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns on-board diagnostic (OBD) port devices that collect and analyze data from a vehicle's internal sensor network for applications such as fleet management, usage-based insurance, and vehicle diagnostics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-06-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,146,346 Priority Date |
| 2006-12-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,146,346 Issued |
| 2025-11-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,146,346 - Fuzzy-Logic On Board Device For Monitoring And Processing Motor Vehicle Operating Data
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,146,346 (Fuzzy-Logic On Board Device For Monitoring And Processing Motor Vehicle Operating Data), issued December 5, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art on-board vehicle monitoring systems as having limited processing capability, requiring the installation of dedicated sensors, and being unable to perform fully autonomous, continuous monitoring. Such systems were often costly and required modification of the vehicle's native electrical system, affecting reliability (’346 Patent, col. 1:16-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a stand-alone electronic device designed to connect to a vehicle's existing internal network via a standard diagnostic port (e.g., an OBD connector). It uses a microprocessor to collect and process data from the vehicle's existing sensors, applying "fuzzy-logic principles" to autonomously analyze the data and derive statistical profiles, referred to as a vehicle "DNA," which characterize the vehicle’s usage patterns (’346 Patent, col. 1:56-62, Fig. 1). This process allows the device to create a synthetic summary of vehicle operation without continuously recording raw data streams (’346 Patent, col. 2:18-26).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide sophisticated vehicle usage analysis for applications like insurance risk assessment and fleet management optimization in a cost-effective manner that does not require intrusive modification of the vehicle (’346 Patent, col. 2:2-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An electronic device comprising a central processing unit (CPU), integrated data storage, and a network connector.
- The network connector is configured to connect to a vehicle’s inner network via a diagnostic connector (like an OBD port).
- The device is described as a "stand-alone device" that cooperates with the vehicle's existing electronic control units (ECUs) to process information.
- The processed data and resulting analysis are stored in the integrated data storage.
- The device also includes an interface connector for a radio transmitter or wireless unit, a "front-end device," and specific bus connections between the components.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses the Xirgo XT2600, XT2400, XT2500, XT6300, XT2060G, XT2469A, and all other substantially similar products and services (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as "vehicle tracking devices and associated software and applications" that connect to a vehicle's on-board diagnostic computer and sensor network to "monitor and process information and/or data related to the use and functioning of motor vehicles" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges that Defendants market, sell, and support these products through their U.S. offices, including a Virginia office depicted in a screenshot from their corporate website (Compl. Fig. 1, p. 4). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the internal architecture or data processing algorithms of the Accused Products.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit A" that was not filed with the pleading; however, paragraph 32 presents a narrative infringement theory that maps elements of the Accused Products to the language of claim 1. The following table summarizes those allegations.
’346 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electronic device for monitoring and processing information data related to the use and functioning of motor vehicles through an inner network connecting vehicle sensors... | The Accused Products are electronic devices for monitoring and processing information from motor vehicles. | ¶32 | col. 5:9-12 |
| said device comprising, a central processing unit; an integrated data storage connected to the central processing unit; and a network connector operatively connected to the central processing unit... | The Accused Products allegedly contain a central processing unit, integrated data storage, and a network connector. | ¶32 | col. 5:13-18 |
| said device being a stand-alone device cooperating with the vehicle electronic dedicated control units...and processing information data...said data...being processed by said central processing unit and performed analysis being stored into said storage; | The Accused Products are alleged to be stand-alone devices that cooperate with vehicle ECUs to process data received from the vehicle's network, with the resulting analysis stored in the device's storage. | ¶32 | col. 5:19-29 |
| an interface connector providing connection to one of a radio transmitter and a wireless unit; | The Accused Products allegedly include an interface connector for a radio transmitter or wireless unit. | ¶32 | col. 5:30-32 |
| and a front-end device and a bus connecting said network connector to said central processing unit; and a further bus connecting said central processing unit to said storage, | The Accused Products allegedly contain a front-end device and buses connecting the network connector, CPU, and storage. | ¶32 | col. 5:33-37 |
| wherein said device is coupled, through said on-board network connector, with one of an OBD- and an EOBD connector for interfacing the motor vehicle inner networks with an outside network of said motor vehicle. | The Accused Products are alleged to couple with a vehicle's OBD or EOBD connector. | ¶32 | col. 5:38-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint does not describe the specific nature of the "processing" and "analysis" performed by the Accused Products. A central question may be whether the data logging, filtering, and transmission functions of a vehicle tracking device meet the "performed analysis" limitation, which the patent specification describes in the context of creating a statistical "DNA" profile using fuzzy logic (’346 Patent, col. 2:22-26).
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific hardware architecture, including a "front-end device" and distinct buses connecting components. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the internal circuitry of the Accused Products maps onto this claimed structure. The complaint's allegations on these elements are conclusory and do not provide specific evidence (Compl. ¶32).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "performed analysis"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of infringement. The patent’s specification extensively details a novel analytical method based on "fuzzy-logic principles" to create a "synthetic frame, defining a user type or a motor vehicle use type condition" (’346 Patent, col. 4:9-10). Practitioners may focus on whether the "analysis" performed by the accused tracking devices is equivalent to this specific, sophisticated method, or if the term can be construed more broadly to cover any computation performed on raw vehicle data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 does not explicitly require "fuzzy logic" or the creation of a vehicle "DNA," which could support an argument that any form of data processing beyond simple collection satisfies the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly characterizes the invention’s contribution as its unique analytical capability, stating the aim is to derive "statistic index arrangements" and a "so-called 'DNA'" (’346 Patent, col. 1:56-62, col. 2:23-24). A defendant may argue that "performed analysis" should be limited by these descriptions, as they represent the core of the disclosed invention.
The Term: "stand-alone device"
Context and Importance: This term defines the device's relationship with the vehicle's native systems. Its construction will determine whether a simple plug-in telematics unit, which relies on the vehicle for power and data, qualifies as "stand-alone."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean a device that is housed in a physically separate enclosure and is not permanently integrated into a factory-installed ECU, which would likely cover the Accused Products.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "stand-alone device" to be "cooperating with the vehicle electronic dedicated control units" to process data (’346 Patent, col. 5:19-21). This language could suggest a more active, collaborative role than that of a passive data logger, potentially narrowing the term's scope to devices that perform significant on-board computation independent of external servers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants instruct customers to perform infringing activities, which suggests a theory of induced infringement (Compl. ¶19). However, it does not plead specific facts regarding Defendants' knowledge of the patent or their specific intent to cause infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of functional scope: does the data handling performed by the accused vehicle tracking devices constitute the "performed analysis" required by Claim 1? The case may hinge on whether this term is given its plain meaning or is instead limited by the patent's detailed disclosure of a specific "fuzzy-logic" method for creating a vehicle "DNA" profile.
A second key question will be one of structural mapping: does the internal hardware of the Accused Products contain the specific "front-end device" and distinct bus architecture recited in Claim 1? The infringement determination will require a technical comparison of the accused circuitry to the patent's claims, an area where the complaint currently lacks detailed factual support.