Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 92 PageID# 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ___________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) files this complaint for patent
`
`infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. against Defendant Google LLC (“Google” or
`
`“Defendant”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,561,104 (“the ’104 Patent”), 8,400,358
`
`(“the ’358 Patent”), 8,786,494 (“the ’494 Patent”), 8,406,753 (“the ’753 Patent), 9,097,784 (“the
`
`’784 Patent”), and 8,320,264 (“the ’264 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) and
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Geoscope is a company organized under the laws of Singapore and registered to
`
`do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, having places of business at 160 Robinson Road,
`
`#24-09, Singapore, 068914 and in Leesburg, VA.
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope is the sole and exclusive rightful owner of the Asserted Patents and
`
`holds, inter alia, the sole and exclusive right to sue and collect damages for past infringement
`
`of the Asserted Patents.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 92 PageID# 2
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Google is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043. Google conducts
`
`and has conducted business operations within the Eastern District of Virginia, including through
`
`its offices at 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Reston, Virginia 20190.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, et seq.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google in this action. Google has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts within the Eastern District of Virginia giving rise to
`
`this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Google would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`In particular, Google has committed and continues to commit acts of direct and indirect
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents in this District. Moreover, Google has employees, offices,
`
`and facilities in this District and has purposefully conducted and continues to purposefully
`
`conduct business in this District, as demonstrated by (a) Google’s maintenance of regular and
`
`established places of business in this District, including its office at 1900 Reston Metro Plaza,
`
`Reston, VA 20190 (see https://www.restonnow.com/2021/03/18/just-in-google-to-lease-more-
`
`space-at-reston-station/), (b) Google’s advertisement of more than 200 available job postings
`
`for its Reston office as of October 2022 (see https://careers.google.com/locations/reston/), and
`
`(c) Google’s economic impact report stating “more than 480 Virginians are employed full-time
`
`by Google.” (See https://economicimpact.google.com/state/va). Google also provided “more
`
`than 475,000 Virginia businesses” with “direct connections to their customers” in 2021
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 92 PageID# 3
`
`including by, inter alia, providing directions requested by a user, and has invested $1.2 billion
`
`in Loudoun County, VA, including investments in the construction and maintenance of multiple
`
`data centers. (See id.; https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/loudoun-county/).
`
`Google has previously submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this District as to Google pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400(b) because a substantial part of the acts and events giving rise to the claims occurred in
`
`this District—namely, Google has committed and continues to commit acts of direct and indirect
`
`infringement in this District. For example, Google has provided and continues to provide
`
`infringing products and/or services to residents in this District, including its Location Services
`
`feature. (See https://policies.google.com/technologies/location-data?hl=en-US). Additionally,
`
`Google maintains regular and established places of business in this District, including its office
`
`at 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Reston, VA 20190 (see https://www.restonnow.com/
`
`2021/03/18/just-in-google-to-lease-more-space-at-reston-station/) and data centers located in
`
`Loudoun County, VA. (See https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/locations/loudoun-
`
`county/). On information and belief, Google employs hundreds of employees across its offices
`
`and other physical locations in this District and, as explained above, advertises job postings for
`
`many different types of roles in this District. Furthermore, Google is registered to do business
`
`in Virginia.
`
`8.
`
`The named inventors of the Asserted Patents—Martin Alles, John Carlson,
`
`George Maher, Selcuk Mazlum, and John Arpee—reside in this District. These inventors are
`
`likely to be relevant witnesses in this case.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 4 of 92 PageID# 4
`
`9.
`
`Brad Close, Geoscope’s Director of Licensing and Intellectual Property, resides
`
`in this District. Mr. Close performs duties in his capacity as an officer of Geoscope in this
`
`District, including at a place of business for Geoscope in Leesburg, VA.
`
`10.
`
`The patented technology giving rise to the claims was developed in this District.
