Cambridge Mobile Telematics Inc. v. Zendrive Inc.

1

CAMBRIDGE MOBILE TELEMATICS, INC. Plaintiff, v. ZENDRIVE, INC. Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-1260-RGA

United States District Court, D. Delaware

July 28, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THE HONORABLE LAURA D. HATCHER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This dispute arises out of patent infringement litigation between Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. ('^;CMT”) and Zendrive, Inc. (“Zendrive”). Before the Court is Zendrive's Motion to Dismiss Counts II and IV of CMT's Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 14). In its Motion Zendrive argues that two of the patents asserted against it-U.S. Patent No. 10,349, 219 (the “'219 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,967.872 (the "'872 patent”)-are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Motion is fully briefed, complete with Supplemental § 101 Letters, (D.I. 29, 30), and I heard oral argument on the Motion on June 29, 2023. For the following reasons, I recommend that Zendrive's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.

I. Background

CMT and Zendrive are competitors in the field of telematics. (D.I. 1 at 2). CMT develops and commercializes mobile telematics and analytics technologies and holds several patents in the field. (Id. at 3-4). CMT's patents generally relate to solutions for improving safe driving behavior. (Id. at 4). CMT alleges that Zendrive is infringing several of those patents, (Id. at 3-5), though only the '219 patent and the '872 patent are at issue for the purposes of this motion.

The '219 patent is titled “Methods and Systems for Combining Sensor Data to Determine Vehicle Movement Information.” It was issued on July 9, 2019. According to the specification, the invention relates generally to “combining sensor data to determine vehicle movement information.” (D.I. 1-2 at 1:33-35). The specification's improvement is to obtain “movement measurements . . . from a movement sensor of a mobile device in a vehicle” and “location measurements ... from a location sensor of the mobile device in the vehicle,” and then to “cross-reference[]” the “movement measurements and the location measurements to remove erroneous measurements.” (Id. at 1:36-42). Then, the “remaining measurements may be used to draw conclusions about the movements or locations.” (Id. at 1:43-45).

Claim 1 of the '219 patent reads as follows:

A method comprising:

operating a movement sensor of a mobile device disposed in a vehicle to obtain a plurality of movement measurements;

operating a location sensor of the mobile device disposed in the vehicle to obtain a plurality of location measurements;

verifying, by a processor of the mobile device, a portion of the plurality of movement measurements using the plurality of location measurements;

removing, by the processor, one or more movement measurements that are not verified from the plurality of movement measurements to provide a set of remaining movement measurements; and

determining, by the processor, a movement event for the vehicle using the set of remaining movement measurements.

(D.I. 1-2). The '219 patent also recites various other claims. Claim 10 is independent and uses virtually the same language as claim 1, except that claim 1 recites a method whereas claim 10 recites a device configured to perform the operations of that method. Claims 2 through 9 ultimately depend from claim 1 (with claims 6 and 7 depending directly from claim 5), and claims 11 through 18 ultimately depend from claim 10 (with claims 15 and 16 depending directly from claim 14). (Id.). Each of these two sets recites the same limitations, except that claims 2 through 9 recite methods and claims 11 through 18 recite devices configured to perform the operations of those methods. (Id.) None of the claims specifically claim the movement or location sensors used in the mobile device, nor the idea of using those sensors to obtain movement and location measurements.

The '872 patent is titled “Methods and Systems for Presenting Collected Driving Data.” It was issued on April 6, 2021. According to the specification, the invention relates generally to “collect[ing], analyz[ing] and transform[ing]” vehicle movement data from a “user having a mobile device,” wherein “combinations of collected data and transformed data are used in different ways, including, but not limited to reporting and displaying of the combinations.” (D.I. 1-5 at 1:39-44). The specification's improvement is to use sensors in a mobile device to determine vehicle movement measurements and then display the information. (Id. at 1:55-63).

Claim 1 of the '872 patent recites:

A method of displaying vehicle movement information, the method comprising:

obtaining a plurality of movement measurements by operating at least one sensor of a mobile device disposed in a vehicle during a drive;

generating during the drive by a processor of the mobile device, an association of a subset of the plurality of movement measurements obtained by operating the at least one sensor of the mobile device to at least one driving event indicating an interaction with the mobile device by a user during the drive;

generating, by the processor and using the association, a focused time metric indicating a percentage of the drive in which the user was focused and a mobile device interaction metric indicating a percentage of the drive in which the mobile device was in use during the drive;

generating, by the processor, a graphical image of the at least one driving event and the focused time metric and the mobile device interaction metric; and

displaying during the drive the graphical image on a display of the mobile device.

(D.I. 1-5). The '872 patent also recites various other claims, including claim 11, an independent claim which recites a computer-program product with instructions to perform the operations of the method recited in claim 1. (Id.). Claims 2 through 10 ultimately depend from claim 1 (with claim 6 depending directly from claim 5, claim 8 depending directly from claim 7, and claim 9 depending directly from claim 8), and claims 12 through 20 ultimately depend from claim 11 (with claim 16 depending directly from claim 15, claim 18 depending directly from claim 17, and claim 19 depending directly from claim 18). (Id.). Like the two sets of claims in the '219 patent, each of these two sets of dependent claims recites the same limitations, except that claims 2 through 10 recite methods whereas claims 12 through 20 recite computer-program products with instructions to perform the operations of those methods. (Id.). Also like the claims in the '219 patent, none of these claims specifically claim the movement or location sensors used in the mobile device, nor the idea of using those sensors to obtain movement and location measurements.

II. Legal Standards

A. Motion to Dismiss

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides that a defendant may assert by motion that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. When such a motion is made, a challenged claim is evaluated under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), which states that a plaintiffs claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but conclusory allegations and “formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action” are insufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of and grounds for the claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In evaluating the claims, a court must assume that all factual allegations in the complaint are true and dismiss the claim if those allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). While this plausibility standard requires more of the complaint than allegations supporting the mere possibility that the defendant is liable as alleged, plausibility should not be taken to mean probability. Id. at 678. A claim is facially plausible, and the standard is satisfied, when the claim's factual allegations, accepted as true, allow the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable as alleged. Id.

B. Patent Eligibility

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court recognizes three categories of ineligible subject matter: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab'ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). The purpose of these exceptions is to protect the “basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Id. at 71. Because all inventions rely on one of these exceptions at some level, however, these exceptions should not be too broadly construed, and applications of them may be patentable. Id. “Whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which make contain disputes over underlying facts.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

To strike this balance, the Supreme Court established a two-step analytical framework for determining whether a patent recites eligible subject matter in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one, a court looks to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to an ineligible concept. Id. at 218. The first step directs the court to examine the “focus” of the claims and look at their “character as a whole.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. 830 F.3d 1350 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). In conducting the inquiry at step one, although the...