Analysis of a Dynamic Geofence Patent

Recently (2020) inventor Wolfram Gauglitz got a US patent, “Use of a dynamic geofence to control media sharing and aggregation associated with a mobile target” 10,785,323 (filing date 5 Jan 2015). The following is my analysis of it.

After I first published it, some readers responded by saying there is no analysis of the patent’s claims. Yes. If you are a patent lawyer, you likely are trained to look at and attack or defend claims. That’s what you do. This is different. First. Claims must be derived from the specification. The latter is the definitive source of the claims. I look at the spec.

Second. Every time you hear of (possible) infringement or an actual lawsuit, it means at least 2 parties believe in the patent as a useful technical plan— the inventor and the (alleged) infringer. What this means is that there is no fundamental dispute about the business argument to do the patent.

This analysis is more fundamental. It shows a lack of business rationale in the patent. The wording of the claims is secondary, as you will see.

A geofence is a perimeter of an area on a map. The perimeter is defined by various means, often using latitude and longitude to set the boundaries. Current uses of geofences are often associated with cellphones — like in a scavenger hunt where players carry the phones. The phones access their GPS locations from satellites. If you are a player and you are near some desired target, there might be a geofence around it, put by the game organizers…