DCT
1:17-cv-00297
Three H LLC v. Emergensee Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Three H, LLC (Colorado)
- Defendant: Emergensee, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SANTANGELO LAW OFFICES P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00297, D. Colo., 01/31/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, deeming it a resident, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EmergenSee personal safety monitoring system and application infringe a patent related to safety monitoring using geofencing and mobile device notifications.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mobile and server-based systems for personal safety, which use GPS, virtual geographic boundaries (geofences), and communication networks to monitor individuals and automatically route alerts to designated contacts or authorities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on September 9, 2016, identifying the patent-in-suit. After Defendant allegedly expressed no interest in a license, Plaintiff sent a second letter through counsel on November 9, 2016. These events are asserted as the basis for pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-06 | ’532 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-06-28 | ’532 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-09-09 | Plaintiff sends first letter to Defendant notifying it of the ’532 Patent |
| 2016-11-09 | Plaintiff sends second letter to Defendant regarding the ’532 Patent |
| 2017-01-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,378,532 - "Safety Monitoring Method and System" (Issued June 28, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and fallibility of relying on friends or family to manually monitor a person's safety during social interactions like dating, or to confirm the timely arrival of children or caregivers at a specific location (’532 Patent, col. 1:35-65). Existing solutions are characterized as inadequate, lacking automation, or requiring specialized, impractical hardware (’532 Patent, col. 2:6-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a server-based system that automates safety monitoring. A user provides the system with schedule information, such as an event time and location, and pre-defined contacts (’532 Patent, Fig. 1). The server then automatically initiates contact at a specified time to verify the user's safety. If the user fails to respond correctly or requests help, the system can execute a pre-determined escalation response, such as notifying a "safety network" of specified contacts or authorities (’532 Patent, col. 7:5-15, col. 8:1-14).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a discreet, automated safety net using commonly available devices like mobile phones and web browsers, reducing the need for direct human intervention or recall of event details in an emergency (’532 Patent, col. 3:5-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 (Compl. ¶61).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a server that performs the steps of:
- defining virtual boundaries of a geographic area to be monitored;
- receiving a communication from a mobile device indicating a user is in an emergency situation, which includes GPS coordinates;
- determining, based on the GPS and defined boundaries, that the device is within the geographic area; and
- displaying the device's location on an image of the monitored area.
- Independent Claim 10 requires a server that performs the steps of:
- defining different virtual boundaries for multiple geographic areas;
- establishing a unique code for each area and associating that code with specific monitoring personnel;
- receiving a communication from a mobile device indicating an emergency, which includes GPS coordinates and one of the unique codes;
- extracting the unique code;
- determining the specific monitoring personnel associated with that code; and
- notifying the determined personnel of the emergency.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "EmergenSee" system, which includes the "EmergenSee App" mobile application and an associated back-end server infrastructure (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The system is marketed as a "Personal Security System" that uses "Geo-Fence Technology" to create a "virtual perimeter" around locations like university campuses or hospitals (Compl. ¶15-16). A screenshot from Defendant’s website shows a dashboard with a map depicting a geofenced area around a college campus (Compl. ¶17, Exhibit C).
- When a user activates the app within a geofenced area, the system allegedly transmits live video and GPS data to a command center (Compl. ¶17). It also alerts pre-set contacts with a map showing the user's real-time location and "breadcrumbs tracking" their movements (Compl. ¶15).
