ALD Social LLC v. Verkada Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ALD Social LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Verkada Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00975, W.D. Tex., 09/16/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having "regular and established places of business" in the Western District of Texas, including an office in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Crowd Notifications system infringes two patents related to an "Aggregate Location Dynometer" for analyzing aggregate wireless device location data to identify and alert on potential crowd-related risks.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using location-based services (LBS) to monitor the density, shape, and movement of groups of wireless devices to predict public safety events like flash mobs or riots.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on September 16, 2022. Subsequently, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against both patents-in-suit. On November 13, 2024, a certificate was issued for U.S. Patent 9,198,054 confirming that all claims (1-14) were cancelled. Similarly, on November 8, 2024, a certificate was issued for U.S. Patent 9,402,158 confirming all claims (1-16) were cancelled. These post-filing events are dispositive of the asserted claims' validity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-09-02	Earliest Priority Date ('054 and '158 Patents)
2015-11-24	U.S. Patent 9,198,054 Issued
2016-07-26	U.S. Patent 9,402,158 Issued
2022-09-16	Complaint Filed
2023-09-08	IPR Filed for U.S. Patent 9,198,054 (IPR2023-01398)
2023-09-12	IPR Filed for U.S. Patent 9,402,158 (IPR2023-01399)
2024-11-08	IPR Certificate Issued, All Claims Cancelled (U.S. Patent 9,402,158)
2024-11-13	IPR Certificate Issued, All Claims Cancelled (U.S. Patent 9,198,054)

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

U.S. Patent 9,198,054, "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)," Issued November 24, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a gap in conventional location-based services, which are typically focused on locating a single wireless device user rather than analyzing the aggregate behavior of many devices to predict large-scale events (’054 Patent, col. 1:15-27; col. 2:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "Aggregate Location Dynometer" (ALD), a network server system that monitors wireless network traffic to detect a "viral event" (i.e., a rapid congregation of devices). Upon detection, the ALD obtains location data for the group of devices, analyzes the data to determine if a "crowd safety risk" exists based on factors like the shape and movement of the device cluster, and issues an alert to authorities if a risk threshold is met (’054 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-41). The system is designed to predict events like riots or flash mobs before they are consummated (’054 Patent, col. 2:53-56; col. 3:21-26).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a proactive public safety tool by leveraging the ubiquitous nature of mobile devices to provide early warnings of potentially dangerous or disruptive crowd formations (’054 Patent, col. 2:53-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim): An aggregate location dynometer comprising:
  • a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a viral event;
  • a location aggregator to obtain a location of each of a plurality of wireless devices associated with said viral event;
  • a crowd risk determinant, triggered by the network monitor, to determine a crowd risk based on an aggregation of the locations of the wireless devices; and
  • an alert module to initiate an alert message relating to a public safety risk.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent 9,402,158, "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)," Issued July 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '054 Patent, the '158 Patent addresses the same problem: the lack of systems for analyzing aggregate wireless device location data for public safety purposes (’158 Patent, col. 1:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The ’158 Patent describes the same core ALD system, comprising a network monitor and a crowd risk determinant residing in a physical network server. The system analyzes an "aggregation of current locations" of multiple wireless devices to assess a potential "viral event" and determine an associated risk, which can trigger an alert (’158 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-44).
• Technical Importance: This patent continues the technical approach of using collective location intelligence as a predictive tool for emergency management and public safety (’158 Patent, col. 7:64-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim): An aggregate location dynometer comprising:
  • a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a potential viral event indicated by an aggregation of current locations of a plurality of physical wireless devices; and
  • a crowd risk determinant to assess said aggregation of current locations pertaining to the potential viral event triggered by the network monitor.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant's "Crowd Notifications system" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides minimal detail regarding the technical operation of the accused system. It alleges the system is an example of an "Accused Instrumentality" and provides a URL to a blog post titled "Crowd Notifications for COVID-19 Security" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges the accused products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deeper analysis of the accused system's specific functionality or market position beyond this reference.