`
`For example, a provisional U.S. patent application to which five of the six Asserted Patents
`
`claim priority states: “The material contained in this report enumerates the various inventions
`
`developed within the signal processing group of Andrew Network Solutions based in Ashburn
`
`Virginia.” Additionally, the named inventors of the Asserted Patents are identified in the patents
`
`as residing in Vienna, VA; Dulles, VA; Herndon, VA; and Leesburg, VA. On information and
`
`belief, the locations of the named inventors identified in the Asserted Patents is representative
`
`of their locations when the patents were filed. Accordingly, on information and belief, relevant
`
`evidence, documentation, and other sources of proof are currently located in this District,
`
`including that which may only be sought from third parties.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to being a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), this
`
`District is a convenient venue for the parties and witnesses, and has an interest in the subject
`
`matter of this case.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`12.
`
`The ’104 Patent, entitled “METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA
`
`USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT,” was lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on July 14, 2009. The ’104 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/899,379 (“the ’379 Provisional”), filed on February 5, 2007. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’104 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`The ’104 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 5 of 92 PageID# 5
`
`14.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’104
`
`Patent
`
`15.
`
`The ’358 Patent, entitled “METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA
`
`USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT,” was lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on March 19, 2013. The patent application that issued as the ’358 Patent is a
`
`continuation of the application that issued as the ’104 Patent. The ’358 Patent claims priority to
`
`the ’379 Provisional, filed on February 5, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’358 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`16.
`
`The ’358 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`17.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’358
`
`Patent.
`
`18.
`
`The ’494 Patent, entitled “METHOD TO MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA
`
`USED TO LOCATE A MOBILE UNIT,” was lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on July 22, 2014. The patent application that issued as the ’494 Patent is a
`
`continuation of the application that issued as the ’358 Patent. The ’494 Patent claims priority to
`
`the ’379 Provisional, filed on February 5, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’494 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`19.
`
`The ’494 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`20.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’494
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 6 of 92 PageID# 6
`
`21.
`
`The ’753 Patent, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A
`
`LOCATION ESTIMATE USING UNIFORM AND NON-UNIFORM GRID POINTS,” was
`
`lawfully issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 26, 2013. The ’753
`
`Patent claims priority to the ’379 Provisional, filed on February 5, 2007. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’753 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`22.
`
`The ’753 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`23.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’753
`
`Patent.
`
`24.
`
`The ’784 Patent, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD TO COLLECT AND
`
`MODIFY CALIBRATION DATA,” was lawfully issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on August 4, 2015. The ’784 Patent claims priority to the ’379 Provisional,
`
`filed on February 5, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’784 Patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`25.
`
`The ’784 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`26.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’784
`
`Patent.
`
`27.
`
`The
`
`’264 Patent,
`
`entitled
`
`“METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
`
`DETERMINING PATH LOSS BY ACTIVE SIGNAL DETECTION,” was lawfully issued by
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 27, 2012. The ’264 Patent claims
`
`priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/681,475 (“the ’475 Provisional”), filed
`
`on May 17, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’264 Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 7 of 92 PageID# 7
`
`28.
`
`The ’264 Patent is valid and enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance
`
`with Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`29.
`
`Geoscope is the owner, by assignment, of all right, title, and interest in the ’264
`
`Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Geoscope asserts and alleges that Google has infringed and continues to infringe
`
`at least one claim of each of the ’104, ’358, ’494, ’753, ’784, and ’264 Patents.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`31.
`
`The inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents were developed by engineers at
`
`Andrew LLC f/k/a Andrew Corporation—Martin Alles, John Carlson, George Maher, Selcuk
`
`Mazlum, and John Arpee (collectively, “the Inventors”). Andrew Corporation was founded in
`
`1937 to manufacture equipment for directional antennas used in AM radio broadcasts. Over the
`
`decades, Andrew Corporation became a leading global supplier and developer of wireless
`
`network equipment, hardware, and infrastructure.
`
`32.
`
`On June 27, 2007, CommScope, Inc.—a network infrastructure provider based
`
`in Hickory, North Carolina—announced its acquisition of Andrew Corporation for
`
`approximately $2.6 billion. As described in a 2007 press release: “The combined company will
`
`be a global leader in infrastructure solutions for communications networks, including structured
`
`cabling solutions for the business enterprise; broadband cable and apparatus for cable television
`
`applications; and antenna and cable products, base station subsystems, coverage and capacity
`
`systems, and network solutions for wireless applications.” (https://www.commscope.com/press-
`
`releases/2007/commscope-to-acquire-andrew-for-$2.6-billion/).
