Lattice Tech LLC v. Blue Ridge Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Blue Ridge Communications, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00109, D. Del., 01/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified emergency response products and services infringe a patent related to systems that use the internet to automatically notify a prioritized list of contacts.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols, including VoIP, to provide a more flexible alternative to traditional landline-based services.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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 describes prior art emergency response systems as being limited, particularly those tethered to a public switched telephone network (PSTN) via a speakerphone, which restricts the user's mobility (ʼ153 Patent, col. 1:28-34). It also notes that when the nature of an emergency is unknown, inappropriate personnel may be dispatched, and that existing mobile systems did not combine user tracking with internet-based (VoIP) communication to contacts (ʼ153 Patent, col. 1:35-41, 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a portable user device and a central “monitoring database” that communicate over the Internet using IP protocols (ʼ153 Patent, Abstract). The database stores a prioritized list of contacts for each user. Upon receiving an alert from the user device, the database automatically processes the priority information to notify contacts through various means (e.g., VoIP, SMS, PSTN) until a contact accepts responsibility for the incident (ʼ153 Patent, col. 2:9-25; FIG. 13). This automation is intended to reduce the need for human intervention at the monitoring center (ʼ153 Patent, col. 9:38-41).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer a more advanced emergency response framework by combining mobile location tracking (GPS) with the flexibility of internet-based, automated, and prioritized multi-channel notifications (ʼ153 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent method claims (1 and 16) and one independent system claim (11).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites a method with the essential elements of:
  • Establishing a monitoring database and storing a priority-ordered list of contacts and contact methods.
  • Establishing IP addresses for both the database and a user device.
  • Transmitting an alert from the user device to the database over the Internet.
  • The database automatically establishing communication with a contact according to the priority order.
  • Receiving a response from the contact (e.g., accepted, not accepted).
  • The database automatically establishing communication with a subsequent contact if an "accepted" response is not received.
• Independent Claim 11 (System) recites a system comprising a user device (with a processor, memory, GPS, cellular modem, etc.) and a monitoring database configured to perform the automated, prioritized notification steps outlined in claim 1.
• The complaint’s general allegations suggest it reserves the right to assert any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an "Exhibit 2" which is referenced but not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’153 Patent but incorporates the substance of its infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16-17). Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused system performs the specific, automated, and prioritized notification cascade required by the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that upon receiving a "not accepted" or "unresponsive" result from a first contact, the accused system automatically proceeds to notify a second, different contact based on a pre-set priority order, as required by claim 1?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the defendant's system architecture falls within the scope of the claims. For instance, does the defendant's back-end infrastructure function as the claimed "monitoring database," which the patent describes as automatically processing priority information to notify contacts? (’153 Patent, col. 2:15-25).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically establishing communication" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's purported novelty over prior art systems that may have relied on human operators in a call center to manage notifications. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether systems with any degree of human oversight or manual queue management can be found to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems where a "human advisor" is required to interpret an emergency (ʼ153 Patent, col. 1:35-41). This could support a construction where "automatically" means any process that does not require case-by-case human judgment, even if humans are involved in system setup or maintenance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed flowcharts, such as FIG. 13, depict a specific, multi-step logical process where the system itself builds a call list, fetches records, and escalates from one contact to the next based on programmed rules and received responses (e.g., "Call Status = 'C' (Covered)") without any intervening human action (ʼ153 Patent, FIG. 13-14). This could support a narrower construction requiring a fully autonomous, software-driven notification cascade.

• The Term: "monitoring database" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what constitutes an infringing system. The question is whether any server storing user and contact data qualifies, or if the term requires a server that performs the specific, complex, automated functions described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the database as "preferably a server" connected to the Internet, which could support a broad interpretation covering a wide range of network server architectures (ʼ153 Patent, col. 4:4-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly link the "monitoring database" to specific actions, such as "automatically process[ing] the priority information to notify the contact" (ʼ153 Patent, Abstract) and building prioritized call lists (ʼ153 Patent, col. 9:35-43). This may support a narrower functional definition where the term is construed to mean a server that is itself configured to perform these automated notification and escalation tasks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’153 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its allegation of knowledge on the service of the complaint itself, asserting that this event "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This appears to be a claim for post-suit, rather than pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to a few central questions that bridge claim scope and technical evidence.

1. A Core Issue of Automation: A key question will be one of claim scope and functional equivalence: does the term "automatically establishing communication", as used in the patent, require a fully autonomous, multi-step notification and escalation process as depicted in the patent’s flowcharts, or can it be construed to cover systems that use a combination of software and human-managed queues?
2. An Evidentiary Question of Functionality: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, a critical question for discovery will be: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the complete, closed-loop process of prioritized notification, response tracking, and automated escalation to subsequent contacts as claimed?