- The complaint alleges the system can define "Multiple GEO-Fences" and direct alerts to the first responders closest to that location, which is supported by a screenshot from Defendant's materials (Compl. ¶19, Exhibit D). It further alleges the system associates unique codes with each area and designated personnel to route notifications (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’532 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| defining virtual boundaries of a geographic area to be monitored; | The system defines "geo-fence" areas, described as an "invisible fencing (virtual perimeter) around pre-defined boundaries, like a University or Corporate Campus Partner." A provided screenshot shows a map with a defined geofence. | ¶13, ¶17, Exhibit C | col. 29:31-33 |
| receiving a communication from one of said plurality of mobile devices indicating a user of that mobile device is involved in an emergency situation, the communication including GPS coordinates indicating a geographic location of the mobile device; | When a user activates the EmergenSee app, it transmits an incident alert that includes live video and GPS data, which is sent to a command center or pre-set safety contacts. | ¶13, ¶15, ¶17 | col. 29:34-39 |
| determining from the GPS coordinates and the defined boundaries of the geographic area to be monitored that the mobile device from which the communication was received is located in that geographic area; | The system determines when an incident is activated "within the geo-fence location" to direct the alert to the appropriate command center. | ¶13, ¶17 | col. 29:40-44 |
| displaying the location of the mobile device on an image of the geographic area being monitored, based on the received GPS coordinates. | Safety contacts receive a "google map" showing the user's GPS location and movements. A screenshot shows a map interface with a pin indicating a user's location. | ¶13, ¶15, Exhibit B | col. 29:45-48 |
’532 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 10)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| defining different virtual boundaries for each of a plurality of different geographic areas to be monitored; | The system allows for setting up "multiple geo-fences" for larger communities, such as designating high-crime areas or remote parking lots. A screenshot describes this "Multiple GEO-Fences" capability. | ¶14, ¶19, Exhibit D | col. 30:40-42 |
| for each of the different geographic areas to be monitored, establishing a unique code for that geographic area and associating the unique code with specific monitoring personnel... | The complaint alleges the system establishes a unique code for each monitored area and associates it with specific personnel to be notified. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 30:43-49 |
| receiving a first communication from one of said plurality of mobile devices indicating a user... is involved in an emergency situation, the first communication including at least (i) GPS coordinates... and (ii) one of said unique codes; | The complaint alleges the system receives a communication from a mobile device that includes GPS coordinates and a unique code. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 30:50-56 |
| extracting the unique code from the first communication; | The complaint alleges the system's server extracts the unique code from the communication. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 30:57-58 |
| determining the specific monitoring personnel associated with the extracted unique code; and | The complaint alleges the system determines the specific personnel associated with the extracted code to facilitate proper notification. | ¶14, ¶19 | col. 30:59-61 |
| notifying the determined specific monitoring personnel of the emergency situation indicated by the received first communication. | The system allegedly notifies the determined monitoring personnel, such as by directing incidents to "First Responder Devices closest to that geo location." A screenshot shows a notification screen with options like "Send Help." | ¶14, ¶19, Exhibit D | col. 30:62-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "receiving a communication... indicating that the user is in an emergency situation." A question for the court may be whether a user's general activation of the EmergenSee app, without more, meets this limitation, or if a more explicit declaration of an "emergency" is required by the claim language.
- Technical Questions: Claim 10 requires a "unique code" to be established, associated with personnel, communicated, and extracted to route notifications. The complaint alleges this functionality primarily in a narrative paragraph tracking the claim language (Compl. ¶14). What evidence the complaint provides to show that the accused system technically operates using a "unique code" as the routing mechanism, as opposed to another method (e.g., routing based purely on the GPS coordinates falling within a geofence boundary), raises a potential evidentiary question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual boundaries"
- Context and Importance: This term, functionally equivalent to a "geofence," is foundational to the location-based monitoring in both asserted independent claims. Its construction will define the types of geographic triggers covered by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because while the defendant also uses "geo-fence" terminology, a dispute could arise over whether the patent's scope is limited to certain types of boundaries.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art, potentially covering any electronically defined perimeter (’532 Patent, col. 29:31-33).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and examples often frame the invention in the context of discrete, time-bound social events, such as a date or a child's scheduled return from school (’532 Patent, col. 1:35-58). This context could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to boundaries established for a specific, pre-planned monitoring session, rather than a persistent, general-purpose safe zone like a corporate campus.
The Term: "emergency situation"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims and is a prerequisite for triggering the patented monitoring and notification steps. The definition is critical, as it dictates what kind of user input or event qualifies as an infringing act.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a wide range of scenarios, from dangerous social situations to merely ensuring a child arrives home safely, suggesting the term could encompass not just life-threatening emergencies but also any deviation from a planned, safe itinerary (’532 Patent, col. 1:35-65, col. 3:30-45).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title ("Safety Monitoring Method and System") and repeated use of terms like "safety breach," "potential trouble," and "danger" could support an interpretation requiring a genuine threat or risk, as opposed to a simple, non-emergency check-in (’532 Patent, col. 4:6, col. 4:26).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶62). The inducement theory is based on allegations that Defendant, through its "Professional Security Partner Solution" and user-facing materials, knowingly encourages and instructs third parties (such as campus security partners and end-users) to perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶69). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant's software is highly specialized for use with the infringing system and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶49).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’532 Patent. The complaint specifically pleads that Defendant was notified of the patent in letters dated September 9, 2016, and November 9, 2016, and that it continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶50, 52-53, 65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can a user's general activation of a safety application be construed as "a communication... indicating... an emergency situation" as required by the claims, or does the patent demand a more specific signal of distress? The resolution of this question will significantly impact the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused EmergenSee system, in fact, use a "unique code" to associate a geofenced area with "specific monitoring personnel" as recited in Claim 10? While the complaint alleges this functionality, the case may turn on evidence developed in discovery that either confirms or refutes this specific technical method of operation.