CG Technology Development, LLC et al. v. Bwin.Party (USA), Inc. et al.

CG Technology Development, LLC et al. v. Bwin.Party (USA), Inc. et al., No. 16-871 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) 

Patent(s):

  • 6,292,724 | Entitled “Method of and system and apparatus for remotely monitoring the location, status, utilization and condition of widely geographically dispresed [sic] fleets of vehicular construction equipment and the like and providing and displaying such information.”
  • 6,611,686 | Entitled “Tracking control and logistics system and method”

  • 6,651,001 | Entitled “Method of and system and apparatus for integrating maintenance vehicle and service personnel tracking information with the remote monitoring of the location, status, utilization and condition of widely geographically dispersed fleets of vehicular construction equipment and the like to be maintained, and providing and displaying together both construction and maintenance vehicle information”

  • 6,735,150 | Entitled “Method of and apparatus for distinguishing engine idling and working hours”

  • 8,855,626 | Entitled “Wireless control for creation of, and command response to, standard freight shipment messages”

Disposition:               

Grant in part and denial in part of Motion for Reconsideration

Abstract Idea:

See below

Something More:

See below

Technology:              

Method of controlling audio systems using computers

Summary:                 

The court reevaluated in view of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Electric Power Group, where the Federal Circuit explicitly stated that “‘merely selecting information, by content or by source, for collection analysis and display does nothing’ to elevate a patent beyond a mere abstract idea.” The ‘626 patent is directed to a system that translates messages regarding freight materials and allows recipients to transmit messages in turn. Such data collection is an abstract idea. The claims did not add an inventive concept as they did not rely on any technological advancement. But the court denied the motion as to the ‘724, ‘686, and ‘001 patents because these relied on GPS technology to monitor freight traffic, which the court could not conclude as a matter of law at this stage were invalid. The court also could not invalidate the ‘150 patent at this stage because using “engine frequency to measure run time is innovative technology.”