1:20-cv-06224
Atos LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ATOS, LLC D/B/A RIDEMETRIC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Allstate Insurance Co. (Illinois), Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. (Delaware), and Arity, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Jenner & Block LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-06224, N.D. Ill., 04/06/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants either reside in the Northern District of Illinois or have regular and established places of business in the district, where they have allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' smartphone-based usage-based insurance applications, "Drivewise" and "DriveSense," infringe three patents related to using a phone's internal sensors to automatically detect a vehicle's operational state.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of smartphone-based vehicle telematics, a technology used by the insurance industry to monitor driving behavior and offer usage-based insurance policies.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that its patent infringement claims were previously dismissed by the Court on the grounds that they are directed to unpatentable subject matter. The Plaintiff states that it is re-pleading these claims in the First Amended Complaint to preserve its rights for appeal. The complaint also centers on a 2015 Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (MNDA) between the parties, which preceded Defendants' launch of the accused smartphone-based products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-02-10 | Priority Date for '140 and '609 Patents |
| 2010-01-01 | Allstate launches original OBDS-based Drivewise program |
| 2012-01-01 | RideMetric begins developing SDK and mobile application |
| 2013-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,527,140 issues |
| 2013-07-12 | Priority Date for '174 Patent |
| 2014-01-01 | RideMetric app privately released on Google Play Store |
| 2015-03-01 | RideMetric app publicly released on Google Play Store |
| 2015-01-01 | Allstate begins offering smartphone-based Drivewise alternative |
| 2015-01-01 | Arity is formed |
| 2015-10-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,152,609 issues |
| 2015-12-04 | MNDA between RideMetric, Allstate, and Arity becomes effective |
| 2016-06-01 | Esurance begins offering DriveSense Mobile App |
| 2017-12-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,846,174 issues |
| 2026-04-06 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,152,609 - "Vehicle State Detection," issued October 6, 2015 ('609 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the drawbacks of prior art methods for determining a vehicle's state Compl. ¶¶17-19 Methods like connecting dongles to a vehicle's On-Board Diagnostic System (OBDS) are described as cumbersome and costly, while using a smartphone's GPS is battery-intensive and cannot reliably distinguish between a person walking and a slow-moving vehicle Compl. ¶¶18-19 '609 Patent, col. 1:41-54
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a portable device's (e.g., a smartphone's) internal sensors, such as an accelerometer, to transparently monitor "operation indicators" like vibrations Compl. ¶¶21-26 '609 Patent, col. 2:15-25 The system analyzes these indicators against predetermined criteria (e.g., a vibration frequency threshold) to automatically determine the vehicle's operational state (e.g., "engine on" or "engine off") and trigger actions on the device, without relying on GPS or external hardware '609 Patent, abstract '609 Patent, col. 3:45-66
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a "dongle-free," power-efficient solution for telematics, which the complaint alleges lowered the cost and complexity of deploying usage-based insurance programs Compl. ¶46
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12, 15, 17-21, 23, and 25 Compl. ¶102 Independent claims 1 and 25 are foundational.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- monitoring, at least one operation indicator transparently to the individual, created by an on-board component of the portable device inside a vehicle;
- detecting the indicator meets predetermined criteria;
- determining one or more operational states of the vehicle;
- determining an action to be performed based on the operational state and at least one previous change in that state; and
- performing the action on the portable device.
- Independent Claim 25 (Apparatus):
- at least one sensor generating at least one operation indicator;
- a monitor configured to monitor the indicator(s);
- at least one vehicle operational state detector configured to detect when indicators meet criteria, identify an operational state, and perform actions based on that state;
- whereby the indicators are generated without any connection to other apparatuses in or outside the vehicle.
U.S. Patent No. 8,527,140 - "Vehicle State Detection," issued September 3, 2013 ('140 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the common problem of people forgetting where they parked their car and notes that prior art solutions using key fobs or other signals require "tight coupling" with the vehicle, making them cumbersome and not universally applicable (e.g., to a rental car) '140 Patent, col. 1:13-40
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses a portable device's onboard sensors to detect a change in vehicle state, such as the transition from "engine on" to "engine off" by analyzing vibrations. Upon detecting this transition, the device automatically records the geographic position of the vehicle. Later, upon the user's request, the device can provide directions back to the stored location '140 Patent, col. 2:15-25 '140 Patent, fig. 7
- Technical Importance: This technology provided an automatic "find my car" feature using the hardware already present in a user's smartphone, eliminating the need for specialized equipment or manual user action to save a location Compl. ¶14
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 15-18 Compl. ¶136 The analysis focuses on independent method claims 3 and 5.