`
`33.
`
`Based on the work of the Inventors, Andrew Corporation (or its successor)
`
`applied for and was granted numerous patents that relate to the geolocation of mobile devices,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 8 of 92 PageID# 8
`
`including the Asserted Patents. As explained in detail below, the Asserted Patents claim novel
`
`inventions that provide technical solutions to specific problems in the field of geolocation of
`
`mobile devices. (See infra at § IV.B).
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`The Asserted Patents were subsequently assigned to Geoscope.
`
`To the extent necessary, Geoscope has complied with all applicable requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C § 287 at all relevant times for each of the Asserted Patents. To the extent necessary,
`
`on information and belief, each prior owner of the Asserted Patents has complied with all
`
`applicable requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 at all relevant times for each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`B.
`
`Location-based Services, Geolocation of Mobile Devices,
`and the Asserted Patents
`
`36.
`
`Location-based services are software services that utilize geographic data to
`
`provide information to a user, or perform another function for a user, based on the user’s
`
`location. Location-based services include, inter alia, maps, navigation services (e.g., driving
`
`directions), local search (e.g., looking for nearby restaurants), social networking, targeted
`
`advertising, and more. The market for location-based services surpassed $20 billion in 2019 and
`
`is
`
`expected
`
`to
`
`continue
`
`to
`
`grow
`
`over
`
`the
`
`coming
`
`years.
`
`(See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4622307/location-based-services-market-
`
`growth-trends).
`
`37.
`
`Location-based services are particularly important for mobile devices such as
`
`smartphones because of their portability. Location-based services are some of the most widely-
`
`used features for smartphones. (See, e.g., https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/29/
`
`us-smartphone-use/ (showing that, in 2015, 90% of U.S. smartphone owners ages 18 and over
`
`had used their smartphones to “Get directions, recommendations, other info related to [their]
`
`location”)).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 9 of 92 PageID# 9
`
`38.
`
`Google has recognized and touted the importance and benefits of location-based
`
`services. For example, a Google website describing Google’s location-based services states:
`
`“Providing useful, meaningful experiences is at the core of what Google does, and location
`
`information plays an important role in doing just that. From driving directions, to making sure
`
`your search results include things near you, to showing you when a restaurant is typically busy,
`
`location can make your experiences across Google more relevant and helpful. Location
`
`information also helps with some core product functionality, like providing a website in the
`
`right language or helping to keep Google’s services secure.” (https://policies.google.com/
`
`technologies/location-data?hl=en-US). That same website further emphasizes the importance
`
`and value of location-based services, stating: “Many devices, like phones or computers, can
`
`work out their precise location. You can allow Google and other apps to provide you with useful
`
`features based on where your device is located. For example, if you’re running late to meet your
`
`friends, you’ll probably want to use a navigation app to know the quickest way to get to your
`
`destination.” (Id.).
`
`39.
`
`Location-based services for mobile devices such as smartphones generally rely
`
`on the mobile devices being able to determine their location (sometimes referred to as
`
`“geolocation”). One way a mobile device can geolocate itself is by observing different types of
`
`signals and using those signals, potentially in conjunction with other information or data, to
`
`calculate the device’s location. For example, a mobile device can receive and use GPS signals—
`
`i.e., signals from Global Positioning System satellites—to determine its location.
`
`40.
`
`The use of GPS signals for geolocation, however, has drawbacks. Because GPS
`
`signals are transmitted by satellites orbiting the earth, the signals are subject to interference as
`
`they travel through the earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, the signals can be obstructed by
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 10 of 92 PageID# 10
`
`buildings, signs, trees, and other manmade or environmental structures. The use of GPS is
`
`particularly limited in indoor and underground environments in which a mobile device may be
`
`unable to receive GPS signals. These factors can reduce the accuracy of GPS-based geolocation
`
`and, in some cases, can even prevent GPS-based geolocation if a mobile device is not able to
`
`receive signals from a minimum number of GPS satellites needed to determine its location.
