Ricmic LLC v. Heritage Medcall LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ricmic, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Heritage Medcall, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fee & Jeffries, PA.; The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-00426, M.D. Fla., 02/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency call systems for senior living facilities infringe two patents related to interactive wireless life safety communication systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns "nurse call" systems used in assisted living facilities, aiming to improve caregiver response coordination through interactive, bi-directional communication between resident alert devices and caregiver mobile devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-12	Priority Date for '450 and '873 Patents
2016-04-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450 Issued
2019	Defendant released the Freedom eCall mobile app
2019-08-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873 Issued
2025-02-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450 - "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System," Issued April 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the limitations of conventional emergency notification systems in assisted living facilities, such as one-way pagers or two-way radios. These limitations include an inability to confirm if an alert was received or if a staff member is responding, which can lead to inefficient or delayed care, "alarm fatigue" among staff, and disruptive noise levels from radios ('450 Patent, col. 2:8-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture comprising a central server connecting two distinct networks. A first network links resident life safety devices (e.g., pendants, pull cords) to the server. A second, different network links the server to caregiver communication devices (e.g., smartphones with an app). When a resident device sends an alarm signal, the server sends a detailed notification to caregivers, who can then transmit back an "action status response" to indicate whether they are responding, unable to respond, or have not yet responded. This response is then used to update other caregivers, enabling coordinated action ('450 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-29).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from simple, one-way alerting to a bi-directional, interactive system designed to improve caregiver coordination, response efficiency, and resident safety in care facilities (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 14 (Compl. ¶30).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A central coordination server.
  • A first communications network linking at least one resident life safety device to the server.
  • A second communications network, different from the first, linking at least one caregiver communications device to the server.
  • The caregiver device is receptive to an alarm notification and user input for generating an "action status response" indicating if the caregiver is responding, unable to respond, or has not yet responded.
  • All caregiver devices are automatically updated based on the action status response.
  • Resetting the resident device is independent of the action status response.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873 - "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System," Issued August 13, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problems as the '450 Patent, focusing on the shortcomings of prior art one-way alert systems in care facilities, including the inability to confirm alert receipt and coordinate responses effectively ('873 Patent, col. 2:8-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a similar system architecture with a central server managing communications between resident alert devices and a plurality of caregiver devices over two different networks. The claims of the ’873 Patent focus on the generation of a "caregiver acceptance response," which, when transmitted to the server, causes other caregiver devices to be automatically updated to show a caregiver is responding, while the alarm notification itself remains active across the system until cleared ('873 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:5-32). Figure 4 of the patent depicts a user interface on a caregiver device showing an alert with options for "Responding Now" or "Not Responding" ('873 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This system aims to solve the problem of multiple staff members needlessly responding to the same alert by providing real-time, system-wide status visibility, thereby improving personnel resource allocation and resident safety (Compl. ¶49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 14, and 15 (Compl. ¶51).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A central coordination server.
  • A first communications network linking a resident life safety device to the server.
  • A second communications network, different from the first, linking a plurality of caregiver communications devices to the server.
  • Generation of a "caregiver acceptance response" from a caregiver device for transmission to the server.
  • In response, the system automatically updates the plurality of caregiver devices to indicate a caregiver is responding, while the alarm notification remains active on those devices.
  • The central server records the acceptance response.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Systems" are identified as Defendant's "Freedom platform with the Freedom eCall mobile app" and "Fusion platform with the Fusion eCall mobile app" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Systems are described as "life safety systems for senior living" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges these systems provide caregivers with mobile applications that have the capability to "Respond to alarms which notify other mobile users and desktop application that you will be attending to a call" (Compl. ¶16). The system allegedly requires customers and their employees to set up and log into the apps, which facilitates communications between the caregiver devices and the broader system (Compl. ¶20). Plaintiff alleges these systems provide bi-directional communications and real-time coordination of caregiver services (Compl. ¶¶27, 48). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits C and D) detailing its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶¶29, 50). The narrative allegations provide the basis for the infringement theory.

'450 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Systems practice the claimed methods and are comprised of the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶27). The core of the allegation is that the Accused Systems provide an interactive system with resident alert devices on a first network and caregiver devices with mobile apps on a second, different network, all connected to a central server. The infringement theory relies on the functionality of the Freedom and Fusion eCall mobile apps, which allegedly allow caregivers to transmit an "action status" and other responses, enabling real-time coordination and bi-directional communications as claimed (Compl. ¶27).

'873 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’873 Patent is substantially similar, alleging that the Accused Systems meet each element of claim 1 (Compl. ¶48). The allegations emphasize that the systems enable a "caregiver selectable response to and acceptance of responsibility for an active alert," which is then logged and used to coordinate responses among all caregiver devices (Compl. ¶48). This functionality is alleged to map directly onto the "caregiver acceptance response" recited in the claims of the ’873 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Questions: A central question for the court may be whether the Accused Systems' architecture includes a "second communications network different from the first" as required by the claims. The dispute may turn on what constitutes a "different" network—whether it requires distinct physical layers and protocols (e.g., proprietary radio frequency vs. standard Wi-Fi) or if logical separation on a single underlying IP network suffices.
• Functional Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the "Respond to alarms" function in the accused apps (Compl. ¶16) performs the specific operations required by the claims. For the '450 Patent, does the response correspond to one of the three specific states recited in claim 1? For the ’873 Patent, does the response cause the specific outcome of updating other devices while keeping the alarm notification "active" on them, as the claim requires?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a second communications network different from the first communications network" (Appears in Claim 1 of both patents)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed system architecture. The infringement case hinges on whether the defendant's system, which connects resident devices and caregiver apps, employs two networks that are "different" in the manner contemplated by the patents.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that "different" does not exclusively mean technologically distinct (e.g., RF vs. Wi-Fi). The specification's general description of linking devices to a server could support an interpretation where logical separation, such as using different protocols or subnets over a common physical infrastructure, meets the limitation ('873 Patent, col. 5:5-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent background contrasts robust technologies like pagers with cellular or Wi-Fi, suggesting a concern with reliability and interference ('873 Patent, col. 2:10-19). This context could support a narrower construction requiring that the two networks have fundamentally different technological characteristics, not just a different logical path.

The Term: "caregiver acceptance response" ('873 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the interactive feedback mechanism at the heart of the invention. Whether the defendant's "Respond to alarms" feature (Compl. ¶16) constitutes a "caregiver acceptance response" will be a critical point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to encompass any user input that signals a caregiver is taking responsibility for an alert. The patent specification illustrates this with a simple "Responding Now" button ('873 Patent, Fig. 4), which could support a plain-meaning interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself imposes a specific functional result: the response must cause other caregiver devices to be updated "to indicate that the responding caregiver is responding... and the alarm notification remains active on the plurality of caregiver communications devices" ('873 Patent, col. 13:15-22). Practitioners may focus on this language to argue that if an accused system's response silences or clears the alarm for other caregivers, it does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents.

• Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions, training, and services that "encourage and/or instruct" customers on how to use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶34, 55).
• Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the mobile apps are material components "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement" and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶37, 58).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶¶40, 61). For the '450 Patent, the allegation is based on knowledge "at least as early as 2016," suggesting pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶36). For the '873 Patent, knowledge is alleged "at least as early as the filing of this complaint," which may support a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶57).

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court's determination of the following central questions:

• A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Do the accused Freedom and Fusion platforms utilize a "second communications network different from the first" as the claims require, or does their architecture employ a unified network technology for both resident devices and caregiver apps in a way that falls outside the claim scope?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the "Respond to alarms" feature in the accused mobile apps perform the precise functions recited in the claims—specifically, does it generate a response that updates other caregivers while keeping the alarm notification "active" on their devices, as required by the ’873 Patent?