Revolar Technology Inc v. Wearsafe Labs LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Revolar Technology Inc. (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Wearsafe Labs LLC (Delaware); Wearsafe Labs Holdings LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robinson & Cole LLP; Sheridan Ross P.C.; Bradford, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 3:19-cv-969, D. Conn., 06/21/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Connecticut because Defendants have their principal place of business in the district, transact business there, and maintain a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s personal safety system, comprising a wearable panic button and a smartphone app, infringes patents related to personal alarm systems that use a remote trigger to send alerts via a communication device.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to the mobile Personal Emergency Response System (mPERS) market, where wearable devices communicate with smartphones to provide users with a way to signal for help remotely.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,928,851 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 7,486,194. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-12	Priority Date for '194 & '851 Patents
2009-02-03	'194 Patent Issued
2011-04-19	'851 Patent Issued
2019-06-21	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,486,194 - "Personal Alarm System for Obtaining Assistance From Remote Recipients"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,486,194, "Personal Alarm System for Obtaining Assistance From Remote Recipients," issued February 3, 2009. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies an "unfulfilled need" for a mobile personal alarm suitable for individuals in high-risk occupations, such as home care workers or real estate agents, who may work alone in remote or secluded locations. (’194 Patent, col. 2:8-17). Existing systems were described as often being audible, which could escalate a dangerous situation, or stationary, which limited their utility for mobile workers. (’194 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system architecture composed of three main parts: a portable "triggering key," an "interface module," and a user's existing "communication device" (e.g., a cell phone). (’194 Patent, col. 2:28-36). When a user activates the discrete triggering key, it signals the interface module, which in turn directs the communication device to transmit a pre-programmed emergency signal to a remote recipient, allowing for a potentially silent and concealed call for help. (’194 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By leveraging a user's existing communication device, the patented approach sought to provide a discreet and mobile personal safety system without requiring the cost and complexity of a fully dedicated cellular or radio transmitting unit. (’194 Patent, col. 2:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 31 and dependent claims 32 and 39. (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).
• Independent Claim 31 recites the core elements of the system:
  • a communication device for transmitting the signal to the recipient;
  • an interface module in operative communication with the communication device for controlling it and providing data for the signal, where the module has a user-programmable memory and a user interface;
  • the user interface includes at least one programming key for entering recipient contact information and for programming rules for when the module will control the communication device; and
  • a triggering key in operative communication with the interface module for activating it.

U.S. Patent No. 7,928,851 - "Personal Alarm System for Obtaining Assistance from Remote Recipients"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,928,851, "Personal Alarm System for Obtaining Assistance from Remote Recipients," issued April 19, 2011. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '194 patent, the '851 patent addresses the same technical problem: the need for a mobile, discreet personal alarm system that can utilize a person's existing communication hardware to contact remote authorities or helpers. (’851 Patent, col. 2:10-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a personal alarm system focused specifically on using a "cell phone" as the communication device. (’851 Patent, Claim 1). The system includes the cell phone, a user-programmable memory for storing recipient and "situational information," and a triggering key that causes the cell phone to transmit a cellular signal containing that information to a recipient. (’851 Patent, col. 2:36-47).
• Technical Importance: The '851 patent further refines the concept of leveraging ubiquitous personal electronics (specifically cell phones) to provide a low-cost, mobile, and silent "lifeline" for individuals in potentially vulnerable situations. (’851 Patent, col. 2:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the key elements:
  • a cell phone for transmitting a cellular signal, which includes a user interface;
  • a user-programmable memory for storing recipient contact and user situational information;
  • a triggering key to cause the cell phone to transmit the signal;
  • the signal itself including the situational information; and
  • the user interface having programming keys for programming rules that govern when the cell phone will transmit the signal.
• The complaint notes that its infringement allegations are not limited to the representative claims cited. (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Wearsafe System," which consists of the "Wearsafe Tag," a physical "mobile panic button," and the companion "Wearsafe Personal Safety App" that runs on a user's smartphone or smartwatch. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Wearsafe Tag is a small, wearable device that communicates with the Wearsafe App on a user's smartphone, typically via Bluetooth. (Compl. p. 8). When the user presses the button on the Tag, the App is activated to send an alert to a pre-selected network of contacts. (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges the system provides advanced features, including live streaming audio from the user's phone, real-time location updates, and a group chat function for responders to coordinate. (Compl. p. 4). A marketing screenshot included in the complaint shows the various devices that can send a "Wearsafe Alert," such as the app homescreen, the Tag, and smartwatches. (Compl. p. 6, "Many Ways to Send a Wearsafe Alert"). The complaint characterizes the product as a "modern-day, mobile panic button that gets you the right help, right away." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'194 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a detailed claim chart mapping features of the Wearsafe System to the elements of independent claim 31 of the ’194 Patent.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a communication device for transmitting the signal to the recipient;	The user's smartphone or smartwatch is identified as the communication device that transmits the alert signal to the recipient network. (Compl. p. 6).	¶14	col. 4:36-43
an interface module in operative communication with the communication device for controlling the communication device and for providing data to be included in the signal,	The Wearsafe Personal Safety App is alleged to be the interface module, which runs on and controls the smartphone to send data such as location and audio. (Compl. p. 7).	¶14	col. 2:30-33
the interface module having a user-programmable memory and a user interface for allowing the user to program user-defined data into the interface module for storage in the user-programmable memory,	The App allegedly provides a user interface and uses the phone's memory to store user-defined data, such as a user's network of contacts. The complaint includes a screenshot of the app's interface for managing a network of responders. (Compl. p. 7, "active network: Kendria").	¶14	col. 3:1-14
the user interface including at least one programming key for entering the recipient's contact information and for programming rules for determining when the interface module will control the communication device;	The App's user interface, which allows a user to enter contact information for their response network, is alleged to be the "programming key." The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Add Person" screen as evidence. (Compl. p. 8, "Add Person").	¶14	col. 3:52-55
and a triggering key in operative communication with the interface module for activating the interface module.	The physical Wearsafe Tag is alleged to be the "triggering key," which communicates with the Wearsafe App (the "interface module") to activate an alert. A picture of the physical tag is included in the complaint. (Compl. p. 8, "Wearsafe Tag").	¶14	col. 2:33-36

