AGIS Software Development LLC v. Systematic As

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AGIS Software Development LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Systematic A/S (Denmark)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00737, E.D. Tex., 09/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and makes, uses, or sells the accused products in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SitaWare Suite of command and control software infringes five patents related to creating ad hoc mobile communication networks, displaying shared situational awareness data, and forcing message acknowledgments.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to tactical communication and situational awareness systems used by military, law enforcement, and first responders to coordinate efforts in the field using mobile devices.
• Key Procedural History: All five patents-in-suit have undergone post-grant review proceedings at the USPTO. U.S. Patent 8,213,970 had several claims cancelled during an Inter Partes Review, with the asserted claim being amended during a subsequent Ex Parte Reexamination. The other four asserted patents had all claims confirmed as valid and patentable during their respective Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings. The survival of the patents, albeit with some amendment, may be presented by the Plaintiff as evidence of their strength and validity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent 8,213,970 - "Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote Communications," issued July 3, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in conventional digital messaging systems (like SMS) where a sender cannot be certain if a message was received, and cannot compel a timely response from the recipient (’970 Patent, col. 1:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a software-based method for sending a "forced message alert" to a device like a PDA or cell phone. This alert compels the recipient's device to automatically transmit an acknowledgment of receipt back to the sender. It then takes control of the recipient's display, showing the message and a list of required responses, which can only be cleared by the recipient selecting and sending a response. The sender’s device can track which recipients have acknowledged and responded (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-34).
• Technical Importance: This system provides assured message delivery and structured, rapid feedback, which is critical in tactical environments where confirmed receipt of orders can be a matter of operational success or failure (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least amended Claim 10 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 10 is a multi-step method claim, whose essential elements include:
  • Receiving an electronic message identified as a "forced message alert" containing a message and a software packet.
  • The packet triggers software on the recipient device.
  • Transmitting an automatic acknowledgment, which triggers the sender's software to take control of the recipient's device and display the message content and a required response list.
  • Transmitting a selected response from the list, which causes the software to release control of the recipient's device.
  • Displaying the received response on the sender's device.
  • Providing a list of recipients who have acknowledged and responded.
  • Displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the sender's device, obtaining location data for the recipient, and presenting a symbol for the recipient on the map.

U.S. Patent 9,445,251 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," issued September 13, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for emergency and military groups to establish temporary (ad hoc) digital and voice communication networks rapidly, without needing to pre-configure each device with the names, phone numbers, or email addresses of all other participants. This is particularly difficult when coordinating different organizations (e.g., police and fire departments) at a disaster scene (’251 Patent, col. 2:7-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where users can join a secure, temporary network simply by entering a server's IP address and a shared ad hoc event name and password. A central server manages the connection, receiving location and status data from each participant and forwarding it to all other group members, thereby creating an instant, interoperable communication and situational awareness network (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-67).
• Technical Importance: The technology streamlines the creation of secure, on-the-fly communication networks, a crucial capability for effective command and control in dynamic, multi-agency emergency response scenarios (Compl. ¶13-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 24 (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent Claim 24 is a system claim directed to a "first device," whose essential programmed operations include:
  • Receiving a message from a second device relating to joining a group.
  • Participating in the group by sending its location to a server and receiving the locations of other devices from the server.
  • Presenting a first georeferenced map with symbols for other devices.
  • Sending a request to the server for a second, different georeferenced map.
  • Receiving the second map from the server.
  • Presenting the second map with the device symbols.
  • Identifying user interaction with the displayed symbols to specify an action and, based on that, sending data to the other devices via the server.

U.S. Patent 9,467,838 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Patent Identification: "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," issued October 11, 2016 (Compl. ¶9).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’251 patent, describes a method for individuals to rapidly form a temporary, password-protected digital network. Users join by providing an ad hoc network name and password to a server, which then facilitates the exchange of location and status information among all participants for coordinated activity (’838 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 54 (Compl. ¶44).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the SitaWare Suite's functions for establishing groups, exchanging messages through servers, and retrieving map information from multiple sources infringe this patent (Compl. ¶48-49).

U.S. Patent 9,820,123 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Patent Identification: "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," issued November 14, 2017 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the theme of the patent family, this invention covers a system where a device joins a group and communicates with a server to send its own location and receive the locations of others. The system presents this shared data on an interactive, georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols that allow for further interaction and data transmission (’123 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 23 (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: Infringement allegations target the SitaWare Suite's capabilities for users to join groups, communicate with servers to exchange location data, display member locations on interactive maps, and interact with on-screen symbols (Compl. ¶61, ¶63, ¶65-66).

