DCT
1:16-cv-00815
Applied Capital Inc v. ADT Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Applied Capital, Inc. (New Mexico)
- Defendant: The ADT Corporation, ADT, LLC, and iControl Networks, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ortiz and Lopez, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00815, D.N.M., 07/13/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct substantial business in New Mexico, including distributing, selling, and advertising the accused products and services to paying customers within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ security and home monitoring systems, including ADT Pulse and the ADT Web Portal, infringe a patent related to processing and dispatching enhanced information from remote alarm systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that augment basic alarm signals with richer, contextual data (such as floor plans or images) and automatically distribute this enhanced information to specified recipients.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that both ADT and iControl had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of April 15, 2015, following discussions between the Plaintiff's President and representatives from both defendant companies, including the provision of a patent summary and a copy of the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-01-28 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,378,817 |
| 2013-02-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,378,817 Issues |
| 2015-04-15 | Alleged date of ADT and iControl knowledge of '817 patent |
| 2016-07-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- U.S. Patent No. 8,378,817, “Premises Monitoring System,” issued February 19, 2013
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in its background section but implies that conventional alarm monitoring systems provide only basic signals, lacking enriched, contextual information that could aid response. The invention aims to "supplement an existing monitoring system by providing enhanced information to more destinations in a timelier manner" ('817 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a central "premises monitoring system" receives a standard alarm signal (e.g., from a fire alarm) containing a device identifier and a condition. The system then uses this information to retrieve "enhanced information" from a database, such as floor plans, hazard area maps, or contact information ('817 Patent, col. 2:36-49). It then determines the appropriate communication method (e.g., email, text) and destination (e.g., a first responder's laptop) and automatically dispatches the enhanced, contextual information ('817 Patent, col. 2:49-55; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to transform a simple alarm trigger into a rich, actionable intelligence packet for first responders or property owners, potentially improving the speed and safety of responses to emergencies ('817 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint's allegations track the language of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- receiving one or more signals containing a device identifier and a device condition from one or more remote alarm monitoring systems;
- retrieving enhanced information based on the device identifier and the device condition;
- determining one or more communication methods and communication destinations based on the device identifier and the device condition;
- dispatching the enhanced information to the one or more communication destinations using the one or more communication methods;
- wherein the step of retrieving enhanced information comprises retrieving images, which must include at least one of three specific types: superimposed visual indicators, hierarchically organized graphical images, or vector-based graphical images.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement allegations are made against "one or more claims of the ‘817 patent" (Compl. ¶12).
- The Invention Explained:
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "ADT Pulse" and "ADT Web Portal" services, along with the "iControl One" service and its associated web portal (Compl. ¶¶12, 18).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that ADT Pulse is a home monitoring service "powered by iControl" (Compl. ¶13). Defendant iControl is alleged to provision servers and server-side software for the ADT Web Portal and similar services for other providers like Comcast (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
- The accused services are alleged to perform a method that involves receiving signals with a device identifier and condition, retrieving enhanced information including specific types of images, determining communication methods and destinations, and dispatching the information (Compl. ¶19).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’817 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving one or more signals containing a device identifier and a device condition from one or more remote alarm monitoring systems; | The accused ADT and iControl services are alleged to receive signals containing a device identifier and condition from remote alarm monitoring systems. | ¶19 | col. 17:46-49 |
| retrieving enhanced information based on the device identifier and the device condition; | Based on the signal, the accused services allegedly retrieve enhanced information. | ¶19 | col. 17:50-52 |
| determining one or more communication methods and communication destinations based on the device identifier and the device condition; | The accused services are alleged to determine communication methods and destinations based on the device identifier and condition. | ¶19 | col. 17:53-56 |
| and dispatching the enhanced information to the one or more communication destinations using the one or more communication methods; | The accused services allegedly dispatch the retrieved enhanced information to the determined destinations using the determined methods. | ¶19 | col. 17:57-60 |
| and wherein the retrieving enhanced information based on the device identifier and the device condition comprises retrieving images based on the device identifier and the device condition, the images comprising all of the members selected from the group consisting of superimposed visual indicators, hierarchically organized graphical images, and vector-based graphical images. | The complaint alleges that the "enhanced information" retrieved by the accused services includes images that fall into the claimed categories of superimposed, hierarchical, or vector-based graphics. | ¶19 | col. 17:61 - col. 18:4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the images allegedly retrieved and dispatched by the ADT Pulse and iControl One systems meet the specific definitions of "superimposed visual indicators," "hierarchically organized graphical images," and "vector-based graphical images" as required by Claim 1. The complaint asserts this is the case but provides no specific examples or evidence (Compl. ¶19).
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by ADT and iControl, noting iControl "powers" ADT's service (Compl. ¶13). A potential issue is whether the actions of each defendant, individually or jointly, satisfy all steps of the claimed method, which may raise questions of divided infringement. The complaint attempts to address this by alleging Defendants act alone or as the "mastermind" (Compl. ¶20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "enhanced information"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as the system's purpose is to retrieve and dispatch this information. The scope of what qualifies as "enhanced" versus basic information will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous, diverse examples of "enhanced information," including "a floor plan," "a picture of an onsite manager," "passcodes," and "contact information," suggesting the term is meant to be capacious ('817 Patent, col. 2:42-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself narrows the scope of "enhanced information" for the purpose of that claim by requiring that its retrieval comprises retrieving specific types of images (superimposed, hierarchical, or vector-based), which may suggest that for infringement of Claim 1, the presence of these specific image types is a required, not optional, component of the retrieved information ('817 Patent, col. 17:61 - col. 18:4).
The Term: "superimposed visual indicators"
- Context and Importance: This is one of the three specific image types required by Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because demonstrating that the accused system's images contain such "superimposed" elements is necessary to prove literal infringement of this part of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which could support a plain and ordinary meaning of one visual element being placed over another.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as "one or more icons or one or more designators superimposed on a map, picture, floor plan, and/or site plan to illustrate or instruct regarding device type, device position, condition type, hazardous material position," etc. ('817 Patent, col. 5:1-6). This list of examples may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to informational icons or designators, rather than any generic graphical overlay.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants practice the patent's steps "either alone or as the 'mastermind' directing or controlling the actions and/or participation of each other defendant and/or any third parties" (Compl. ¶20). This language suggests an intent to pursue a theory of joint infringement under a "direction or control" standard.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that both ADT and iControl had actual knowledge of the '817 patent no later than April 15, 2015, based on specific communications between Plaintiff's president and directors at the defendant companies (Compl. ¶¶21-22). The allegation that infringement continued after this date forms the basis for the willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the images used in the ADT Pulse and iControl One systems are, in fact, "superimposed visual indicators," "hierarchically organized graphical images," or "vector-based graphical images" as those terms are defined in the patent? The complaint's conclusory allegation on this point will require substantial factual support.
- A second core issue will be one of liability for joint action: assuming the accused system performs all claimed steps, how will liability be apportioned between ADT (the consumer-facing service provider) and iControl (the alleged technology platform provider)? The outcome may depend on whether Plaintiff can prove one entity "directs or controls" the other's performance of the claimed method steps.