OGO Mangum & Associates LLC v. Everbridge Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OGO Mangum & Associates, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Everbridge, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01106, D. Del., 08/23/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Everbridge Safety Connection™" system infringes a patent related to single-action, color-coded emergency messaging with location reporting and recipient escalation.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the domain of mobile personal safety applications, which use smartphone capabilities to send rapid, location-aware distress signals or status updates.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,818,280 - "INSTANT PERSONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION MESSAGING DEVICE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,818,280, "INSTANT PERSONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION MESSAGING DEVICE," issued November 14, 2017 (’280 Patent). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that traditional communication methods like texting or calling can be too slow, complex, or conspicuous in a threatening or emergency situation, where a user may be under duress and unable to type or search through contacts. (’280 Patent, col. 3:6-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a messaging system, typically on a mobile device, that allows a user to send a message about their status and location through a "single operation." (’280 Patent, Abstract). The user is presented with simple, color-coded options (e.g., green for "safe," red for "danger") that correspond to pre-set messages. (’280 Patent, col. 2:39-46). A key feature is an automated escalation process: if a message sent to a primary recipient is not acknowledged within a certain time, the system automatically re-sends the message to a designated secondary recipient, ensuring the alert is received without further action from the user. (’280 Patent, col. 2:52-66).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to minimize the time and cognitive load required for a person in a high-stress environment to communicate for help or confirm their safety. (’280 Patent, col. 2:20-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 11. (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).
• The essential elements of Claim 11 are:
  • A computer-implemented method for single action messaging and location confirmation.
  • Presenting a graphical representation of at least two "color coded messaging codes" indicating an urgency level.
  • Receiving a user's selection of one of the codes.
  • Delivering the selected code to a first recipient.
  • Delivering a message based on the code to a second recipient after receiving an indication that the first recipient did not acknowledge the message.
  • Graphically presenting a color-coded representation of the user's status to the second recipient. (Compl. ¶15; ’280 Patent, col. 10:53-col. 11:11).
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" and reserves the right to modify its infringement theories, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later in the litigation. (Compl. ¶¶34, 40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Everbridge Safety Connection™" system (the "Accused Product"). (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "computer-implemented method for single action messaging and location confirmation." (Compl. ¶17). Its interface allegedly sends urgency levels such as "Checks-ins (normal), safe corridor, Emergency call and SOS requests," which the complaint characterizes as a "location-based multi-color messaging code." (Compl. ¶20). The system is alleged to automatically provide emergency alerts with the user's geocoded location to first responders. (Compl. ¶21). A central feature alleged is "notification escalation," where alerts are sent to a "user-defined next person/group when the first-person/group doesn't respond," using a hierarchy of contacts. (Compl. ¶¶26-27). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Although the complaint references an external claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the filing, the body of the complaint contains narrative allegations mapping the Accused Product to the elements of Claim 11 of the ’280 Patent.

’280 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused system's named alert types (e.g., "SOS requests," "Checks-ins") constitute "color coded messaging codes" as required by the claim. The case may turn on whether this term requires an explicit color-based user interface or can be read more broadly to cover any system of tiered urgency levels.
• Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the escalation step will require proof that the accused system's trigger is specifically a "not acknowledged" event, as claimed, rather than another trigger like a simple time-out. Further, a factual question exists as to whether the alert sent to the second recipient is merely a resent copy of the first, or if it constitutes a distinct "representation of a status of the user" that is itself "color coded," as the claim language suggests.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "color coded messaging code"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claim. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the functionality of the Accused Product, which uses named urgency levels, can be shown to meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent covers only literal color-based UIs or a broader class of symbolic alert systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the use of colors symbolically, where "green is used to symbolize positive messages," "yellow is used to symbolize uncertainty," and "red is used to symbolize negativity or danger." (’280 Patent, col. 2:39-46). This could support an argument that any system mapping discrete inputs to different levels of urgency is "color coded" in principle.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and detailed description repeatedly depict an interface with distinct, selectable colored keys (e.g., "red indicator key 112, yellow indicator key 114 or green indicator key 116"). (’280 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 4:56-59). This may support a narrower construction limited to interfaces that explicitly use selectable colors as the primary input mechanism.

The Term: "following receipt of an indication that the message... was not acknowledged by the first recipient"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific trigger for the claimed escalation feature. Infringement requires showing that the accused system's escalation operates on this precise logic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that if "no confirmation of receipt is received by the user...such as a time lapse during which no response is received," the message will be re-sent. (’280 Patent, col. 2:56-60). This could suggest that a simple timer expiring is sufficient to be an "indication."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 17, which depends from Claim 11, specifies that the indication "is based on lapse of a predetermined period of delay." (’280 Patent, col. 12:5-9). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, this could imply that the independent claim's "indication" requires something more than just a time lapse, such as an active non-delivery report from the network.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages infringement through acts that result in direct infringement by others (presumably, end-users). (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, that would show active encouragement.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’280 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint." (Compl. ¶33). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement but does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's interpretation of several key technical and legal issues. The central questions raised by the complaint are:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "color coded messaging code," which is described in the patent with explicit red, yellow, and green button embodiments, be construed broadly enough to read on the Accused Product's system of named urgency levels (e.g., "SOS request," "Check-in")?

• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the Accused Product’s "notification escalation" feature operate based on the specific logic claimed—a trigger "following receipt of an indication" of non-acknowledgement—or does it use a different technical mechanism? The plaintiff will bear the burden of proving this functional match.

• Finally, the case raises a question of claim element distinction: what technical evidence will show that the Accused Product "graphically present[s] to the second recipient a representation of a status of the user," and how is that presentation technically distinct from the initial "color coded messaging code" delivered to the first recipient, as the claim language appears to require?