DCT

1:19-cv-02244

Revolar Technology Inc v. React Mobile Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-12 Earliest Priority Date for '194 and '851 Patents
2009-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,486,194 Issued
2011-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,928,851 Issued
2013-01-01 Approximate date of Geekwire article discussing React Mobile Safety
2015-03-01 Approximate date of Crowdfund Insider article on React Sidekick
2017-12-07 React Mobile App Update Date (per Google Play listing)
2019-12-10 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," issued February 3, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies an "unfulfilled need" for a mobile personal alarm system suitable for individuals in high-risk occupations (e.g., nurses, real estate agents) who work alone and may face violence, often in remote or secluded locations (ʼ194 Patent, col. 1:21-32, col. 2:7-12). Prior art systems were often audible, which could escalate a confrontation, or were stationary and thus unsuitable for mobile workers (ʼ194 Patent, col. 1:46-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system comprising three main components: a "communication device" (like a cell phone), a separate "triggering key," and an "interface module" that connects them ('194 Patent, Abstract). A user can discreetly press the triggering key, which signals the interface module to take control of the communication device and silently transmit a pre-programmed emergency signal to a remote recipient, such as a monitoring center or the authorities ('194 Patent, col. 2:33-37).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enabled the use of a person's existing communication device (e.g., a cell phone) for a sophisticated, silent alarm, avoiding the cost and complexity of a dedicated alarm with its own cellular or radio transmitter ('194 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 31, 32, 37, and 39 (Compl. ¶18, 19). An exemplary analysis of independent claim 31 is provided below.
  • Independent Claim 31 Elements:
    • 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 with programming keys for entering recipient information and programming rules; and
    • A triggering key in operative communication with the interface module for activating it.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

U.S. Patent No. 7,928,851 - "Personal Alarm System for Obtaining Assistance from Remote Recipients," issued April 19, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '194 patent, the '851 patent addresses the same problem of providing a discrete, mobile personal alarm for individuals in vulnerable situations ('851 Patent, col. 1:24-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The '851 patent further refines the system, with claims directed more specifically to a modern smartphone-centric architecture. For example, its claims explicitly describe a "cell phone" that itself includes the "user interface for programming" contact and situational information ('851 Patent, col. 7:5-12). This differs from the '194 patent's depiction of a potentially separate interface module box. The triggering key communicates directly with the cell phone to cause it to send a pre-programmed cellular signal ('851 Patent, col. 7:13-15).
  • Technical Importance: This claimed configuration mirrors the common modern paradigm of a peripheral device (like a Bluetooth button) controlling an application on a smartphone.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶18). An analysis of independent claim 1 is provided below.
  • Independent Claim 1 Elements:
    • A cell phone for transmitting a cellular signal, where the cell phone includes a user interface for programming recipient contact and user situational information;
    • A user-programmable memory for storing said information;
    • A triggering key for transmitting a triggering signal to the cell phone;
    • The cellular signal includes the user's situational information; and
    • The user interface includes programming keys for programming rules that govern when the cell phone transmits the signal.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "React Safety System" and the "React Hospitality System" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶14, 15). These systems consist of the "React Sidekick Personal Panic Button" used in conjunction with either the "React Safety App" or the "React Mobile Hospitality App" (Compl. ¶14, 15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The React Sidekick is a physical button that pairs with a user's smartphone via Bluetooth (Compl. p. 14, ¶"The Sidekick is a low energy..."). When the button is clicked, it causes the companion smartphone app to send an emergency alert to a pre-selected network of contacts (Compl. p. 7). This alert can include the user's GPS location and can be sent even if the phone is locked or out of immediate reach (Compl. p. 5, 9). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Defendant's website showing the Sidekick button, a smartphone running the app, and the text "React Sidekick Personal Panic Button" (Compl. p. 4). Defendant positions itself as a "global leader in providing best in class panic button solutions for the hospitality industry" (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’194 Patent Infringement Allegations

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 signal to predetermined contacts (Compl. p. 7). p. 7 col. 4:32-34
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 interface module having a user-programmable memory and a user interface... for programming rules... The "React Safety App" running on the smartphone is alleged to be the interface module. It controls the phone, provides GPS data for the signal, and has a user interface for programming contacts and alert rules (Compl. p. 9, 11, 12). p. 9, 11, 12 col. 4:63-5:4
a triggering key in operative communication with the interface module for activating the interface module. The "React Sidekick Personal Panic Button" is identified as the triggering key, which communicates via Bluetooth with the React Safety App to activate it (Compl. p. 14). p. 14 col. 6:17-21