'851 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart for the ’851 Patent but alleges that the Wearsafe System infringes at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶14, ¶17). The infringement theory parallels that for the ’194 Patent: the user's smartphone is the claimed "cell phone," the Wearsafe App and the phone's memory provide the "user interface" and "user-programmable memory" for storing contact and situational data (e.g., location), the Wearsafe Tag is the "triggering key," and the app's function for setting up a contact network constitutes the "programming keys for programming rules."

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The '194 patent's specification and figures often depict the "interface module" and "communication device" as distinct hardware components. (e.g., '194 Patent, Fig. 1). The complaint alleges the "interface module" is a software application running on the "communication device." This raises the question of whether a software program can be construed as the claimed "interface module" separate from the hardware on which it executes, or if the two merge into a single, non-infringing element.
• Technical Questions: Claim 31 of the ’194 Patent and Claim 1 of the '851 Patent both require "programming rules for determining when" the system will send an alert. The complaint alleges this is met by the user's ability to create a list of emergency contacts. (Compl. p. 7). A potential dispute may arise over whether simply defining a recipient list constitutes "programming rules," as the patent specification also describes more complex rules, such as those based on timers or sensors for a "man down" event. (’194 Patent, col. 6:20-28, 55-60).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "interface module" (’194 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused product is a software application, whereas the patent's primary embodiment depicts a separate hardware box. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the software-based Wearsafe App can meet a limitation that may be construed to require a distinct hardware structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "cell phone or PDA may include all or part of the functionality of interface module 20," and that its existing hardware could perform the necessary functions. (’194 Patent, col. 4:46-51). This language could support an interpretation where the "module" is a functional block that can be integrated into the communication device as software.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent distinctly illustrates "interface module 20" as a separate physical unit from "communication device 40." The description also refers to the module being "operatively connected to" the communication device, which may suggest two separate but linked items. (’194 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:64-65).

• The Term: "programming rules" (’194 and ’851 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether adding contacts to an alert list satisfies this limitation. The outcome could depend on whether "rules" is interpreted to mean simple configuration settings or more complex, conditional logic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the user "programs the system... with specific information, including a rule or rules which determine the system's invocation of a transmission." (’194 Patent, col. 3:10-13). This could be read broadly to include any user setting that determines the outcome of an alert, such as who receives it.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of "rules" that involve situational logic, such as triggering an alert "by the failure of a triggering key action within a preset time interval" or using an "attitude sensor" to detect a fall. (’194 Patent, col. 6:20-28; col. 6:55-60). This suggests "rules" may require conditional logic beyond simply designating a recipient.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructions, advertising, and direction that cause customers to use the Wearsafe System in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶24). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Wearsafe System components, particularly the combination of the Tag and the App, are specially designed for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful and intentional. (Compl. ¶20). It further alleges that Defendants have knowledge of the asserted patents "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action," which primarily supports a claim for post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶26).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "interface module," which is primarily illustrated in the '194 patent as a distinct hardware unit, be construed to cover the accused Wearsafe software application that resides on and is executed by the smartphone ("communication device")?
• A key question of infringement scope will be whether the accused system's function of creating a list of emergency contacts satisfies the claim requirement for "programming rules." The court will have to determine if this limitation requires simple user configuration or more complex, conditional logic for triggering an alert as suggested by other parts of the specification.
• The case may also present a question of component separability: Can the integrated system of a smartphone running the Wearsafe App be legally dissected to meet the patents' multi-component claims (e.g., a "communication device" and a separate "interface module"), or do the accused components function as a single, integrated unit that falls outside the literal scope of the claims?