- Independent Claim 3 (Method):
- monitoring at least one operation indicator continuously and transparently;
- detecting the indicator meets predetermined criteria;
- determining one or more operational states of the vehicle;
- determining one or more actions based on the state;
- performing the actions, which further comprises: recording at least one geographic position when the vehicle's operational state changes to "an engine is off state," and directing the individual to that position upon request.
- Independent Claim 5 (Method):
- Includes the initial steps of monitoring, detecting, determining state, and determining/performing actions.
- The action determination step further comprises: determining a location of the individual, and determining the action based on the vehicle's operational state and the individual's location.
U.S. Patent No. 9,846,174 - "Computer-Implemented Methods And Computer Systems/Machines For Identifying Dependent And Vehicle Independent States," issued December 19, 2017 ('174 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The '174 Patent addresses the problem of distinguishing vehicle-dependent movements (e.g., cornering) from vehicle-independent movements (e.g., the user simply handling the phone) '174 Patent, col. 1:40-49 The proposed solution involves analyzing data from a gyroscope and accelerometer to estimate the angle between the device's rotation vector and the gravity vector, which can indicate if the device is rotating on an axis parallel to gravity, as occurs when a vehicle turns '174 Patent, col. 2:4-11
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 Compl. ¶158
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Drivewise and DriveSense applications infringe by implementing methods to detect vehicle turning Compl. ¶¶164-165 The allegation is supported by referencing a later-filed Allstate/Arity patent (the "Snyder Patent") that describes a similar method for detecting turns Compl. ¶¶161-163
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Allstate's "Drivewise" mobile application and Esurance's "DriveSense" mobile application (collectively, the "Accused Apps") Compl. ¶102 Arity, an Allstate subsidiary, is alleged to perform the analysis of the telematics data for both apps Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶98
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Apps are part of usage-based insurance programs that monitor a customer's driving behavior to offer personalized insurance rates (Compl. ¶¶3; Compl. ¶38; Compl. ¶89). The complaint alleges the apps leverage a smartphone's internal accelerometer to identify the vehicle's operational state Compl. ¶78 Compl. ¶92 When a driving trip is detected, the apps initialize the phone's GPS to record data such as speed and location Compl. ¶79 Compl. ¶96 The complaint provides a screenshot from the Drivewise settings menu stating, "[w]hen Drivewise is enabled, your phone's sensors are used to monitor driving behaviors" Compl. ¶76 A screenshot of the DriveSense FAQ similarly states the app "automatically detects when your car's in motion" Compl. ¶95 Both apps are also alleged to offer a "Parking Reminder" feature that records the location of a parked vehicle Compl. ¶83 Compl. ¶96
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'609 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitoring, at least one operation indicator transparently to the individual, wherein the at least one operation indicator is created by an on-board component of the portable device when the portable device is located inside a vehicle | The Accused Apps allegedly monitor vibrations using the smartphone's internal accelerometer to generate operation indicators. | ¶110; ¶113 | col. 3:55-66 |
| detecting the at least one operation indicator that meets one or more predetermined criteria | The apps allegedly process the operation indicators to determine when the device is in a running vehicle. | ¶104; ¶106 | col. 4:11-24 |
| determining one or more operational states of the vehicle based on the one or more predetermined criteria | The apps determine the operational state of the vehicle (e.g., driving, parked) from the processed indicators. | ¶78; ¶104 | col. 4:11-24 |
| determining at least one action to be performed on the portable device ... based at least in part on ... at least one previous change in the operational state of the vehicle | When the apps detect a change from a stationary state to a moving state, they determine that the action of activating the GPS should be performed. | ¶104; ¶106 | col. 4:32-36 |
| performing the at least one action on the portable device | The apps activate the GPS function on the smartphone. The complaint points to a screenshot showing the GPS icon activated inside a moving vehicle. | ¶104; ¶81 | col. 4:37-39 |
'140 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitoring at least one operation indicator continuously and transparently to the individual ... created by an on-board component | The Accused Apps use the phone's sensors to monitor for changes in vehicle state without continuous user interaction. | ¶77; ¶92; ¶137 | col. 3:45-55 |
| detecting when the at least one operation indicator meets one or more predetermined criteria | The apps detect a transition from driving to parked. | ¶139; ¶141 | col. 3:56-65 |
| determining one or more operational states of the vehicle based on the one or more predetermined criteria | The apps determine the vehicle is in a "parked" state. | ¶139; ¶141 | col. 4:11-24 |
| performing the one or more actions on the portable device ... recording at least one geographic position of the vehicle when the operational state of the vehicle is changed at least to an engine is off state | The Drivewise app records the location of the parked vehicle and displays a "Parking Location" button. The complaint includes a screenshot showing this feature. | ¶84; ¶139 | col. 8:19-27 |
