Vetrix LLC v. OnSolve LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vetrix, LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: OnSolve, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A.; Sheridan Ross P.C.
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-02296, M.D. Fla., 12/09/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Florida because the defendant, OnSolve, maintains its principal place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mass notification systems infringe a patent related to mobile device tracking, communication, and alerting based on user location relative to a defined perimeter.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using location-aware mobile devices to manage and communicate with individuals, particularly in emergency response or security scenarios, by defining geographic zones (perimeters) that trigger specific device actions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent descends from a long chain of continuing applications, with the earliest priority date stemming from a 2009 provisional application. No other prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-03-06	Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/158,130)
2020-02-25	Filing Date of Application leading to '732 Patent (No. 16/800,136)
2022-09-06	U.S. Patent No. 11,438,732 Issued
2022-12-09	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,438,732 - "Systems and Methods for Mobile Tracking, Communications and Alerting," Issued September 6, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes difficulties first responders and public safety officials experience communicating during emergencies, noting that their conventional devices often lack location-tracking and rich multimedia communication capabilities (e.g., maps, video), hindering coordinated responses. (ʼ732 Patent, col. 1:47-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where mobile devices, optionally communicating with a central server, use location-determining technology (e.g., GPS) to track individuals. A key feature is the ability to establish a "perimeter" or "geo-fence" around a location of interest, such as an emergency scene. When a device crosses this perimeter, it can trigger special functions, such as initiating tracking, sending an alert, or changing the device's operational mode to facilitate a coordinated response. (ʼ732 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-24). The system enables targeted, multimedia-rich communications to be sent to individuals within that defined area. (ʼ732 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
• Technical Importance: The described technology combines location-awareness with automated, perimeter-based event triggers on mobile devices, aiming to provide incident commanders with enhanced situational awareness and communication capabilities beyond traditional radio systems. (ʼ732 Patent, col. 2:25-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the following essential elements:
  • Establishing communication with an alert system from a first location.
  • Obtaining information about a "condition" associated with a distinct second location.
  • Determining a "perimeter" based on proximity to that second location.
  • Obtaining location data from a first set of mobile devices located inside the perimeter.
  • Identifying the first set of mobile devices that are within the perimeter.
  • Providing map information for display that includes the second location.
  • Causing push notifications about the condition to be sent to the first set of mobile devices located within the perimeter.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "OnSolve mass notification systems and all OnSolve products and services that operate in substantially the same manner." (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as event management tools that "provide[] products and services related to notifications of critical events." (Compl. ¶10). The specific technical operations of these systems are not detailed in the body of the complaint, which instead incorporates by reference an external exhibit for the infringement analysis. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are presented in a highly summary fashion, stating that the Accused Products meet every element of at least Claim 1 of the ’732 Patent. (Compl. ¶11). The pleading relies entirely on a "detailed claim chart" attached as Exhibit 2 to map the elements of Claim 1 to the functionality of the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶13). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint document itself. Consequently, the complaint as filed does not provide a specific, element-by-element factual basis for its infringement allegations. The narrative infringement theory is that OnSolve's systems for sending critical event notifications practice the patented method of defining a perimeter and communicating with devices located therein.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent and the general nature of the accused products, the following term may be central to the case.

• The Term: "perimeter"
• Context and Importance: This term appears throughout the asserted independent claim and is fundamental to the invention's logic. The dispute may turn on whether the way the accused "mass notification systems" define a target audience for an alert constitutes a "perimeter" as required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples often describe physically-traversable boundaries (e.g., an emergency scene, a theme park), while mass notification systems might define target areas more abstractly (e.g., by address list, zip code, or administrative boundary).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract equates "perimeter" with a "geo-fence, or defined electronic perimeter," suggesting it is not limited to a physical structure. (ʼ732 Patent, Abstract). The specification also refers to defining a perimeter by "download[ing] the perimeter provided by the theme park," which implies an electronically defined boundary. (ʼ732 Patent, col. 3:45-48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses language of physical movement, such as devices "travers[ing]" the perimeter or a user "exiting the perimeter." (ʼ732 Patent, col. 6:30-33; col. 4:30-31). Many of the specific embodiments concern first responders entering a fire scene or a child leaving a theme park, contexts that could be used to argue the term implies a boundary intended to be physically crossed in real-time. (ʼ732 Patent, col. 2:12-20; col. 3:41-50).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain any allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or provide any facts related to pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. The prayer for relief includes a request for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is awarded in "exceptional cases," but the complaint does not plead the factual basis typically required to support such a claim. (Compl. ¶IV.C).

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

This case, as pleaded, presents several fundamental questions for the court's determination.

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes only conclusory allegations of infringement, deferring all factual detail to an unfiled exhibit. A key question will be what evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate that the accused "mass notification systems" actually perform each step of the claimed method, particularly the dynamic determination of a perimeter and the real-time identification of devices within it.
• The case will also likely involve a core question of definitional scope: Can the term "perimeter", which is described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of real-time tracking of individuals physically crossing a boundary (e.g., first responders, family members), be construed to read on the recipient lists or geographical target zones used by a "mass notification system" for sending alerts?
• A final question relates to the functional operation of the accused systems versus the claims. The court will need to determine whether the accused systems perform the specific sequence of claimed steps—such as first identifying a "condition" at a second location and then defining a "perimeter" based on proximity to it—or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the operational logic.