DCT

1:25-cv-00108

Lattice Tech LLC v. Blackline Safety USA Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00108, D. Del., 05/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response systems and methods infringe a patent related to providing emergency response to a user via a mobile device that communicates with a central monitoring database over the internet.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to personal emergency response systems (PERS), which have evolved from fixed, landline-based devices to mobile, internet-protocol-based systems for monitoring and assisting individuals, particularly in lone worker safety and personal security markets.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an Original Complaint filed on January 27, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the service of the original complaint and its associated claim charts provided Defendant with actual knowledge of the alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-22 ’153 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-17 ’153 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-27 Original Complaint Filed
2025-05-19 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 - System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the deficiencies of prior art emergency response systems, which were typically stationary, fixed-location devices connected to public switched telephone networks (PSTN) (’153 Patent, col. 1:29-31). These systems were ineffective if a user was away from the device, often could not establish two-way communication to convey the nature of an emergency, and lacked integration with modern internet protocols (’153 Patent, col. 1:31-42, 1:64-67; Compl. ¶¶10-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a mobile user device that communicates with a centralized "monitoring database" over the Internet (’153 Patent, col. 2:26-30). This system stores a prioritized list of contacts and preferred contact methods (e.g., phone, email, SMS) for each user (’153 Patent, col. 4:12-29). Upon receiving an alert, the database automatically attempts to notify contacts according to this user-defined priority order, using various communication protocols like VoIP, until a response is confirmed (’153 Patent, col. 4:30-38, 9:30-33). The system also provides for multi-path communication, for example by selecting between a cellular network and a docked cradle connected to the internet, to enhance reliability (Compl. ¶15; ’153 Patent, col. 8:36-42).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the mobility and communication limitations of prior art by leveraging internet protocols to create a more flexible, robust, and intelligent automated emergency notification system (Compl. ¶¶15, 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses its allegations on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶18, 29).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Establishing a monitoring database including an identification for a user device.
    • Storing in the database a plurality of contacts and contact methods.
    • Arranging the contacts and methods in a priority order determined by the user.
    • Establishing communication over the Internet between the database and the user device.
    • Transmitting an alert from the user device to the database.
    • Automatically establishing communication with a contact according to the priority order using internet protocols or PSTN.
    • Receiving a response from the contact (accepted, not accepted, or unresponsive).
    • Automatically establishing communication with another contact according to the priority order until the database receives an "accepted response."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’153 Patent (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in charts incorporated into the complaint as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶32, ¶37). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused products. It makes conclusory allegations that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶37). The general context of the lawsuit suggests the accused products are personal safety and emergency response devices and systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" that allegedly compare the patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶37). The body of the complaint provides a high-level narrative infringement theory for claim 1 but does not map specific features of the accused products to the claim limitations. The narrative theory asserts that inventive concepts from the ’153 Patent are captured in key limitations of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29). Specifically, it alleges:

  • The claim limitation requiring "automatically establishing communication with one of the contacts through one of the contact methods according to the priority order" embodies the invention’s intelligent communication pathway selection.
  • The limitation requiring "arranging the contacts and contact methods in a priority order determined by the user" captures the invention’s integration of heterogeneous communication technologies into a structured hierarchy.
  • The limitation requiring "automatically establishing communication with another contact...until the monitoring database receives an accepted response" implements a critical technical feedback loop for adaptive notification escalation, which it characterizes as a core improvement over static prior art systems.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "monitoring database"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears throughout claim 1 and is central to the claimed system architecture. The scope of this term will be critical, as it defines the server-side component that receives alerts and manages the automated, prioritized notification process. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a wide range of modern cloud-based server architectures fall within the claim scope, or if it is limited to a more specific configuration.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not impose specific structural limitations on the database, referring to it functionally as including identifications, storing contacts, and receiving alerts (’153 Patent, cl. 1). The specification describes it as preferably being a "server as understood by those skilled in the art" (’153 Patent, col. 4:3-4), which could support a broad interpretation covering various server implementations.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 1 depict a specific architecture where the "monitoring database 34" is part of "Servers ASP Hosted" and includes specific components like a "NMS VOIP Gateway" and "Data\App\WEB Servers" (’153 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:46-48). A defendant may argue these embodiments limit the term to a more integrated and specific system than a generic cloud server.

  • The Term: "accepted response"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger that stops the claimed escalation of notifications to contacts in the priority list (’153 Patent, cl. 1). Defining what constitutes an "accepted response" is crucial to determining infringement. The dispute may turn on whether any acknowledgment from a contact is sufficient, or if a specific confirmation of responsibility is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A plaintiff might argue for a broad meaning covering any signal that confirms the contact has received and acknowledged the notification, thereby ending the need for further escalation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a more active acceptance, stating the "contact may be requested to notify the monitoring database 34 that they accept or decline to respond" and that the database "monitors the response of the contact and will continue notifying additional contacts until a response is confirmed" (’153 Patent, col. 9:26-33). This language, along with flowcharts showing an "Angel Acceptance" step (e.g., ’153 Patent, Fig. 8, element 218), may support an interpretation requiring an affirmative confirmation of acceptance, not just a receipt.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that since at least the service of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly induced its customers to infringe by selling the accused products and providing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶35-¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringing conduct despite having "actual knowledge of infringement" since the service of the Original Complaint on January 27, 2025 (Compl. ¶34-¶35).

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

  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "monitoring database"? The answer will determine whether the claim reads on modern, distributed cloud-based service architectures or is confined to a more monolithic server structure as arguably depicted in the patent's specification.
  • A key evidentiary question will concern automated functionality: What evidence will be presented to show that the accused systems perform the claimed function of "automatically establishing communication with another contact...until the monitoring database receives an accepted response"? The case may turn on whether the accused system includes this specific feedback and escalation loop or uses a different notification logic.
  • A third core question will be one of user control: Does the configuration of contacts and notification methods in the accused system satisfy the claim requirement of being in a "priority order determined by the user"? The analysis will likely focus on the degree of control and hierarchical ordering available to users of the accused system versus the specific implementation described in the patent.