| and directing the individual upon his request using the portable device to the at least one geographic position | When the user taps the "Parking Location" text, the app displays a map with walking directions to the recorded location. | ¶85; ¶139 | col. 8:27-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "operation indicator" as used in the patents, which are generated from sensors, reads on the raw or processed data used by the Accused Apps. The complaint alleges the apps monitor "vibrations through the accelerometer" to create indicators Compl. ¶110, but the specific nature of this data and its relationship to the patent's definition will likely be a point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: For the '140 Patent, Claim 3 requires recording a position when the state changes to "an engine is off state." The complaint alleges the apps record the location upon a transition "from driving to parked" Compl. ¶139 A key technical question will be whether the plaintiff can provide evidence that the "parked" state detected by the Accused Apps is functionally equivalent to the "engine is off" state required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"operation indicator"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundational input for the entire patented system. Its definition is critical because infringement hinges on whether the data monitored by the Accused Apps (e.g., from the accelerometer) qualifies as an "operation indicator."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an "operation indicator" as a conversion of sensor signals, for example, "number of vibrations measured per second" '140 Patent, col. 3:55-59 This may support an interpretation that includes raw or lightly processed sensor outputs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts a system where a "sensor" generates "operation indicators" that are then fed to a "monitor" and a "state detector" '140 Patent, fig. 1 This structure suggests that an "operation indicator" is a distinct, processed output from the sensor, not merely the raw signal itself, which could support a narrower construction requiring a specific form of data.
"transparently to the individual"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the user experience and is central to the invention's claimed improvement over manual-input systems. Defendants may argue their apps, which require user opt-in and provide active notifications, do not operate "transparently."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts its automatic approach with prior art requiring manual user actions, like making phone calls to pay for parking '140 Patent, col. 1:61-68 The complaint alleges the technology works "without requiring user initiation or interaction" for each detection event Compl. ¶12, which aligns with an interpretation of "transparently" as meaning automatic and in the background.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term could be construed to mean completely invisible to the user. The complaint itself includes screenshots of the Accused Apps that provide explicit notifications to the user, such as "Drivewise is active" Compl. ¶76 and terms of service that detail the data collection Compl. ¶91 This evidence may support a narrower interpretation that the disclosed monitoring is not "transparent."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by instructing customers on how to install and operate the Accused Apps through online documentation, customer support, and in-app instructions Compl. ¶¶121-122 Compl. ¶¶143-144 Compl. ¶¶167-168 It is also alleged that the Accused Apps were developed with no uses other than to operate in an infringing manner Compl. ¶123 Compl. ¶145 Compl. ¶169
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of RideMetric's technology and patents. The complaint alleges a history of communications between the parties from 2012 to 2016, including discussions under an MNDA Compl. ¶¶2 Compl. ¶51 The complaint asserts Defendants were aware of the '609 patent since its issuance in October 2015 and that Allstate cited the parent '140 patent in its own patent applications Compl. ¶124 Compl. ¶146
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
1. The Question of Patent Eligibility: The complaint's own footnote reveals that the patent claims have already been dismissed under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter Compl. ¶1, fn. 1 Therefore, the most fundamental question for the litigation is a legal one: on appeal, can the plaintiff successfully argue that the claims are not merely an abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data, but rather a patent-eligible, concrete improvement to the functioning of a smartphone (e.g., by enabling new functionality while conserving battery life)?
2. The Question of Definitional Scope: A core infringement issue will be whether the raw or processed sensor data used by the Accused Apps constitutes an "operation indicator" as that term is used in the patents. The case may turn on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any sensor-derived data used for state detection or narrowly to require a specific, intermediate data format as taught in the patents' embodiments.
3. The Question of Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Apps' functions map directly onto specific claim limitations. For instance, does detecting a transition from "driving to parked" Compl. ¶139 satisfy the '140 Patent's requirement of recording a location upon a change to an "engine is off state" '140 Patent, cl. 3? The plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that the accused technical operation is functionally the same as that claimed in the patents.