`
`Moreover, in certain situations, it may take several minutes or longer for a mobile device to
`
`receive the signals and information it needs from the GPS satellites for geolocation, negatively
`
`impacting how quickly the mobile device can geolocate itself. Thus, the use of GPS signals
`
`alone for geolocation may be insufficient to achieve quick and accurate geolocation of mobile
`
`devices.
`
`41.
`
`The drawbacks of using GPS signals alone can be mitigated by using additional
`
`types of signals such as network signals—e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth signals—for
`
`geolocation. Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth signals are typically propagated by Wi-Fi access
`
`points, cellular towers, and Bluetooth devices or “beacons,” respectively, to enable Wi-Fi,
`
`cellular, and Bluetooth networks. These network signals can be received by a mobile device and
`
`used, potentially in conjunction with other information or data, to calculate the device’s location
`
`using various techniques. Accordingly, existing Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth infrastructure
`
`can be used to aid in the geolocation of mobile devices. GPS can be used together with multiple
`
`types of network signals for geolocation purposes. This is sometimes referred to as “hybrid
`
`positioning.”
`
`42.
`
`Google has recognized that using GPS signals alone may be insufficient for quick
`
`and accurate geolocation, and that the use of additional types of signals can improve
`
`geolocation. For example, in response to inquiries from members of the U.S. House of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 11 of 92 PageID# 11
`
`Representatives, Google stated: “Information about the location of WiFi networks improves the
`
`accuracy of the location-based services, such as Google Maps or driving directions, that Google
`
`provides to consumers. … Because GPS and cell tower location data can be unreliable or
`
`inaccurate, in some cases using the location of WiFi access points can enable a smart phone to
`
`pinpoint its own location more quickly and accurately.” (See Google’s June 9, 2010 Letter to
`
`Chairman Waxman, Representative Barton, and Representative Markey, available at
`
`https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/06/googcongress.pdf). Consistent with
`
`this, Google makes available to users a geolocation service that uses, inter alia, GPS in
`
`conjunction with network signals to determine the locations of users’ mobile devices.
`
`43.
`
`Geolocation techniques using Wi-Fi, cellular, and/or Bluetooth signals often
`
`involve a calibration requirement in which the properties of such signals transmitted from
`
`known locations are received and measured. As an alternative, or sometimes additional, form
`
`of calibration, the properties of such signals may be received and measured at known locations.
`
`In this way, properties of Wi-Fi, cellular, and/or Bluetooth signals at known locations—e.g., the
`
`locations of transmission or reception—can be determined, stored, and used as calibration
`
`information for geolocation. At a high level, a mobile device at an unknown location can receive
`
`and measure signals, and those measurements can be compared to the previously-obtained
`
`calibration information related to known locations, to geolocate the mobile device.
`
`44.
`
`Although the use of network signals—e.g., Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth
`
`signals—in conjunction with GPS signals and other information or data can improve the
`
`geolocation of mobile devices, quick and accurate geolocation using such signals presents a
`
`number of challenges. As one example, there may be disparities between the calibration
`
`information and information observed by a mobile device seeking its location that make a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 12 of 92 PageID# 12
`
`comparison between the two less reliable, resulting in reduced accuracy of geolocation. This
`
`can occur because the propagation of Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth signals, and thus the
`
`properties of those signals, are affected by environmental factors. For example, as recognized
`
`in the field, “[a]lthough signal strength measurements are quite simple to obtain, obtaining an
`
`accurate propagation model might be the opposite … [and] strongly depends on the specific
`
`scenario (indoors, outdoors, heavy clutter, etc.), frequency band, weather conditions, and
`
`sometimes even time of day.” (See David Munoz et al., Position Location Techniques and
`
`Applications, 56 (2009)). As an example of this, a comparison of calibration information
`
`obtained outdoors to signal information measured by a device that is indoors may lead to
`
`inaccuracies in geolocation of that device because measurements of signals made indoors can
`
`differ from measurements made outdoors.
`
`45.
