Lattice Tech LLC v. Cox Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Cox Communications, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00252, D. Del., 03/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for providing emergency response to a user carrying a portable device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols to connect a user's mobile device with a central monitoring service and pre-designated emergency contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation between the parties or administrative challenges to the patent-in-suit. The claim of knowledge for post-suit infringement is based solely on the filing of the instant 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"

• Patent Identification: 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. (Compl. ¶9; ’153 Patent, p. 1)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of then-existing emergency response systems, noting that devices connected to a public switched telephone network (PSTN) are ineffective if a user has an emergency away from the device's speakerphone base. (’153 Patent, col. 1:28-41). It further notes that other mobile monitoring systems did not effectively combine user tracking with internet-based communication protocols to notify contacts. (’153 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a portable user device communicates with a "monitoring database" (a central server) over the internet using internet protocols (IP). (’153 Patent, Abstract). This monitoring database stores a prioritized list of emergency contacts and automatically attempts to notify them in a sequential order using various methods, including Voice-over-IP (VoIP), until a contact accepts responsibility for the incident. This use of IP-based communication is presented as a more flexible and robust solution. (’153 Patent, col. 2:9-25; col. 4:10-24).
• Technical Importance: The described technology represents an integration of GPS, mobile communication, and internet-based protocols (like VoIP) to create a more versatile personal emergency alert system compared to traditional landline-dependent services. (’153 Patent, col. 9:43-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references an external claim chart exhibit that was not filed with the complaint. (’153 Patent, ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method.
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in summary:
  • Establishing a "monitoring database" with an ID for a user device.
  • Storing a plurality of "contacts" and "contact methods" in the database.
  • Arranging the contacts in a "priority order" determined by the user.
  • Establishing IP addresses for both the "user device" and the "monitoring database".
  • Establishing communication "over the Internet" between the device and the database.
  • "Transmitting an alert" from the device to the database.
  • "Automatically establishing communication" with contacts according to the priority order using internet protocols or PSTN.
  • "Receiving" an "accepted", "not accepted", or "unresponsive" response from a contact.
  • "Automatically establishing communication with another contact" according to the priority order until an "accepted response" is received.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via an "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It makes general allegations that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and that it distributes "product literature and website materials" instructing users on their operation. (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an external Exhibit 2, which is not available for analysis. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint's narrative theory is a conclusory statement that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit or specific product details, a claim-level analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of independent claim 1, the following questions may be central to the dispute:
  • Architectural Questions: How does the architecture of the accused service map to the claimed "monitoring database"? A likely point of dispute is whether the defendant's infrastructure, which may be distributed across multiple servers or cloud services, constitutes the single, integrated entity described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused service performs the claimed step of "automatically establishing communication with another contact...until the monitoring database receives an accepted response"? This raises the question of whether the accused system uses a fully automated, sequential notification logic that ceases only upon receiving a specific "accepted response," or if it relies on different logic, such as broadcast alerts or significant human operator intervention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "monitoring database"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed system, representing the centralized intelligence that manages users, contacts, and notifications. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's potentially distributed server infrastructure meets the definition of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the "monitoring database 34" as being "preferably a server" and illustrates it as a block encompassing "Servers ASP Hosted," which could support a construction that includes a logical grouping of physically separate servers working in concert. (’153 Patent, col. 4:3-4; Fig. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently refers to "a monitoring database" in the singular throughout the claims and abstract, which could support an argument that a more unitary or co-located system is required, as opposed to a collection of disparate cloud services. (’153 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:7-9).

• The Term: "automatically establishing communication"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the required level of automation for the contact notification cascade. The dispute will likely center on the degree of machine-driven versus human-initiated action in the accused system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "automatically," which could support a construction that encompasses any system that initiates contact without direct human command for each step, even if an operator oversees the process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed flowcharts, particularly Figure 14, depict a specific, programmatic logic flow where the system itself dials, detects specific outcomes (e.g., 'Busy', 'no answer'), and proceeds to the next step without intervention. (’153 Patent, col. 10:45-67; Fig. 14). This could support a narrower construction that excludes systems where a human operator makes decisions within the notification sequence.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’153 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" since being served with the complaint and has continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof versus pleading. As the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations regarding the accused products' operation, the case will depend entirely on what discovery reveals about Defendant's system architecture and whether Plaintiff can map that architecture to the specific elements of the asserted claims.

2. The case is likely to turn on a question of automation and scope. A core dispute will be whether the accused system's method for notifying emergency contacts performs the specific, sequential, and "automatic" process required by the claims—particularly the limitation of iterating through a priority list until an "accepted response" is received—or if its functionality relies on a technically distinct method, such as human-operator-managed call lists or simultaneous broadcast notifications.