Safety Direct LLC v. Alphabet Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Safety Direct LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Alphabet, Inc. (Delaware); Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Murthy Patent Law Inc.
• Case Identification: Safety Direct LLC v. Alphabet, Inc., 3:23-cv-03243, N.D. Cal., 06/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' principal places of business being located in the district, having regular and established places of business in the district, and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Fitbit, Google Pixel, and Nexus brand smartwatches, smartphones, and related products infringe a patent related to systems for preventing the loss of mobile devices via proximity-based alarms.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a short-range wireless connection between a primary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone) and a secondary trigger device (e.g., a wearable or fob) to sound an alarm when the two are separated by a predefined distance.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2023, shortly before the suit was filed. Plaintiff also alleges that it provided Defendant Alphabet with actual notice of the patent and its alleged infringement via email on May 17, 2023, which may form the basis for its willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292 - "System and Method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices," issued October 30, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of mobile device theft and loss, noting that by the time a user realizes their device is missing, conventional tracking apps are often ineffective because the thief has already disabled them or moved out of range (U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292, col. 1:7-19). Existing Bluetooth-based alert systems are described as having too long a range to be useful for immediate loss prevention (U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292, col. 1:20-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-component system to provide an immediate alert. It consists of software on a mobile device ("ALPAS") that communicates with a separate trigger device ("ALPAT"). If the ALPAT moves beyond a short, user-defined distance from the mobile device, the system activates a loud, conspicuous alarm on the mobile device, including audible alerts and a flashing screen, to alert the owner and others that a potential theft has just occurred (’292 Patent, col. 2:28-48). The system includes specific functionalities, such as a "sync-to-activate" mode that reactivates the system when the devices come back into range after being separated (’292 Patent, col. 8:62-67; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention focuses on immediate, localized loss prevention rather than post-loss recovery, aiming to thwart a theft in progress before the device can be taken far away (’292 Patent, col. 2:44-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 6 (Compl. ¶¶31, 33, 44).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) Essential Elements:
  • A system comprising a mobile device with a processor and memory.
  • "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Software ('ALPAS')" installed on the mobile device.
  • A device functioning as an "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')".
  • An owner-defined distance triggering an alarm on the mobile device, the ALPAT, or both.
  • The ALPAS detects when the ALPAT moves beyond the defined distance.
  • The ALPAS activates an alarm (flashing screen, repeated audio message).
  • The ALPAT can play audio at a fixed decibel.
  • A unique owner ID (password, fingerprint) is required to deactivate the alert.
  • The system includes options for an "at home safe zone" and a "sync to activate" feature, which reactivates the system if the ALPAT is taken beyond and then returns within the defined distance.
• Independent Claim 6 (Method) Essential Elements:
  • A method comprising installing ALPAS on a mobile device.
  • The ALPAS communicates with an ALPAT device.
  • The ALPAS constantly analyzes the distance to the ALPAT.
  • The ALPAS activates an alarm if it detects the ALPAT has moved beyond the owner-defined distance.
  • The method includes the same deactivation, "at home safe zone," and "sync to activate" functionalities as claim 1.
• The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names a wide range of products, including the Fitbit Ionic, Versa, Charge, Inspire, and Sense series of smartwatches, as well as the Google Pixel Watch and numerous Google Pixel and Nexus smartphones (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not detail the specific functionality of the Accused Products. It alleges infringement through the "making, using, selling and offering to sell" these products, which suggests that the standard features of these devices are the basis for the infringement claim (Compl. ¶35). The underlying theory appears to be that the combination of a Google/Fitbit smartwatch (acting as the "ALPAT") with a paired smartphone (running the "ALPAS") creates an infringing system. The complaint alleges these products are sold throughout the United States and that Alphabet assumed liability for Fitbit products upon its acquisition in 2021 (Compl. ¶¶6, 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 8, but this exhibit was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶41). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations and the breakdown of claim elements presented in the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’292 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether a general-purpose smartwatch (e.g., a Fitbit) and its associated phone-pairing software fall within the scope of the patent's more specific, purpose-built terms "ALPAT" and "ALPAS."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the Accused Products meet highly specific functional limitations, such as the "at home safe zone" and the "sync-to-activate" reactivation feature. A key question for the court will be whether the Defendants' products, which may offer generic phone-separation alerts, actually perform the precise, multi-step logic described in the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence to substantiate that the accused systems perform this specific reactivation logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')"

• Context and Importance: This is a coined term central to defining the scope of the invention. Whether this term is construed broadly to cover any paired wearable device (like a smartwatch) or narrowly to mean a dedicated, single-purpose security fob will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused devices are multi-function smartwatches, not dedicated fobs.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself states the ALPAT "can be an app on a wearable device," which directly supports reading the claim onto a smartwatch (’292 Patent, col. 8:52-53). The specification also notes the ALPAT could be installed on a "smart watch or other wearable device" (’292 Patent, col. 4:38-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the ALPAT as a "small device that a person can keep with them and optionally secure to a keychain" (’292 Patent, Abstract). Figure 1 depicts a simple, fob-like device, not a complex smartwatch (’292 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant might argue these embodiments limit the term's scope to simpler, dedicated devices.

• The Term: "sync-to-activate"

• Context and Importance: The complaint identifies the functionality related to this term as part of the "inventive concept" of the patent (Compl. ¶¶32, 34). The specific operation of this feature—reactivating an alert system after a device has been separated and then returned—is a detailed limitation that may distinguish the invention from generic prior art separation alerts.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A plaintiff could argue it covers any system that automatically re-arms a proximity alert after the devices are brought back together following a separation event.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites a specific sequence: "if the ALPAT is taken more than the owner-defined distance away from the mobile device, and then returns to within the owner-defined distance from the mobile device, the ALPAS is configured to reactivate" (’292 Patent, col. 8:62-66). A defendant may argue this requires a specific logical pathway that a generic "reconnect" feature on a smartwatch does not meet.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by promoting the Accused Products and providing instructions and manuals that encourage customers to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶45). It also pleads contributory infringement (Compl. ¶46).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendant Alphabet was notified of the '292 patent and the alleged infringement by email on May 17, 2023, and that infringement continued after this notice was provided (Compl. ¶¶27, 43).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent's coined terms, "ALPAT" and "ALPAS," which are described in the context of a dedicated loss-prevention system, be construed to cover the functionality of general-purpose, multi-function consumer electronics like Google's and Fitbit's smartwatches and their standard device-pairing software?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the complaint provide sufficient factual support to show that the accused smartwatches and phones perform the highly specific, multi-step logic required by the claims—particularly the "sync-to-activate" reactivation sequence and the "at home safe zone" mode—or do they merely offer generic separation alerts that lack these claimed technical details?
3. A third question relates to damages and liability: Can Plaintiff prove that Alphabet assumed liability for pre-acquisition sales of Fitbit products, and can it establish a date of first infringement for the extensive list of accused devices to build its damages model?