AutoLocate System LLC v. Academy Bus LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AutoLocate Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Academy Bus, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Golomb Legal, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-18119, D.N.J., 05/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's transportation systems infringe a patent related to on-vehicle devices that provide real-time location and arrival time information directly to passengers upon request.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle tracking and passenger information systems, a field focused on improving the efficiency and user experience of public transportation by providing dynamic, real-time data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on January 8, 2006, a fact that may be relevant for defining the scope of prior art.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-08	'904 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2007-01-06	'904 Patent Application Filing Date
2012-12-25	'904 Patent Issue Date
2026-05-01	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,340,904 - "Transmission of wireless messages of current vehicle location and estimated arrival time to requestors"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of public transit passengers waiting at stops with no reliable, real-time information on a vehicle's location or estimated arrival time (ETA) Compl. ¶10 '904 Patent, col. 1:25-30 Passengers were forced to rely on static, printed schedules which were often inaccurate due to traffic, breakdowns, or other unpredictable factors, leading to "tremendous wastes of time and resources" '904 Patent, col. 1:35-44 Existing systems were also deficient in that they followed a centralized dispatch model where the vehicle only reported its location to a central point, which then handled any passenger communication; the vehicle itself was not a direct, addressable endpoint for passengers Compl. ¶11
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an on-vehicle wireless communication device that moves the communication endpoint from a central station to the vehicle itself Compl. ¶14 As described in the specification, this on-board device integrates a GPS for location determination, a processor to calculate ETAs (potentially using real-time traffic data), and a communication subsystem '904 Patent, col. 5:27-44 Crucially, this subsystem is designed to receive a request directly from a user's portable device (e.g., a cell phone) and automatically generate and transmit a real-time location and arrival message directly back to that user's device, without needing to pass through a stationary intermediary for the response Compl. ¶16 '904 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: The claimed architecture represented a shift from centralized, one-way information push systems to a decentralized, two-way, request-responsive model where the vehicle itself becomes an active communication node in the passenger information network Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶17, while noting that other "exemplary claims" are identified in an attached exhibit Compl. ¶21
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A wireless communication device disposed on a public transportation vehicle.
  • A vehicle location processor for receiving GPS data and computing the vehicle's geographic location.
  • A request response subsystem that receives a "real-time wireless telephonic signal" from a remote requestor's portable device.
  • The subsystem "automatically generates and transmits a real-time vehicle location message directly to the portable communication device of the remote requestor, without requiring to use a stationary communication device," to indicate the vehicle's arrival time at multiple stops.
• The complaint's reference to "Exemplary '904 Patent Claims" suggests the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, is reserved Compl. ¶21

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products, instead referring to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶25 This exhibit was not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an independent analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '904 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '904 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶25 The defendant, Academy Bus, LLC, is a transportation company, suggesting the accused instrumentalities are systems used in connection with its bus services Compl. ¶3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of the '904 Patent but refers to claim charts in an external exhibit, which was not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶26 Therefore, a tabular analysis cannot be constructed.

The complaint's narrative infringement theory centers on the assertion that the Defendant makes, uses, or sells unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" that embody the technology of the '904 Patent Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶25 The complaint lays the groundwork for its infringement case by mapping the core inventive concepts to the language of Claim 1. It alleges that the patent's central innovation-locating the communication endpoint on the vehicle itself to receive passenger requests and originate responses directly-is a specific technical architecture Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶18 The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that Defendant's products utilize this same architecture Compl. ¶25 Without the specific product details and claim charts from Exhibit 2, the precise factual basis for how each claim element is allegedly met by the accused products is not discernible from the complaint itself.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: A central dispute will likely concern the claim limitation "without requiring to use a stationary communication device." The infringement analysis will question whether the accused system uses a purely vehicle-to-passenger communication path for its responses, or if it routes requests or responses through land-based servers, which could create a non-infringement argument.
  • Scope Questions: The meaning of "real-time wireless telephonic signal" will be a likely point of contention. The question will be whether this term, originating from a 2006 priority date, is limited to technologies like SMS or voice calls, or if it can be construed to cover modern data requests from a smartphone application over an IP network.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "real-time wireless telephonic signal"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the nature of the passenger's request that triggers the patented system. The construction of "telephonic" will be central to the infringement analysis, particularly whether it is limited to legacy circuit-switched communications or can encompass modern packet-switched data from mobile apps.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses sending various message types, including "short message," "electronic mail (e-mail)," and "voice message" '904 Patent, col. 4:6-12, and contemplates use with devices like a "personal digital assistant (PDA)" connected "through the Internet" '904 Patent, col. 6:59-62 This may support an interpretation that "telephonic" is not limited to a specific transmission protocol but refers generally to a signal from a personal communication device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific word "telephonic." The specification frequently references a "cellular phone" and "short message (SM)" '904 Patent, col. 3:56 '904 Patent, col. 6:58 '904 Patent, col. 9:6-7, technologies closely associated with the public telephone network. This could support an argument that the term is tied to the communication standards prevalent at the time of invention.

• The Term: "without requiring to use a stationary communication device"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the communication architecture and is presented in the complaint as a key point of novelty over prior art Compl. ¶18 Its interpretation will determine whether systems that use any server-side processing fall outside the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring infringement): The language focuses on what is "requir[ed]." Plaintiff may argue this means the system must be capable of direct vehicle-to-passenger response, distinguishing it from prior art where a stationary device was an essential intermediary for all passenger communication. The context emphasizes originating the response from the vehicle Compl. ¶18
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): A defendant could argue this requires a completely serverless, peer-to-peer communication link between the passenger and the vehicle for the entire transaction. The patent's own Figure 3, which discloses a "Master Server" (310) and "WLAN servers" (320), depicts an architecture with stationary components, which could be used to argue that the "without requiring" limitation applies only to specific embodiments and that a system using any stationary server for processing or routing does not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support inducement or contributory infringement, such as instructing users or providing components for infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the filing and service of the lawsuit provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" Compl. ¶23 It further alleges that despite this knowledge, the Defendant's infringing activities are ongoing, which may support a claim for post-filing willful infringement Compl. ¶24 No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears poised to turn on fundamental questions of claim construction, driven by the evolution of technology since the patent's priority date.

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can the term "real-time wireless telephonic signal," rooted in the 2006 era of cell phones and SMS, be construed to read on data requests generated by modern smartphone apps over IP networks? The answer will significantly broaden or narrow the potential scope of infringement.
• A second key issue will be one of architectural definition: What does it mean for a response to be generated "without requiring to use a stationary communication device"? The case will likely require the court to decide if this limitation mandates a purely peer-to-peer system or if it can accommodate modern, cloud-assisted architectures where the final response is still considered to "originate" from the vehicle.
• Finally, an essential evidentiary question will be one of proof: The complaint's infringement allegations are entirely dependent on an un-provided exhibit. A primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence from discovery that demonstrates the accused systems at Academy Bus operate in the specific manner required by the claims, particularly regarding the on-vehicle origination of passenger-facing communication.