AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AGIS Software Development LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Lenovo Group Ltd. (China); Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Delaware); Motorola Mobility LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00445, E.D. Tex., 11/18/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, have committed acts of patent infringement, and maintain regular and established places of business within the district. The complaint also notes that Defendants utilize authorized sellers and retailers within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile devices, including various smartphones and tablets, infringe five U.S. patents related to interactive remote communications, forced messaging alerts, and the creation of ad hoc digital networks.
• Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for location sharing, group-based communication, and remote device interaction, which are foundational features for situational awareness and coordination applications on mobile devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all five patents-in-suit have undergone post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 survived an Inter Partes Review that cancelled several claims, with an Ex Parte Reexamination subsequently confirming the patentability of the remaining and amended claims, including claim 10 which is asserted in this suit. The other four patents-in-suit each successfully underwent Ex Parte Reexamination, with the patentability of all or most original claims being confirmed. This procedural history suggests the patentability of the asserted claims has been previously scrutinized, a factor that may be relevant to subsequent validity challenges.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 - "Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote Communications"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a deficiency in conventional digital messaging (e.g., SMS), where a sender cannot be certain if a message was received or what the recipient's response is, which is problematic in situations requiring coordination (’970 Patent, col. 1:52-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a sender can transmit a "forced message alert" to a recipient's device. This alert is enabled by a specialized software application that forces the recipient's device to automatically transmit an acknowledgment of receipt back to the sender. The software then takes control of the recipient's display to present the message along with a mandatory list of responses, and the display can only be cleared after the recipient selects and transmits a response (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-34).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide closed-loop communication with guaranteed receipt acknowledgment and mandated responses, a feature of significant value in tactical, first responder, or emergency coordination scenarios (’970 Patent, col. 1:12-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (as amended) (Compl. ¶23).
• Essential elements of claim 10, a method claim, include:
  • Receiving an electronically transmitted message and identifying it as a forced message alert comprising a voice or text message and an application software packet.
  • Transmitting an automatic acknowledgment of receipt to the sender device.
  • Triggering the software to take control of the recipient device to show the message content and a required response list.
  • Transmitting a selected response from the list to allow the message to be cleared from the display.
  • Displaying the received response on the sender's device.
  • Providing a list of which recipient devices have acknowledged receipt.
  • Displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the sender's device.
  • Obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient device.
  • Presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map corresponding to the recipient's location based on the location data.

U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for emergency, military, or first-responder groups to establish secure, temporary (ad hoc) communication networks rapidly, without the conventional need for pre-entry of participant data like names, phone numbers, or email addresses (’251 Patent, col. 2:8-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system where users can join a secure digital and voice network by entering only a server IP address, an "ad hoc event name," and a password. A central server uses this information to automatically store the IP addresses of participants and forward location, status, and other data among all members of the ad hoc group, thereby creating an instant, coordinated network (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-14).
• Technical Importance: This approach streamlines the creation of secure, private communication networks, which is critical in disaster response scenarios where multiple, previously unacquainted organizations must coordinate their efforts immediately (’251 Patent, col. 2:21-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶32).
• Essential elements of claim 24, a system claim, include:
  • A first device programmed to perform operations.
  • Receiving a message from a second device relating to joining a group.
  • Participating in the group, which includes sending its own location information to a server and receiving location information for other devices in the group.
  • Presenting an interactive, georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols corresponding to the other devices.
  • Sending a request to a server for a second, different georeferenced map.
  • Receiving and presenting the second georeferenced map with the symbols positioned on it.
  • Identifying user interaction with the symbols to send data to the corresponding devices via the server, without having direct access to their IP addresses.

U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’251 Patent, describes a system for establishing temporary, password-protected communication networks. It focuses on the ability of a server to manage participant data and route communications, allowing users from different organizations to coordinate quickly in emergency situations by simply sharing an event name and password (’838 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-19).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 54 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that functionalities within the Accused Products for creating groups, sharing locations on a map, and communicating with group members via Google Maps and Messages infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶49-50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a client-server system for managing an ad hoc communication group. The invention details the sequence of messages between devices and one or more servers to join a group, request and share location data for display on a map, and perform remote control operations between devices in the group (’829 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 34 (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' use of Google Maps and associated services to allow users to form groups, share and view locations, and communicate infringes this patent, mapping the alleged functionality to the server-based operations described in the claim (Compl. ¶¶62-64).