No Probative Visual Evidence

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 9,198,054 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’054 Patent by making, using, testing, and selling the Accused Products (Compl. ¶18). It further states that a claim chart attached as Exhibit C "describes how the elements of an exemplary claim 1 from the '054 Patent are infringed" (Compl. ¶23). However, Exhibit C was not included with the filed complaint. Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the Plaintiff's specific theories is not possible from the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention: A central question would concern whether the accused "Crowd Notifications system" performs the functions of the claimed "aggregate location dynometer." Specifically, it raises the question of whether a system designed for monitoring occupancy or density for purposes like COVID-19 safety protocols meets the limitations of detecting a "viral event" and determining a "public safety risk" as described in the patent, which focuses on events like riots and flash mobs (’054 Patent, col. 2:53-56).

U.S. Patent 9,402,158 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’158 Patent (Compl. ¶25). It refers to a claim chart in Exhibit D, which was also not included with the complaint, that purportedly details the infringement (Compl. ¶30). As with the '054 patent, the absence of this exhibit prevents a specific analysis of the infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis would likely center on whether the accused system's functions map onto the claimed "network monitor" and "crowd risk determinant." A key technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused system assesses an "aggregation of said current locations" to identify a "potential viral event," a term central to the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’054 Patent

• The Term: "viral event"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and acts as the initial trigger for the patented system's core functionality. The definition of what constitutes a "viral event" is critical to determining the scope of infringement, as it defines when the accused system must perform the subsequent claimed steps.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a viral event as occurring "when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed" (’054 Patent, col. 4:40-42). This could be read broadly to include any trigger based on exceeding a numerical threshold, such as device density.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of the invention relates to predicting "public safety risks, e.g., the unexpected impending formation of a flash mob, or a riot" (’054 Patent, col. 2:55-56). This context may support a narrower construction requiring the "viral event" to be indicative of a dynamic, rapidly forming crowd with public safety implications, not just a static high-density situation.

For the ’158 Patent

• The Term: "crowd risk determinant"
• Context and Importance: This element from claim 1 is the analytical core of the invention. Its construction will define the specific type of assessment an accused system must perform to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope dictates whether a simple density calculation infringes, or if a more complex analysis is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the determinant to "assess said aggregation of said current locations... pertaining to said potential viral event" (’158 Patent, col. 9:22-25). This could be argued to cover any form of analysis of the aggregated location data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the determinant analyzing factors such as the "shape of a cluster of wireless devices" and comparing it to historical shapes in a database to "determine danger potential" (’158 Patent, col. 7:42-51). This suggests the "determinant" performs a specific qualitative analysis beyond merely counting devices in an area.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's specific counts for infringement of both the '054 and '158 patents allege only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶¶18, 25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges for both patents that "Defendant has made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims... were invalid" (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 26-27). These allegations could form a basis for a later claim of willfulness or a request for enhanced damages.

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

Given the post-filing cancellation of all claims of both patents-in-suit, the central issue is the lawsuit's viability. The case was filed when the claims were presumptively valid, but their subsequent cancellation in IPR proceedings effectively resolves the question of infringement in the Defendant's favor. The key questions are therefore procedural and retrospective:

1. Case Viability: The primary issue is one of mootness. With all asserted patent claims now cancelled by the USPTO, there is no longer a live controversy over infringement, which ordinarily leads to dismissal. The core question for the court is the proper procedural disposition of a case based on claims that were valid at filing but later invalidated.

2. Definitional Scope (Hypothetical): Had the claims survived, a key question would have been one of technical and definitional scope. Could the term "viral event", described in the patent in the context of riots and flash mobs, be construed to read on the functionality of a "Crowd Notifications system" apparently used for managing occupancy limits for public health and safety? This highlights a potential mismatch between the patents' articulated purpose and the accused product's application.