DCT
2:24-cv-00122
Nostromo LLC v. ADT Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: ADT Inc. and ADT LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00122, E.D. Tex., 02/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district, including through sales, distribution, and the operation of multiple regular and established places of business in Tyler and Beaumont, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smart home and security systems, which provide location-based automation features, infringe a patent related to methods for delivering customized, location-based information to a portable device.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using the location of a person's portable device (e.g., a smartphone) to automatically trigger events or provide information, a feature commonly known as geofencing in the smart home and security market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and any predecessors have complied with statutory patent marking requirements. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings, is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-23 | '970 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-10-15 | '970 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-02-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970 - "Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970, "Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device," issued October 15, 2013 (’970 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art location-based services where a user had to actively request information. This process was seen as impracticable for staying aware of emergent local phenomena (e.g., typhoons), and the information provided was often not of interest to the user or covered too large a geographical area (’970 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user pre-defines their preferences, such as categories of information (e.g., weather, traffic) and a specific location range (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-44). A remote system then receives positioning information from the user's portable device, determines if a pre-set condition has been met (e.g., the user entering a specific area), and automatically transmits selected, relevant "location information" to the device without a new user request (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:32-44). The system is designed to provide customized, real-time information automatically.
- Technical Importance: The described approach sought to shift location-based services from a reactive, user-pull model to a proactive, system-push model, delivering more timely and personalized information to mobile users (’970 Patent, col.1:43-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 of the ’970 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
- (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for respectively receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user of the portable electronic device;
- (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision to the portable electronic device;
- (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device by having a positioning module; and
- (d) determining, through a condition module, whether the condition has been met, and when met, selecting location information from a location information database based on the positioning information and preference settings, and transmitting the selected location information to the portable device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but the prayer for relief refers to infringement of "one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is "ADT's Video and Smart Home Security System" (Compl. ¶35). This system is alleged to include the "ADT+ Mobile Application," ADT Command Touch Screens, door/window sensors, smart locks, and associated servers and databases (Compl. ¶30, ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused system performs a method of providing location-based services to a portable device, such as a mobile phone running the ADT+ Mobile Application (Compl. ¶36). The system allegedly uses "geofencing" to receive the phone's positioning data and trigger "customized alerts" (Compl. ¶37-38). This functionality allows for smart home automation, such as arming a security system when the user leaves a defined area. The complaint alleges these products are offered nationwide through a network of dealers and installers (Compl. ¶10-11). To support its allegations of Defendants' business presence, the complaint provides a screenshot from a Texas state government website listing numerous authorized security dealers (Compl. p. 6, Fig. at ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'970 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for respectively receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user of the portable electronic device | The ADT mobile app and associated servers function as an information platform and user preference settings database, receiving and recording user settings for information categories and location ranges. | ¶36 | col. 6:3-7 |
| (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision to the portable electronic device | The ADT system performs the step of setting and storing at least one condition, such as a "customized alert," for triggering information services provision. | ¶37 | col. 5:4-5 |
| (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device by having a positioning module | The ADT system receives positioning information, including the location of the user's mobile phone, via geofencing features that utilize positioning modules within the phone. | ¶38 | col. 5:1-3 |
| (d) determining... whether the... condition... has been met, and when... met, selecting location information from a location information database... and transmitting the selected location information to the portable electronic device | When a geofence is crossed (the condition is met), the system selects location information (e.g., "Home location") and transmits it to the mobile device as part of the real-time alert/automation process. | ¶39 | col. 5:32-44 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's function of triggering a pre-set home automation command (e.g., "arm security system") constitutes the "transmitting the selected location information" required by the claim. The patent specification appears to describe the transmission of substantive content about a location, such as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" (’970 Patent, col. 6:35-36), raising the question of whether a simple command or status update falls within the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely scrutinize whether the accused ADT system actually performs the step of "selecting location information from a location information database" in the manner claimed. It raises the question of what evidence shows that ADT's system consults a "location information database" to select information (e.g., "Home location") rather than simply executing a stored rule (e.g., IF
user_exits_geofenceTHENarm_system).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Claim Term: "location information"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the dispute may turn on what type of data satisfies this limitation. The complaint alleges that selecting a "Home location" meets this element (Compl. ¶39). However, if the term is construed more narrowly to mean substantive content about a location, it could create a significant challenge for the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's own examples point toward a potentially narrower meaning than what Plaintiff alleges.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited, referring only to "location information." A party could argue this encompasses any data related to a location, including its simple identifier like "Home location."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of "location information" that are substantive and dynamic, such as "weather and traffic conditions and local events" and "real-time local news information" (’970 Patent, col. 5:25-26; col. 6:35-36). This could support a construction that requires the transmitted information to be more than just a location identifier or a pre-set command trigger.
Key Claim Term: "condition for triggering information services provision"
- Context and Importance: The complaint equates "customized alerts" with this claim element (Compl. ¶37). The validity of this mapping will depend on how broadly the term "condition" is construed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any user-defined rule, including a simple geofence boundary crossing, qualifies as a "condition" under its plain meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides specific examples of conditions, including "the location included in the positioning information is determined for a first time within a time period to correspond to a service area location," or "a specified local event (especially an emergency) is determined to be associated with the specified location" (’970 Patent, col. 5:12-21). This may suggest the term requires a more complex logical trigger than a simple geofence crossing.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing customers and end-users with products and "instructions on how to operate the infringing technology" (Compl. ¶42).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on two alternative theories: (1) Defendants had knowledge of the ’970 Patent at least as of the filing of the complaint and continued to infringe (Compl. ¶41); and (2) Defendants have maintained a policy of "not reviewing the patents of others... thereby remaining willfully blind to the Patent-in-Suit at least as early as the issuance of the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "location information", which the patent specification exemplifies with dynamic content like traffic and weather, be construed to cover the selection of a static identifier like "Home location" used to trigger a pre-set automation command in the accused ADT system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused ADT system perform the specific method of "selecting" information from a "location information database" and "transmitting" it as claimed, or does it operate on a fundamentally different and simpler logic where a geofence crossing directly executes a stored command, thereby creating a potential mismatch with the patent's claimed technical process?