Lattice Tech LLC v. Fluent Home LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Fluent Home, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00110, D. Del., 01/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for providing emergency response to a user via a portable device communicating over the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols (IP), including Voice-over-IP (VoIP), to connect a user's portable device to a monitoring service that can automatically notify a prioritized list of contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The claim of willfulness is based on knowledge gained from the filing of this 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

Issued January 17, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of prior art emergency response systems that rely on the public switched telephone network (PSTN). These systems often use a stationary speakerphone, which is ineffective if the user is not nearby, and may unnecessarily dispatch emergency personnel for non-critical events, causing user hesitation. (’153 Patent, col. 2:27-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where a portable user device communicates over the internet with a "monitoring database." This database stores a user-defined, prioritized list of contacts (e.g., family, friends). When the user triggers an alert, the system automatically attempts to notify these contacts in priority order using IP-based methods (like VoIP or SMS) or traditional telephone networks, until one of the contacts "accepts" the notification. This allows for direct communication between the user and a trusted contact, filtering out non-emergencies before official responders are called. (’153 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-31, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention's approach represents a shift from a centralized, one-to-many (user-to-call center) model to a distributed, automated one-to-few (user-to-prioritized contacts) model, leveraging the flexibility of internet protocols. (’153 Patent, col. 9:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" without specifying them, instead referring to an external exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • Establishing a monitoring database with 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 an internet protocol (IP) address for the monitoring database and the user device.
  • 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 one of the contacts according to the priority order.
  • Receiving an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" response from the contact.
  • "Automatically establishing communication with another contact" according to the priority order until an "accepted response" is received.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "devices that infringe" sold by Defendant FLUENT HOME, LLC. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's products "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). Given that Fluent Home is a provider of smart home and security systems, the accused instrumentalities are likely its personal emergency response systems and related monitoring services. The functionality is alleged to include establishing communication between a user device and a central service that in turn contacts emergency responders or other designated parties. The specific operational details of the accused products are not described in the complaint, with all such detail deferred to an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶17).
• The complaint does not provide detail for analysis of the product's commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference "claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed, element-by-element comparison is not possible from the complaint itself.

The narrative infringement theory is one of direct correspondence. The complaint asserts that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The patent's Figure 1, which provides a high-level graphical representation of the system architecture connecting a user device (32) to a monitoring database (34) that communicates with contacts (60, 62, 64), illustrates the type of system accused of infringement (’153 Patent, Fig. 1). Further, the detailed logic for notifying contacts, as shown in the patent's flowchart Figure 13, represents the core process that Plaintiff alleges the accused products perform (’153 Patent, Fig. 13). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's acts of "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" these products constitutes direct infringement (Compl. ¶11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused system's notification protocol meets the claim requirement of an ordered list arranged in a "priority order determined by the user." The case may turn on the degree of control a user of the accused system has over the notification sequence.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused system "automatically" proceeds through a contact list and ceases only upon receiving an "accepted response"? The specific logic for handling "not accepted" and "unresponsive" results, and what constitutes an "accepted response" in the accused system, will be a primary focus of the technical infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "priority order determined by the user" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's departure from a simple call-center model. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system's contact list, which may have a default or system-set order, can be considered "determined by the user." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define how much user control is required to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly state the user must create the order from scratch. A party could argue that a system providing a default order that the user can subsequently "update or modify" still falls within the scope of the term. (’153 Patent, col. 4:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "determined by the user" suggests active user input and control. The specification describes a "list of contacts to be contacted in an emergency for each user of each user device," which supports the idea of a user-specific, customized arrangement. (’153 Patent, col. 4:11-14).

• The Term: "accepted response" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The claim requires the system to continue contacting people until it receives an "accepted response." The definition of this term is critical for determining when the automated notification loop terminates. If an "accepted response" requires active confirmation (e.g., pressing a key), a system that simply leaves a voicemail might not infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes acceptance. One might argue any signal that confirms receipt and intent to handle the situation, even if not an explicit confirmation, could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples where a contact may "accept or decline to respond to the emergency" and "may accept by various methods, such as press a certain key or verbally responding to a prompt." This suggests that an "accepted response" requires a specific, interactive confirmation from the contact, not merely a one-way delivery of a message. (’153 Patent, col. 9:26-34, 10:59-62).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’153 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its (unprovided) claim charts constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant’s continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Fluent Home emergency response system actually perform the specific, automated, sequential notification logic required by the patent? The case will likely depend on evidence demonstrating that the accused system iterates through a contact list based on a user-defined priority and, crucially, alters its behavior based on receiving an explicit "accepted response" from a contact.
2. The dispute will also center on definitional scope: can the claim term "priority order determined by the user" be construed to cover a system where the user may only have limited ability to modify a default contact procedure? Similarly, the definition of an "accepted response" will be pivotal in determining whether the accused system’s handling of notifications meets the claim limitations.