This blog post analyzes the UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp. case, focusing only on the patent infringement issues – specifically the appropriateness of a District Court construing claims at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
Facts of the Case and Brief Procedural History
UTTO Inc., the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441 (the ‘441 patent), sued its competitor Metrotech Corp. for patent infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. The ‘441 patent covers methods for detecting and identifying underground utility lines using location data and buffer zones.
UTTO alleged that Metrotech’s RTK-Pro locator device infringed on the ‘441 patent –specifically its “walk back” feature. This “walk back” feature allows users to retrieve one or more saved location points and be guided to them, and displays a “zero-in” display when the user is within ten feet of the target.
The District Court dismissed all claims, initially for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). UTTO amended its complaint multiple times, but the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice.
Technology Covered by the ‘441 Patent
The ‘441 patent discloses methods for locating underground utility lines, referred to as “buried assets.” The ‘441 patent describes using a combination of GPS data and stored buried asset data to generate buffer zones around the assets, allowing a technician to know his or her proximity to a given asset. Claim 1 of the patent, which was the focus of the dispute, outlines the method for locating electromagnetic signals radiating from a buried asset, and is reproduced for the reader’s convenience below:
A method on a mobile computing device for locating electromagnetic signals radiating from a buried asset, the method comprising:
receiving, via a communications network communicatively coupled with the mobile computing device, a group of buried asset data points corresponding to a particular buried asset sought by an operator of the mobile computing device;
reading a predefined value pertaining to a width of a buffer zone;
generating, based on the group of buried asset data points, a two dimensional area comprising the buffer zone at an above-surface location, wherein a width of the buffer zone corresponds to the predefined value, and wherein the buffer zone corresponds to the particular buried asset;
iteratively executing the following four steps:
a) calculating an above-surface location of the mobile computing device using spatial processes;
b) determining whether the above-surface location of the mobile computing device is located within the two dimensional area;
c) if the above-surface location is not located within the two dimensional area, displaying a first graphic in a display of the mobile computing device; and
d) if the above-surface location is located within the two dimensional area, displaying a second graphic in the display.
Legal Standard for Patent Infringement
The court’s analysis centered around the legal standard for patent infringement, stated as follows:
To prove infringement, a patent owner must demonstrate that the accused product or method practices all of the limitations of at least one claim of the patent. This involves determining what the claim means (referred to as “claim construction”) to determine the scope and meaning of the claim language and then comparing the properly construed claims to the allegedly infringing product or method.
Analysis of the Legal Standards
This dispute centered on the claim language “generating, based on the group of buried asset data points, a two-dimensional area comprising the buffer zone” (emphasis added). The question was whether “a group of buried asset data points” must include two or more data points (rather than one or more data points). The District Court found that the ordinary meaning of the “group” implies two or more (a plurality), leading them to dismiss the claim as Metrotech’s device used only one data point.
The Federal Circuit, however, found the District Court’s analysis insufficient and vacated the dismissal. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that even though “group” is commonly presumed to mean multiple items, this presumption can be overcome by context. The specification of the ‘441 patent used the phrase “one or more buried asset data points” in two instances, raising the possibility that the patent encompassed a single data point use. Further analysis of the patent specification and potentially extrinsic evidence was deemed necessary for a proper claim construction.
Outcome of the Case
The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal of the patent infringement claim and remanded it for further claim construction proceedings.
Key Takeaway From the Case
This case highlights the critical role of claim construction in patent infringement cases, especially at the motion to dismiss stage. The District Court’s interpretation of a seemingly straightforward and self-explanatory term such as “group” can significantly impact the outcome of a case. This case also highlights the importance of thoroughly analyzing a patent’s specification and potentially using extrinsic evidence to make a proper claim construction.