911 Notify Inc v. Swiftreach Networks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 911 Notify, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Swiftreach Networks, Inc.; Swiftreach 800 Services, LLC; Swiftreach Ens Services, LLC; and Swiftreach Wholesale Services, LLC (collectively "Swiftreach") (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat; Capshaw Derieux, LLP.
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00074, E.D. Tex., 01/23/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas and have committed acts of infringement in the district, including making, using, selling, or offering for sale the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency notification solutions infringe three U.S. patents related to systems and methods for automatically notifying designated parties when an emergency call is made.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves telecommunications and software systems that augment traditional 9-1-1 services by automatically alerting pre-defined contacts and providing them with supplemental information about an emergency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,151,385, “System for the Automatic Notification That a 9-1-1 Call Has Occurred,” issued November 21, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a system to automatically notify third parties when a 9-1-1 call occurs, without relying on human intervention from Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) personnel who may be overwhelmed during emergencies, potentially causing notification delays or failures (’385 Patent, col. 2:26-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a telecommunications system that monitors for queries to a telephone company’s Automatic Location Identification (ALI) database. When a 9-1-1 call from a subscriber triggers such a query, the system uses the caller’s Automatic Number Identification (ANI) to look up a pre-registered list of contacts in its own database and automatically places outbound calls to notify those parties. ('385 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-17; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This system architecture aimed to provide reliable, automated notifications by leveraging an existing, standardized event in the 9-1-1 call flow (the ALI query), rather than requiring new monitoring hardware to be installed at every telephone switch ('385 Patent, col. 2:57-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
• Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • A telephone service method providing notification to identified parties that a call to an emergency service has been made from a subscriber number (identifiable by ANI).
  • Receiving a query ANI of a call placed to the emergency service, where the query ANI corresponds to a query made to the ALI database.
  • Using the query ANI to fetch a subscriber record with indicia of identified parties from a subscriber database.
  • Activating a message response system to initiate notification to the identified parties.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,775,356, “Real-time Incident and Response Information Messaging in a System for the Automatic Notification That an Emergency Call Has Occurred from a Telecommunication Device,” issued August 10, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art notification systems: they fail to communicate real-time, substantive information about the emergency itself, limiting the utility of the notification (’356 Patent, col. 4:49-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention improves upon basic notification by collecting "real-time data from message content of said call" during the interval between when an emergency is recognized and when a response is initiated. This enriched data, which could include a voice recording of the call or Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD) information, is then included in the message sent to notified parties. ('356 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:41-65).
• Technical Importance: This technology shifted the paradigm from simple alerts to providing actionable intelligence, allowing notified parties to understand the nature and context of the emergency and respond more effectively ('356 Patent, col. 5:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • A telephone service method providing notification to identified parties that an emergency call has been made.
  • Receiving an alert signal indicating an emergency call has been placed.
  • Collecting "real-time data from message content of said call" in response to the alert signal.
  • The data collection occurs in an interval between call recognition and response initiation.
  • Using the alert signal to fetch a subscriber record.
  • Activating a message response system to send a notification that includes "a message comprised of at least part of said real-time data."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,447, “Emergency Call Notification System and Method,” issued March 12, 2013 (Compl. ¶9)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses emergency notifications initiated from a cellular phone. It discloses a method where a user action on a mobile application sends a notification request to a server, which handles dispatching alerts to pre-defined contacts. Upon receiving an acknowledgement back from the server, the cellular device automatically dials 9-1-1 without further user input, thereby offloading the notification task to prevent delaying the emergency call. (’447 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-59).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶41).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the SLIM mobile application, which allows a user to "trigger a lockdown through a mobile app, panic button or text message" (Compl. ¶24). The allegations center on the app sending a request to a server in response to an indication of an emergency and subsequently calling 9-1-1 (Compl. ¶¶38, 40). A complaint visual shows screenshots of the SLIM Personal mobile app interface with a large "PANIC!" button (Compl. ¶38, p. 16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s emergency notification solutions, including the Swift911, SLIM, and SwiftAPI product lines (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products provide emergency alerting and management services. The complaint highlights the "SLIM" (SwiftReach Lockdown Incident Management) product, described as a system that "allows staff members of any building to trigger a lockdown through a mobile app, panic button or text message" (Compl. ¶24). A visual in the complaint depicts the SLIM system initiating alerts to recipients including "9-1-1," "MEDICAL PERSONNEL," and "LAW ENFORCEMENT" (Compl. ¶12, p. 5).
