Desktop Alert Inc v. Alertus Tech LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Desktop Alert Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: Alertus Technologies, LLC (Maryland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aitken Law Offices; Norris McLaughlin, P.A.
• Case Identification: 8:22-cv-03337, D. Md., 06/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is a Maryland limited liability company with its principal office located within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mass notification platform infringes a patent related to an efficient, polling-based method for disseminating alert messages in a client-server network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns network-based mass notification systems, a field critical for delivering timely emergency and informational alerts within enterprise, government, and educational environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business collaboration between the parties in 2010, during which Plaintiff purportedly gave Defendant access to code and know-how related to the patented technology. It also alleges Defendant had notice of the patent-in-suit via public press releases issued by Plaintiff in 2014 and 2016. This history may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-08-01	Plaintiff's first Desktop Alert platform released
2010-05-01	Plaintiff and Defendant allegedly collaborate on business ventures
2010-07-01	Priority date for U.S. Patent No. 9,172,765
2014-02-21	Plaintiff issues press release referencing the patent application
2015-10-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,172,765 issues
2016-01-22	Plaintiff issues second press release referencing the patent
2023-06-02	First Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,172,765 - Method for the Dissemination of an Alert Message...

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional network alert systems that use a "polling" model—where many client computers repeatedly ask a central server for updates—can create significant performance bottlenecks (’765 Patent, col. 4:5-19). This high volume of requests consumes server processing power and network bandwidth, which limits the system's scalability and the frequency at which clients can check for time-sensitive alerts (’765 Patent, col. 4:20-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient, two-stage polling method to reduce server load (’765 Patent, Abstract). Instead of each client performing a resource-intensive query for its specific messages on every poll, the client first performs a very lightweight "triggering step" to ask a simple, system-wide question: "Are there any new alerts at all?" (’765 Patent, col. 12:45-49). This initial check is described as a small HTTP packet. Only if the answer is yes does the client proceed to the second, heavier step of requesting and downloading its specific unread messages (’765 Patent, col. 12:60-65). This "short-circuit" approach is designed to avoid unnecessary database queries for the vast majority of polls where no new alerts exist (’765 Patent, col. 5:5-15).
• Technical Importance: By dramatically reducing the processing and data required for each polling cycle, this method allows for a much higher polling frequency (e.g., every few seconds instead of every minute) and supports a larger number of clients without degrading system performance or requiring hardware upgrades (’765 Patent, col. 7:11-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and makes specific allegations related to dependent Claims 3 and 9.
• Independent Claim 1 recites the key elements of the method:
  • An improved method for disseminating an alert message from a central server to multiple client computers.
  • A "first triggering step" using an HTTP packet of approximately 20 bytes to request a Boolean value indicating if new alerts exist.
  • A "second step" where the client requests the value of an "alert ID number" from the server.
  • A "third step" where the server transmits this value to the client.
  • A "fourth step" where the client compares a locally stored value with the transmitted "alert ID number".
  • A "fifth step", performed only if the transmitted value exceeds the stored value, where the client requests its specific unread alerts.
  • A "sixth step" where the server sends the unread alerts to the client.
  • A subsequent step where the client updates its stored value.
  • A final step where, upon receiving the alerts, the client opens a window to display them in an instant message format.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Alertus DesktopTM Notification service" (the "Alertus Desktop"), an enterprise software solution for mass notification (Compl. ¶12, 18).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Alertus Desktop is a client-server system that overrides computer displays with critical alert messages (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges the system uses a "pull" or "poll" method where clients communicate with a server using standard HTTP or HTTPS protocols (Compl. ¶20, 22). A key accused feature is "Intelligent Load Management," which allegedly "Dynamically adjusts polling interval to optimize notification speed while maintaining critical stability" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint provides a screenshot from an Alertus webinar showing the polling interval can be set as low as one second, a significant increase in frequency from a baseline of 10-30 seconds (Compl. ¶23; p. 9). The "Alertus Network Diagram" provided in the complaint depicts clients, including "Alertus Desktop Clients," communicating with an "Alertus Server" via HTTP (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’975 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An improved method for the dissemination of an alert message to a plurality of personal computers using a network communications protocol...	The Alertus Desktop is described as a software solution for disseminating alert messages from a server to targeted client computers over an IP network.	¶18, 19	col. 1:11-20
a first triggering step comprises the use of a HTTP packet comprising a request for a Boolean value relating to whether there are new alert messages and said packet comprises approximately 20 bytes	The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that Alertus Desktop's poll results in a Boolean value and uses a small packet to reduce payload, achieving the same result as the patented method.	¶22, 25	col. 12:45-49
a second step wherein said client contacts the central server and requests the value of said alert ID number in said memory...	The complaint alleges the Alertus Desktop enables the client to contact the server and request the value of an alert ID number.	¶30	col. 12:50-54
a third step wherein said server transmits said value to said client	The complaint alleges that the Alertus Desktop utilizes a server to transmit the alert ID value to the client.	¶31	col. 12:55-56
a fourth step wherein said client compares a stored value at the client with the value of the transmitted alert ID number	The complaint alleges the client computer compares a stored value with the transmitted alert ID number.	¶31	col. 12:57-59
if said transmitted value exceeds said stored value, a fifth step wherein said client transmits a second message to said server and requests for the server to transmit all unread alert messages...	The complaint alleges that the Alertus Desktop transmits one or more second messages to the server to request all unread alert messages.	¶15, p. 15	col. 12:60-65
if there are unread alert messages... a sixth step wherein said server sends to client all unread alert messages specific to the client	It is alleged that the server sends all unread alert messages specific to the client. A screenshot titled "ALERT HISTORY" shows a list of recent alerts, such as "Alert #1438," available to a client (Compl. p. 10).	¶15, p. 15	col. 12:66-13:2
a further step wherein said client updates the stored value in its memory...	The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the Alertus Desktop engages with a client to update the stored value in its memory.	¶33	col. 13:3-6
upon the reception of said unread alert messages... said alert messages are in instant message format and said client opens a window on a display panel to display said alert messages	It is alleged that the Alertus Desktop uses pop-up alerts. A screenshot titled "Logon Screen Alerting" depicts an "HTML Pop-Up Example" (Compl. p. 16).	¶34	col. 13:7-10

