DCT

1:25-cv-12917

Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Onpage Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12917, D. Mass., 10/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for providing real-time voice alerts infringe a patent related to the automatic conversion of text messages into digitized voice alerts for transmission to remote electronic devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for automatically generating and broadcasting voice-based alerts, which is significant in fields such as emergency notification, security monitoring, and critical communications.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity. The complaint mentions that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigation, but asserts these licenses did not grant rights to produce a patented article and were entered into to terminate litigation without an admission of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-05-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 Priority Date
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 Issued
2025-10-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 - "Digitized Voice Alerts"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932, "Digitized Voice Alerts," issued August 2, 2022 (the “’932 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for an "improved and efficient approach for transmitting or broadcasting instant voice alerts to remote electronic devices automatically during times of emergencies or as a part of security monitoring systems," particularly for a mobile population and for monitoring unattended properties (’932 Patent, col. 2:52-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods and systems that can detect an activity or emergency situation, generate a text message based on that event, convert the text message into a digitized voice alert, and transmit the voice alert through a network for automatic audio announcement on remote devices like smartphones or in-vehicle systems (’932 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-40). The system is described as being capable of broadcasting alerts in multiple languages and through specific cellular towers in a designated region, similar to a Personal Localized Alerting Network (“PLAN”) system (’932 Patent, col. 3:24-34; Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide immediate, audible alerts that do not require a user to read a text message, which could be critical for drivers or during emergencies where immediate comprehension is necessary (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-18 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1 (method), 10 (system), and 17 (non-transitory medium) are included in this range.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • determining an emergency situation affecting a specified region
    • generating and converting a text message indicative of the emergency situation into a digitized voice alert
    • converting the digitized voice alert into at least one selected language
    • transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network in the specified region for distribution to at least one wireless hand held device
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses unspecified "devices/products and systems" maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant OnPage (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services provide "instant/real-time Voice alerts automatically to remote electronic devices" (Compl. ¶7).
  • The accused functionality involves the "automatic digitized conversion of text messages to voice alerts for transmission to remote electronic devices" (Compl. ¶9).
  • The complaint alleges Defendant procures "monetary and commercial benefit" from these products and services (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for further analysis of the specific operation or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services practice the claimed methods for providing voice alerts (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9). The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's systems convert text messages into voice alerts and transmit them to remote devices, thereby infringing claims of the ’932 Patent (Compl. ¶9).

The complaint states that detailed support for the infringement allegations can be found in an "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. Without this exhibit, the complaint provides a high-level infringement theory but does not map specific features of the accused products to the individual limitations of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether Defendant's alert system, which may be used for routine IT or operational alerts, performs the method of Claim 1, which is directed specifically to an "emergency situation." The construction of "emergency situation" may be central to determining infringement.
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused system practices the limitation of "transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network," as recited in Claim 1. The evidence will need to show whether Defendant's system merely transmits over a general cellular network or performs a more targeted transmission as the claim language may require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "emergency situation" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and first step of independent claim 1. Its construction will be critical to defining the scope of the claim, as it may distinguish the invention from general-purpose notification systems. Practitioners may focus on whether this term limits the claim to life-threatening or civil-emergency events, or if it can be read more broadly to cover commercial or operational urgencies.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification frequently uses the more general term "activity" to describe the trigger for an alert, including non-emergency events like a door opening in an empty home or a live speech by a public figure (’932 Patent, col. 2:40-48). This could support an interpretation where "emergency situation" encompasses a wide range of urgent events.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section explicitly discusses a need for alerts "during times of emergencies" to "save lives and resources" (’932 Patent, col. 2:61-67). Furthermore, the specification references government-level systems like PLAN, FEMA, and Homeland Security, suggesting the term is directed toward public safety emergencies (’932 Patent, col. 8:14-16, col. 19:6-14).

  • The Term: "transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the transmission mechanism. The dispute may center on whether this requires active selection or control over which cellular towers are used, or if it is satisfied by any transmission that inherently uses the specific towers located within the "specified region."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any cellular transmission to a device in a "specified region" necessarily uses the "specific towers" covering that region, thus meeting the limitation without requiring any special control by the system.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language could be construed to require a system architecture, like that of the government’s PLAN system also described in the patent, which explicitly directs alerts to be broadcast from particular cell towers in a geographically targeted area (’932 Patent, col. 19:6-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant actively encourages and instructs customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). For contributory infringement, it alleges these instructions are provided through Defendant's website and product manuals, that the product is not a staple commercial product with substantial non-infringing uses, and that Defendant had reason to know its customers' use would be infringing (Compl. ¶12).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’932 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, with Plaintiff reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1; Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

This case will likely focus on the alignment between the specific language of the patent claims and the functionality of modern commercial alerting systems. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "emergency situation," as used in Claim 1, be construed to cover the types of critical but potentially non-life-threatening alerts managed by Defendant's system, or is it limited to public-safety-level events?
  • A key technical question will be one of system architecture: Does the accused product's method of transmission over a cellular network satisfy the claim limitation of transmitting "through specific towers," or does that language require a more specialized, geographically targeted broadcast capability that Defendant’s system may not possess?