`
`Another challenge presented by geolocation using network signals is that
`
`accurate geolocation generally requires a sufficient number or density of transmitters—e.g., Wi-
`
`Fi access points, cellular towers, and Bluetooth beacons. The accuracy of geolocation may be
`
`reduced in areas with few transmitters as there may be limited signal information related to
`
`known locations from which the device can determine its location. Even areas with a relatively
`
`high number or density of transmitters can benefit from having additional known locations or
`
`regions associated with signal data as this can provide more information and potentially better
`
`information that a mobile device can use to geolocate itself, improving accuracy.
`
`46. Moreover, there can be challenges in consistently collecting accurate calibration
`
`information that may be used to geolocate a mobile device using network signals, particularly
`
`because the propagation of network signals can be affected by a variety of environmental
`
`factors. Additionally, collecting accurate calibration information and verifying its accuracy can
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 13 of 92 PageID# 13
`
`be time-consuming and costly. Inaccuracies in the calibration information used for geolocation
`
`can greatly reduce the accuracy of geolocation using network signals.
`
`47.
`
`The Asserted Patents describe and claim novel inventions that address, inter alia,
`
`the foregoing challenges and improve the accuracy, speed, and efficiency of geolocation of
`
`mobile devices using network signals. The inventions of the Asserted Patents are critically
`
`important to geolocation services, including the geolocation service provided by Google which
`
`incorporates the patented technology.
`
`48.
`
`The related ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents are directed to methods and systems for
`
`“determining a location of a mobile station” that involve, inter alia, modifying the signal data
`
`observed and measured by a mobile device seeking its location at a particular time (referred to
`
`herein as “observed data” for simplicity and to distinguish it from previously-gathered
`
`calibration data).1 As explained in further detail below, the claims of the ’104, ’358, and ’494
`
`Patents cover specific improvements in the field of geolocation that go beyond what was well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional to solve then-existing problems in the field.
`
`49.
`
`The inventions claimed in the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents directly addressed
`
`problems in the prior art. Prior art systems involving geolocation using network signals were
`
`subject to reduced accuracy because there could be disparities between calibration data and
`
`observed data that were not accounted for when comparing the two for geolocation purposes.
`
`These disparities could be caused by various environmental factors, including what environment
`
`(e.g., indoors or outdoors) the calibration data and observed data were acquired in, particularly
`
`
`1 Although the Complaint distinguishes between “observed data” and calibration data as part of an
`illustrative example to help explain the purpose and benefits of the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents,
`this is not intended to be limiting. For example, observed data at one moment in time may become
`or act as calibration data for geolocation requests at a future moment in time.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 14 of 92 PageID# 14
`
`given that “[c]alibration data is typically collected in an outdoor environment” (Exhibit A at
`
`1:24-25)2 but mobile devices seeking their location may often be indoors. Disparities between
`
`the calibration data and observed data could result in an “apples and oranges” comparison
`
`between calibration data obtained under one set of environmental conditions and observed data
`
`obtained under a different set of environmental conditions, leading to inaccuracies in
`
`geolocation if not accounted for. For example, as the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents explain:
`
`“When a wireless device is located indoors, the signal strengths of signals received from the
`
`serving and/or neighboring base stations tend to be lower than the strength of the signals
`
`received by a wireless device located outdoors. As a result of these lower signal strengths,
`
`performing comparisons between the received signal strengths of the indoor wireless device and
`
`signal strength data stored in a calibration database may result in a poor estimated location
`
`accuracy.” (Exhibit A at 1:33-40).
`
`50.
`
`The applicants for the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents similarly identified this
`
`problem in the prior art while arguing for the patentability of the claims during prosecution of
`
`the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). For example,
`
`during prosecution of the ’358 Patent, the applicants explained: “When a mobile station is
`
`located indoors, the signal strength of signals received and/or transmitted by the mobile station
`
`have the tendency to be lower than the strength of the signals received by a mobile station
`
`located outdoors. As a result of these lower signal strengths, geo-location efforts which rely on
`
`signal strengths may result in unsatisfactory location accuracy.”
`
`
`2 For simplicity, only citations to the ’104 Patent are provided. The same cited language can be
`found in the ’358 and ’494 Patents.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 15 of 92 PageID# 15
`
`51.