U.S. Patent 9,749,829 - "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks"

• Patent Identification: "Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks," issued August 29, 2017 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where a second device requests to join a group hosted on a first server and, upon acceptance, is authorized to repeatedly share its location information. The second device displays a map with a symbol for the first device, receives updated locations, and can send messages to remotely control the first device based on user interaction with the display (’829 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 34 (Compl. ¶72).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the SitaWare Suite's features that allow users to form and join groups, exchange messages and location data with servers, and display member locations on interactive maps (Compl. ¶77-78, ¶80-81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "SitaWare Suite systems and applications," which include at least SitaWare Headquarters, SitaWare Insight, SitaWare Frontline, SitaWare Edge, SitaWare Aspire, and SitaWare Battlefield Health (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are command and control and battle management systems that provide "top-to-bottom C4I" (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) and situational awareness on all levels of command (Compl. ¶19; p. 7, screenshot). The complaint provides a marketing diagram illustrating how different SitaWare products create a "World of Interoperability" by connecting individual soldiers, commanders, and headquarters units through a server-based tactical communications backbone (Compl. p. 11, screenshot). Functionally, the products are alleged to allow users to form and join groups, share and view each other's locations on interactive maps, display symbols for users and entities, and communicate via text and voice (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 8,213,970 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The core of Claim 10 is the "forced" nature of the alert, acknowledgment, and response. The claim requires software that "triggers," "take[s] control," and forces a response before the alert can be cleared. A central question will be what evidence the complaint or subsequent discovery provides that the Accused Products' messaging functionality operates in this specific, mandatory manner, as opposed to a conventional notification system that a user can dismiss without responding.

U.S. Patent 9,445,251 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: Claim 24 requires the specific sequence of presenting a first map, then requesting, receiving, and presenting a second map. The complaint alleges this is met by "moving the map screen" or "selecting satellite image maps" (Compl. ¶39). This raises the question of whether routine map panning or zooming, which involves streaming new map tiles, constitutes requesting and receiving a discrete "second georeferenced map" within the meaning of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’970 Patent, Claim 10: "forced message alert"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the ’970 Patent. The infringement analysis for Claim 10 will depend on whether the messaging functionality of the Accused Products meets the specific "forced" criteria described and claimed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the term functionally, stating it comprises a "software packet, which triggers the activation of the forced message alert software application program within the recipient PDA/cell phone" (Reexam Cert. '970C1, col. 2:32-38). This could suggest any software-initiated alert qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states the purpose is to "force an automatic acknowledgement upon receipt and a manual response from the recipient" (’970 Patent, col. 1:21-25) and that the response list "can only be cleared by manually selecting and transmitting a response" (’970 Patent, col. 2:20-23). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a non-dismissible alert that compels a user action to be cleared.

• Term from ’251 Patent, Claim 24: "request for a second georeferenced map"

  • Context and Importance: The validity of the infringement allegation depends on whether the Accused Products perform this specific step. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that common user interface actions like panning or zooming a map do not constitute a "request for a second georeferenced map" but are rather interactions with a single, continuous map.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this limitation is met by "moving the map screen" (Compl. ¶39). A party could argue that any user action that causes the device to fetch new map data from a server for a different geographical area constitutes a "request for a second...map."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same paragraph in the complaint also alleges the limitation is met by "selecting satellite image maps" (Compl. ¶39). This suggests an alternative, narrower interpretation where a "second map" implies a discretely different map layer or type, not just a different view of the same map. The patent does not explicitly define the term, leaving its scope open for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each of the five patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The factual basis for these allegations is that the Defendant provides "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installations and/or user guides" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶24, ¶32, ¶46, ¶59, ¶74).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful and deliberate and seeks treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). The factual allegations for knowledge supporting inducement state that Defendant had knowledge "at least as of the date of this Complaint," which may support a theory of post-suit willfulness (e.g., Compl. ¶24, ¶32).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional operation: does the messaging system in the Accused Products technically implement the specific "forced acknowledgment and forced response" mechanism required by the ’970 patent, where an alert cannot be cleared without a user providing a structured response, or does it utilize a more conventional notification system?
• A key question will be one of definitional scope: can routine user interface actions in the Accused Products, such as panning or zooming a digital map, be construed as "sending... a request for a second georeferenced map" and "receiving... the second georeferenced map" as recited in claims from the ’251 patent family, or is a more discrete action, like switching between different map types, required to meet this limitation?
• A central evidentiary question will be whether the high-level marketing materials and product descriptions cited in the complaint are sufficient to demonstrate that the underlying software architecture and methods of the Accused Products perform each specific, sequential step recited in the asserted claims.