• The system is alleged to support "bi-directional communication involving text messages, floorplans, room status updates, and photos" to provide real-time information during an emergency (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states that the Swift911 solution is used by over 1,500 organizations nationwide across industries including government, education, and healthcare (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'385 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on general descriptions of how E9-1-1 and ALI databases function, but does not provide specific evidence that the Accused Instrumentalities are in fact triggered by "receiving a query automatic number identification...corresponding to a query made to said automatic location identification database." A central question will be whether the accused system's actual trigger mechanism, described elsewhere as a "mobile app, panic button or text message" (Compl. ¶24), meets this claim limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

'356 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the alleged "real-time data"—such as floor plans, camera feeds, and student location lists (Compl. ¶26)—falls within the scope of the claim term "real-time data from message content of said call." The patent specification provides examples such as a voice recording of the 9-1-1 call or CAD information ('356 Patent, col. 12:41-65). The court may need to determine if data generated by users or other systems after the initial alert constitutes "content of said call."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’385 Patent: "receiving a query ANI ... corresponding to a query made to said ALI database" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core triggering event for the patented method. The infringement case for the '385 Patent may depend on whether the Accused Instrumentalities, which are allegedly triggered by app or button presses, can be shown to practice this specific step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint does not allege facts showing how a user pressing a "panic button" on an app results in the system "receiving a query ANI" from an ALI database.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary states the invention "automatically reacts to all emergency 9-1-1 calls that result in a query to the local telephone company's ... ALI system" ('385 Patent, col. 3:1-5), suggesting the overall goal is a reaction to the 9-1-1 event, not just one specific technical pathway.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is specific, stating the "response of the new notify system is triggered from the ALI database system query" and that the system receives ANIs "via dedicated telephony line" from the ALI database ('385 Patent, col. 6:8-12). Figure 1 explicitly shows a data path (9) from the "ALI DATA BASE" (8) to the "9-1-1 NOTIFY SYSTEM" (10), reinforcing a narrow, literal interpretation.

Term from the ’356 Patent: "real-time data from message content of said call" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to what makes the '356 Patent an asserted improvement over prior art. The definition will determine whether the types of information the accused SLIM product provides (e.g., floor plans, user status updates, photos) infringe the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the data to be collected "in response to receiving said alert signal," which could arguably encompass any data gathered after the initial alert is triggered, including user-generated status updates or data pulled from other integrated systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of such data, including "voice recording transmission" and "Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD) Information Transmission" ('356 Patent, col. 2, lines 42-45). A defendant could argue the term is limited to data directly derived from the emergency communication itself (the "call") or the immediate official response (the "dispatch"), not ancillary data like pre-loaded floor plans or user-submitted photos.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants actively induce infringement of all three patents by providing customers and end users with "technical guides, product data sheets, demonstrations, software and hardware specifications, installation guides, and other forms of support" that instruct them to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶18, 31, 43).
• Willful Infringement: For all three patents, the complaint states that Defendants have knowledge of the patents "at least as of service of this Complaint" and reserves the right to request a finding of willfulness based on facts learned in discovery (Compl. ¶¶19, 32, 44). The allegations do not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: Can the '385 patent's claim of a system triggered by an "ALI database query" be proven to read on the accused system, which the complaint describes as being triggered by user actions on a mobile app or panic button? The court will have to analyze the actual mechanism by which an alert is generated and processed by the Swiftreach platform.
• Another central question will be one of definitional scope: Does the "real-time data" provided by the accused SLIM platform—such as interactive floor plans, camera feeds, and user-generated status updates—fall within the meaning of the '356 patent's claim term "real-time data from message content of said call"?
• A key evidentiary question for the '447 patent will be the sequence of operations: Does the accused SLIM mobile app, after a user initiates an emergency, first send a request to a server and then, only after receiving an acknowledgement, automatically place a call to 9-1-1 without further user action, as the claim requires? Proving this specific, multi-step technical sequence will be critical to the infringement analysis.