U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system focused on the user interaction with a device in an ad hoc network. It details presenting a map with selectable symbols, identifying user interaction with those symbols (e.g., a tap), and using that interaction to initiate data transmission to another device in the network via an Internet Protocol (’123 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶73).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' use of Google Maps for displaying user symbols on a map and allowing users to interact with those symbols to communicate infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶77-78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are a broad range of Lenovo and Motorola-branded mobile devices, including the Edge (2021) smartphone and numerous tablet models such as the Tab P11, Yoga Tab 11, and ThinkPad X1 Tablet (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are equipped with software that enables functionalities central to the patents-in-suit. For the ’970 Patent, the accused functionality is the "Find My Device" application (formerly Android Device Manager), which allows a user to remotely locate, send an audible alert to, and secure their device (Compl. ¶25). For the ’251, ’838, ’829, and ’123 Patents, the accused functionalities are provided by pre-installed applications like Google Maps and Messages, which allegedly allow users to form groups, share and view real-time locations on an interactive map, and communicate with other users (Compl. ¶¶35, 49, 63, 77). The complaint asserts these features improve the user experience and Defendants' market position (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot of the "Find My Device" application shows a map with a symbol indicating the location of a "Motorola edge (2021)" device, along with options to "Play Sound," "Secure Device," and "Erase Device" (Compl. p. 8). A series of screenshots depicts the Google Maps location sharing interface, showing a map with user-selectable symbols representing other devices and a menu for sharing one's own location (Compl. p. 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,213,970 Patent Infringement Allegations

9,445,251 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused consumer-facing applications perform the functions described in patents written in the context of tactical and first-responder systems. For the ’970 Patent, a question is whether a remote security command from the "Find My Device" service constitutes a "forced message alert" that requires a "manual response" from a list as contemplated by the patent. For the ’251 Patent and its relatives, a question is whether creating a persistent label in Google Contacts and sharing location in Google Maps is equivalent to establishing the temporary, password-protected "ad hoc" networks described in the patent specifications.
• Technical Questions: For the ’970 Patent, the complaint does not specify what "required response list" is shown to the user of a located device, or how a response is transmitted to clear the alert. For the ’251 Patent family, a technical question is whether the sequence of data transmissions between the Accused Products and Google's servers for location sharing precisely maps onto the specific multi-step server operations required by claims like claim 34 of the ’829 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"forced message alert" (’970 Patent, Claim 10)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the ’970 invention. The infringement theory hinges on whether a remote command from a service like "Find My Device" (e.g., "Play Sound") meets the definition of a "forced message alert." Practitioners may focus on whether the term requires an interactive, two-way communication between human users or if it can cover an automated, one-way security function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the alert is comprised of a "message file and a forced alert software packet," which could be argued to cover any software-driven command sent over a network (’970 Patent, col. 2:13-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes that a "manual response list" is provided on the recipient's display that "can only be cleared by manually selecting and transmitting a response" (’970 Patent, col. 2:21-25). This suggests the "forced" nature is not just the delivery, but the requirement of a specific user action from a pre-defined list to dismiss the alert.

"joining a group" (’251 Patent, Claim 24)

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegations against the ’251 patent family depend on construing the use of standard applications like Google Maps and Contacts as "joining a group." Practitioners may focus on whether this term implies the creation of a temporary, event-based network as described in the specification, or if it can broadly cover any method of associating users for location sharing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not explicitly limit the "group" to a temporary or emergency context. Any software-mediated process that results in a defined set of users sharing data could be argued to fall within a broad construction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and summary repeatedly frame the invention as a solution for "military, first responder, and other public and private emergency groups" to "set up ad hoc digital and voice networks easily and rapidly" using a shared event name and password (’251 Patent, col. 2:8-12, Abstract). This context may support a narrower construction limited to such temporary, ad hoc networks.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five patents. It asserts that Defendants instruct their customers to infringe by providing training videos, user guides, brochures, and other documentation that explain how to use the accused functionalities, such as location sharing in Google Maps and the "Find My Device" service (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 47, 60, 74).

Willful Infringement

• For each patent, the complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patent "at least as of the date of this Complaint" and, despite this knowledge, continued to actively induce infringement. The pleading also includes an alternative allegation that Defendants were "willfully blind" to the infringing nature of their actions (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 47, 60, 74). These allegations primarily support a claim for post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the specification's context of tactical and first-responder systems (e.g., "forced message alert," "ad hoc...networks") be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose, consumer-oriented functionalities of the accused "Find My Device" and Google Maps applications?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the client-server architecture and operational workflow of Google's cloud-based services, as implemented in the Accused Products, perform the specific, multi-step methods of data exchange, device control, and network formation recited in the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• A third question will relate to divided infringement: for the asserted method claims, which require actions by both a sending and receiving device, as well as servers, the court may need to analyze whether all steps can be attributed to a single actor (the Defendants) or, if not, whether the facts support a claim of joint infringement under current legal standards.