’851 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a cell phone for transmitting the cellular signal to at least one recipient, the cell phone including a user interface for programming... The user's smartphone, running the React app, is the cell phone that transmits alerts. The app itself provides the user interface for programming contacts and alert settings (Compl. p. 12). p. 7, 12 col. 7:5-9
user-programmable memory for storing the recipient's contact information and the user's situational information; The smartphone's memory is used by the React app to store the user's custom list of contacts (Compl. p. 11). The complaint includes a screenshot titled "PERSONALIZE IT" showing the interface for adding details and contacts (Compl. p. 11). p. 11 col. 7:10-12
a triggering key for transmitting a triggering signal to the cell phone to cause the cell phone to transmit the cellular signal... The React Sidekick button is the triggering key, which pairs with the smartphone and, when pressed, causes the app on the phone to send an alert (Compl. p. 14). p. 14 col. 7:13-15
the cellular signal including the user's situational information; The alert sent by the system includes the user's GPS location, which constitutes situational information (Compl. p. 9). p. 9 col. 7:16-17
wherein the user interface includes programming keys for programming rules under which the cell phone will transmit the cellular signal. The React app's user interface is alleged to include "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 smartphone" (Compl. p. 12). p. 12 col. 7:18-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the '194 Patent will be whether the claimed "interface module" can be construed to read on a software application (the React App) that resides on the "communication device" (the smartphone). The patent's figures depict the interface module as a physically separate hardware component (ʼ194 Patent, Fig. 1, element 20), which may suggest a narrower structural requirement.
    • Technical Questions: For the '851 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused system's components map directly onto the claimed elements. For example, does the combination of the app's programming screens and the phone's hardware meet the limitation of a "cell phone including a user interface," or could a defendant argue these are distinct elements that do not satisfy the claim's integrated structure?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "interface module" ('194 Patent, Claim 31)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis for the '194 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused "module" is a software application, whereas the patent's primary embodiment depicts a separate hardware box. The outcome of this construction could determine whether the accused system's architecture falls within the scope of the '194 claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the module's functions can be integrated, stating, "the cell phone or PDA may include all or part of the functionality of interface module 20 in which case the cell phone's or PDA's existing features and hardware would perform some of all of the necessary interface module 20 functions" (ʼ194 Patent, col. 4:47-54). This language may support construing "interface module" as a functional role that can be fulfilled by software on the communication device.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently introduces the invention as a system of three distinct components: a triggering key, an interface module, and a communication device (ʼ194 Patent, col. 2:61-63). Figure 1 explicitly depicts the "interface module 20" as a separate physical unit from the "communication device 40," which could support a construction requiring structural separateness.

  • The Term: "triggering key" ('194 and '851 Patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is important for defining the required relationship between the remote trigger and the main device. The accused system uses Bluetooth, a specific two-way communication protocol.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use broad functional language (e.g., "for activating the interface module"). The specification explicitly contemplates various wireless technologies, stating the components "may include Bluetooth™, radio frequency (RF), infrared or WiFi technology for wirelessly receiving and sending signals" (ʼ194 Patent, col. 5:40-46). This provides strong support for a scope that includes Bluetooth devices.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the core invention describes a simple, one-way trigger signal, as suggested by phrases like "radiating a short range radio frequency signal to interface module 20" (ʼ194 Patent, col. 3:60-63). While some claims ('194 Patent, Claim 39) explicitly recite "Bluetooth™," others do not. This distinction might be used to argue that claims without the explicit term should be read more narrowly to cover simpler, non-paired transmitters.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶29, 30). Inducement is based on allegations that React Mobile advises and provides instructions for customers to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶29). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the React Sidekick button, when combined with the app, has no substantial non-infringing use and is a material part of the patented invention (Compl. ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and intentional infringement (Compl. ¶25). The basis for pre-suit knowledge is a general allegation of "full knowledge of the existence and validity" of the patents. The basis for ongoing willfulness is knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶31).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural definition: can the term "interface module" as claimed in the '194 patent, which is depicted in patent figures as a distinct hardware component, be construed to cover the accused "React Safety App," a software application that resides entirely on the "communication device" (the smartphone)? The resolution of this claim construction dispute will be fundamental to the infringement analysis of the '194 patent.
  • A key question of patent applicability will be whether the accused system's architecture is better described by the '194 patent's three-part system (trigger, separate module, communication device) or the '851 patent's more integrated two-part system (trigger, and a cell phone that contains the interface functionality). The outcome may depend on which patent's claims are found to more closely align with the technical reality of the accused products.