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's initial poll meets the specific limitations of the "first triggering step," which Claim 1 recites as a request for a "Boolean value" in a packet of "approximately 20 bytes." The complaint alleges this "upon information and belief," which suggests the precise technical nature of the accused poll is a question for discovery and may become a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: What is the exact mechanism of the accused "Intelligent Load Management" feature? The complaint posits that the system's ability to reduce polling intervals from 30 seconds to 1 second is evidence that it must practice the patented method (Compl. ¶25). A key technical question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused system functions as claimed, or if it achieves performance gains through an alternative, non-infringing technical method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first triggering step"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's claimed efficiency improvement. Its construction will be critical, as infringement may turn on whether the accused system's initial polling communication qualifies as this specific "step." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its standard polling communication, even if efficient, does not constitute the distinct, two-part process implied by a "triggering step" followed by a separate data request.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's goal is to "short-circuit" the polling process to avoid unnecessary database calls, suggesting any initial, lightweight communication that serves this gatekeeping function could be considered a "triggering step" (’765 Patent, col. 5:12-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a specific definition, stating the step "comprises the use of a HTTP packet comprising a request for a Boolean value... and said packet comprises approximately 20 bytes" (’765 Patent, col. 12:45-49). This language may be used to argue for a narrow construction limited to polls that meet these specific protocol, data type, and size constraints.

• The Term: "alert ID number"

• Context and Importance: The claim logic relies on the client comparing a stored value with a server-transmitted "alert ID number" to determine if new messages exist. The definition of this term is important to establish whether the identifier used in the accused system performs the same function in the same way.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "system-wide alertId" that "changes (measured in increments)" when new alerts are posted, suggesting that any form of system state counter or version identifier could potentially meet this limitation (’765 Patent, col. 5:6-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself uses the word "number," and the abstract states this value reflects "the number of alert messages received by said central server" (’765 Patent, Abstract). This could support an interpretation that the term is limited to a sequential, numeric count, as opposed to other unique identifiers like a timestamp or a non-numeric Globally Unique Identifier (GUID).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim (Count II) is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions, tutorials, and user agreements that direct and encourage its customers to use the Alertus Desktop in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶63-64). The contributory infringement claim (Count III) alleges the Alertus Desktop is specially designed to practice the patented method and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶77, 79).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge stemming from a 2010 collaboration where Plaintiff allegedly disclosed its technology to Defendant's personnel (Compl. ¶15-16). It further alleges knowledge via 2014 and 2016 press releases announcing the patent application and issued patent, which it claims Defendant accessed (Compl. ¶38, 40, 50).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused "Intelligent Load Management" feature operate using the specific two-stage process recited in Claim 1—a lightweight "triggering step" followed by a conditional data request—or does it achieve its documented performance gains through an alternative, non-infringing technical architecture?
• A central legal question will be one of claim construction: Can the term "first triggering step", which is foundational to the invention, be interpreted broadly to cover any efficient polling check, or will it be narrowly construed by the court to require the specific "request for a Boolean value" and "approximately 20 bytes" packet size explicitly recited in the claim language?
• A key factual dispute may revolve around pre-suit knowledge: What evidence can establish the specific nature and extent of the technical information allegedly shared during the 2010 collaboration, and can Plaintiff prove Defendant was aware of the technology that would become the '765 patent prior to the lawsuit, sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement?