Lab Technology LLC v. Everbridge Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Everbridge, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01355, D. Del., 11/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to telecommunications technology, one concerning methods for locating emergency callers and another for automatically refreshing a telephone's display based on user context.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to emergency E911 location services for mobile and VoIP callers and context-aware user interfaces for telephones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-07-14	’973 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2006-06-22	’982 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2013-08-06	U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 Issues
2015-12-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982 Issues
2025-11-06	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 - Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location

Issued August 6, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of providing accurate location information for emergency calls made from non-traditional telephone services like Voice over IP (VoIP) and cellular phones (’973 Patent, col. 2:15-26). Unlike traditional landlines with a fixed location, these services allow users to move, creating a danger that emergency services could be dispatched to the wrong address, such as a user's home when they are traveling (’973 Patent, col. 2:42-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a telephone system obtains a "subscriber access line identity" associated with a caller and uses this identity to query a "subscriber location query system" (’973 Patent, Abstract). This system retrieves a corresponding "subscriber location record," which contains the caller's physical location, and provides it to an emergency response system, ensuring dispatchers have accurate, up-to-date location data regardless of the call's origin technology (’973 Patent, col. 5:24-34; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to bridge the public safety gap created by the proliferation of mobile and IP-based telephony by creating a dynamic location-lookup architecture.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "exemplary claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶12). For analytical purposes, representative independent claim 1 is presented below.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for obtaining a subscriber location for a mobile phone... coupled to a wireless base station... [and] a phone system, comprising:
  • (a) obtaining by the mobile phone a current wireless base station identity...
  • (b) obtaining by the mobile phone a stored wireless base station identity;
  • (c) determining by the mobile phone that the current wireless base station identity does not match the stored wireless base station identity;
  • (d) obtaining by the mobile phone a subscriber location corresponding to the current base wireless station identity; and
  • (e) sending the subscriber location by the mobile phone to the phone system.
• The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims are asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 9,219,982 - Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone

Issued December 22, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that as telephones gain more features and services, users must navigate complex menus to find the specific service they need (’982 Patent, col. 1:30-33). A user's needs change based on context, such as time of day or location (e.g., needing traffic information in the morning vs. a restaurant directory in the evening) (’982 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a telephone that automatically refreshes its display to show commonly used communication services relevant to a user's current "function," which represents a set of conditions like time or location (’982 Patent, col. 2:18-28). A "function selector" determines the user's context (e.g., from a clock or a location server) and selects a corresponding function, causing the display to update with relevant services, thereby simplifying access (’982 Patent, col. 2:37-45, Figs. 4-5).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents an early approach to context-aware user interfaces on communication devices, aiming to reduce user friction by proactively presenting relevant options.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "exemplary claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶21). For analytical purposes, representative independent claim 1 is presented below.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A telephone comprising a display panel, a processor, and a datastore comprising at least one function comprising information relating to a current location of the telephone and a user of the telephone...
  • wherein the at least one function is associated with at least one communication service,
  • wherein the processor is operable to connect the telephone to a location server to obtain a current location of the telephone, select a function from the datastore, and refresh a screen on the display panel to include the at least one communication service associated with the selected function based at least in part on the current location of the telephone.
• The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims are asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). These exhibits were not provided for this analysis.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It only alleges, in a conclusory manner, that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the patents-in-suit, incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were not provided for analysis (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint's narrative states that these charts compare the "Exemplary '973 Patent Claims" and "Exemplary '982 Patent Claims" to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26-27). Without these exhibits, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent language and the general nature of the dispute, several technical and legal questions may arise.

• For the ’973 Patent:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be what constitutes a "subscriber access line identity" in the context of modern cellular or IP networks, and whether the identifiers used by the accused system meet the definition as understood in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on how the accused system determines that a mobile device's location has changed. Does it perform the claimed steps of comparing a "current wireless base station identity" to a "stored wireless base station identity" on the mobile phone itself, as recited in claim 1?
• For the ’982 Patent:
  • Scope Questions: The definition of a "function" representing a "set of conditions associated with a user" may be a key point of dispute. Questions may arise as to whether the accused system's method for triggering display updates (e.g., based on pre-set profiles, machine learning, or simple geofencing) falls within the scope of this term.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question may be whether the accused products perform the claimed step of selecting a predefined "function from the datastore" based on location, or if they generate dynamic, context-aware interfaces through a different technical process not contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’973 Patent: "determining by the mobile phone"

  • Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 appears to require that the comparison between the current and stored base station identities occurs on the user's device. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will be critical to determining the locus of infringement. If the determination happens on a network server rather than the mobile phone, it could support a non-infringement argument.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is largely system-focused, and one might argue that "by the mobile phone" should be construed broadly to mean "initiated by or involving the mobile phone," even if a server performs the core computation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 recites a series of steps, "(a)" through "(e)," all performed "by the mobile phone." This sequential, actor-specific language suggests the patentee intended to claim a process where the mobile device itself performs the determination step.

• Term from ’982 Patent: "function"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of the ’982 Patent. The patent defines it as representing "a given set of conditions associated with a user" which can be "static, such as user ID, or variable, such as time, location, activity or the like" (’982 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The construction will determine whether the accused product's context-aware features meet this claimed element, or if they operate on a different principle.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide range of examples for what a "function" can be, including "an office worker on weekday morning, a hotel guest in evenings, or a vehicle driver," as well as seasonal events or holidays (’982 Patent, col. 4:32-35; col. 5:13-17). This variety could support a broad definition covering almost any set of user-related conditions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the "function" as a discrete, pre-defined entity stored in a "datastore" that is selected by a "function selector" (’982 Patent, col. 6:7-14; Fig. 4). This may support a narrower construction requiring the accused product to use a similar architecture of selecting from pre-packaged profiles, as opposed to generating a dynamic UI based on raw contextual data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a count, but the complaint alleges that Defendant has "actual knowledge" of its infringement at least from the service of the complaint and continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24). The prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Prayer for Relief ¶G.i).

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

1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's reliance on external exhibits to identify the accused products and articulate its infringement theories, a primary question will be whether the factual allegations in those unprovided documents are specific and plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.
2. A second key issue will be one of architectural mismatch: For the ’973 Patent, the case may turn on whether the accused system performs the critical location-change determination "by the mobile phone" as claimed, or on a network server. For the ’982 Patent, the dispute may center on whether the accused system's context-aware UI relies on selecting discrete, pre-defined "functions" from a datastore, or if it uses a more modern, dynamic approach that falls outside the patent's claimed architecture.
3. A final question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely require construction of foundational terms like "subscriber access line identity" (’973 Patent) and "function" (’982 Patent). The viability of the infringement claims will depend on whether these terms can be construed broadly enough to read on the technologies implemented in the accused products.