`
`The inventions of the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents improved on conventional
`
`methods for geolocation using network signals by, inter alia, modifying the observed data prior
`
`to comparison to the previously-gathered calibration data in order to account for inconsistencies
`
`between the sets of data that may be caused by environmental factors or other factors. Whereas
`
`prior art geolocation systems were subject to inaccuracies because of these inconsistencies, the
`
`’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents inventively employed modifications to the observed data to account
`
`for such inconsistencies and mitigate their negative impact on the accuracy of geolocation.
`
`Accordingly, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents explain that “network measurement data [e.g.,
`
`observed data] may be modified for comparison with the outdoor calibration data” as part of
`
`“[r]eliably locating a mobile station located indoors, even when the calibration data has been
`
`obtained in an outdoor environment.” (Exhibit A at 3:43-49). Similarly, the ’104, ’358, and ’494
`
`Patents teach that observed data may be modified to “simulate an indoor facility”. (Exhibit A at
`
`5:22-25). The ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents extensively describe exemplary forms of modifying
`
`the observed data prior to comparison to the previously-gathered calibration data. For example,
`
`the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents teach that “[observed] data may also be modified to adjust the
`
`power levels received from the serving and/or neighboring cell (NC) base stations” based on
`
`“differences in parameters between the serving cell and the NC.” (Exhibit A at 5:5-9; see also
`
`id. at 5:10-57). As another example, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents teach that observed data
`
`may be modified based on “differences between the NC having the highest cell power and the
`
`cell powers of the remaining NC-BSs.” (Exhibit A at 5:58-64; see also id. at 5:65-6:52). As yet
`
`another example, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents teach that observed data may be modified “by
`
`an average signal power or parameter level based on one or more of the measured NC signal
`
`power levels.” (Exhibit A at 6:53-6:67; see also id. at 7:1-30). The ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 16 of 92 PageID# 16
`
`further state that combinations of these exemplary “modification procedures may be performed
`
`to increase the accuracy of mobile station location estimates” (Exhibit A at 7:31-33) and explain
`
`the circumstances under which these different types of modifications may be appropriate
`
`(Exhibit A at 7:40-59).
`
`52.
`
`The applicants for the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents identified this aspect of the
`
`inventions as distinguishing the prior art during prosecution of the patents before the USPTO.
`
`For example, during prosecution of the ’358 Patent, the applicants explained that prior art
`
`references relied on by the Examiner failed to teach, inter alia, “modifying the observed network
`
`measurement data and comparing the modified network measurement data with a database of
`
`calibration data to determine the location of a mobile station.” Notably, the ’358 Patent was
`
`issued by the USPTO after consideration of approximately 200 prior art references that are cited
`
`on the face of the patent.
`
`53.
`
`The ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents also teach why alternatives to the claimed
`
`solutions have significant disadvantages and are not feasible. For example, the ’104, ’358, and
`
`’494 Patents explain that “[c]alibration data is typically collected in an outdoor environment”
`
`which can present problems when attempting to geolocate a mobile device that is indoors.
`
`(Exhibit A at 1:24-25, 1:33-40). The ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents further explain why collecting
`
`calibration data indoors is not a sufficient solution to these problems: “The primary reason for
`
`collecting calibration data outdoors is the greater ease of performing automated calibration
`
`collection procedures or, in some instances, manual collection procedures along roads. It is more
`
`time-consuming to perform calibration procedures indoors due to the required access to
`
`buildings and the inability to utilize automated collection procedures designed for outdoor
`
`environments.” (Exhibit A at 1:25-32). Thus, the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents make clear why
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 1 Filed 11/22/22 Page 17 of 92 PageID# 17
`
`the claimed solutions involving modifying the observed data are superior to alternative
`
`approaches to addressing the problem.
`
`54.
`
`The independent claims of the ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents expressly recite this
`
`inventive feature of modifying the observed data, including in specific manners, and the
`
`dependent claims of the patents cover further specific refinements to the claimed inventions,
`
`including additional limitations on how the calibration data is collected and how the observed
`
`data is modified. For example, Claim 1 of the ’104 Patent recites, inter alia, “determining wh