AGIS Software Development LLC v. F Secure Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AGIS Software Development LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: F-Secure Corporation (Finland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00740, E.D. Tex., 09/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including an office in Frisco, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Lookout Life application and associated services infringe five U.S. patents related to location sharing, forced messaging alerts, and the creation of ad hoc communication networks on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for creating situational awareness and closed-loop communication systems on mobile devices, which have applications in both consumer safety and professional coordination for first responders or military personnel.
• Key Procedural History: Each of the five patents-in-suit has survived post-grant validity challenges at the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 had several claims cancelled in an Inter Partes Review, but the asserted claim 10 was subsequently confirmed as patentable in an Ex Parte Reexamination. The other four patents-in-suit had all their original claims confirmed as patentable in separate Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings. This procedural history may inform the parties’ assessments of patent strength and claim scope.

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"

• Issued: July 3, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty in conventional digital messaging (e.g., SMS) of knowing whether a message was received by all intended recipients and compelling a response, which is a significant drawback in time-sensitive coordination efforts (’970 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for sending a "forced message alert" from one mobile device to another. Upon receipt, the recipient's device is compelled to automatically transmit an acknowledgment back to the sender. The alert then takes control of the recipient's device, displaying the message and a mandatory list of responses; the user must select and transmit a response to clear the alert from the screen (’970 Patent, col. 2:6-34; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This technology creates a closed-loop communication system that confirms both message delivery and user response, providing a higher level of certainty for critical communications than standard messaging protocols (’970 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶23).
• Essential elements of method claim 10 include:
  • Receiving an electronic message and identifying it as a forced message alert comprising a voice or text message and a software packet.
  • The software packet triggers the activation of a forced message alert program on the recipient device.
  • Transmitting an automatic acknowledgment of receipt to the sender device.
  • The program takes 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 alert to be cleared.
  • Displaying the received response on the sender's device.
  • Displaying a geographical map with a symbol for the recipient's location on the sender's device.

U.S. Patent No. 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 personnel from different organizations (e.g., police, fire departments) to rapidly establish secure, temporary digital and voice communication networks at a disaster scene without pre-configuration or pre-entry of contact information (’251 Patent, col. 2:8-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for users to join an ad hoc network using a mobile device by entering a server IP address, an event name, and a password. Once connected, the device sends its location to a server, which then relays that location information to all other members of the group. This allows participants to view each other's positions on an interactive map, request different map layers (e.g., satellite imagery), and communicate without prior knowledge of each other's contact details (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-51).
• Technical Importance: This approach significantly reduces the time and technical barriers required to establish interoperable, map-based situational awareness among disparate groups in dynamic environments (’251 Patent, col. 2:10-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶32).
• Essential elements of system claim 24 include:
  • A first device programmed to perform operations.
  • Receiving a message from a second device related to joining a group.
  • Based on receipt, participating in the group by sending its location to a server and receiving location information for other group devices from the server.
  • Presenting an interactive, georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols corresponding to the other devices.
  • Sending a request for a second, different georeferenced map to the server.
  • Receiving and presenting the second map with the device symbols.
  • Identifying user interaction with a symbol to specify an action and, based thereon, using an Internet Protocol to send data to the corresponding device via the server.

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

• Issued: October 11, 2016 (Compl. ¶9)
• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’251 Patent, this patent describes a system for creating temporary, password-protected communication networks. The technology enables users on different devices to join a group, exchange location data via a server, and view member locations on a map display for coordinated activity (’838 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 54 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Lookout Life application’s functionalities for establishing groups, sharing and viewing user locations on a map, and communicating with group members infringe the ’838 Patent (Compl. ¶¶49-54).

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

• Issued: November 14, 2017 (Compl. ¶10)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to ad hoc, map-based communication networks. A particular focus of the asserted claim is the user interface method for selecting a participant on the map, claiming a process of detecting a user's selection on the display and searching a set of symbols to identify the one located nearest to the coordinates of the selection (’123 Patent, col. 32:33-67).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The accused features include the Lookout Life application’s system for presenting user locations as selectable symbols on an interactive map and allowing users to interact with those symbols to initiate communications or other actions (Compl. ¶¶63-68).

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

• Issued: August 29, 2017 (Compl. ¶11)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also pertains to ad hoc communication networks, with the asserted claim focusing on a system for remote control and location tracking between devices. The claimed system involves a sequence of messages between a first device, a second device, and a server to authorize group joining, request and receive location updates, and send remote control commands (’829 Patent, col. 42:8-44).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 34 is asserted (Compl. ¶73).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Lookout Life application’s functionalities that allow one device (e.g., a user’s computer or second phone) to locate and remotely control another device (e.g., a lost phone) by sending and receiving location information and commands via a server (Compl. ¶¶77-82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Lookout Life" application and its associated services (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide functionalities that allow users to form or join groups to share and view each other's locations on a map (Compl. ¶19). Users can also track their own lost or stolen devices, which involves displaying the device’s location on a map and enabling remote control functions such as causing the device to emit a sound, locking it, or wiping its data (Compl. ¶19, p.12). A screenshot from a support article shows options to "Scream, Lock or Wipe your device" from a map interface (Compl. p.12). The complaint alleges these features are provided to improve user experience and Defendant's market position (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’970 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "forced message alert," as defined in a patent focused on compelling a response from a human recipient, can be construed to read on a remote-control command sent to an owner's own unattended device. The analysis may question whether the "sender" (a web browser) and "recipient" (an unattended phone) in the accused system match the "sender PDA/cell phone" and "recipient PDA/cell phone" required by the claim.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of what evidence supports the allegation that the accused system performs the claimed steps of presenting a "required response list" on the recipient device and requiring the possessor of that device to transmit a response to clear the alert. The functionality described in the complaint appears centered on owner control, not on compelling actions from a third-party possessor.

’251 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the consumer-oriented "group" feature in Lookout Life, designed for family and friends, falls within the scope of a claim rooted in the context of ad hoc networks for first responders.
• Technical Questions: A key question for the court may be whether the architecture of the Accused Products maps onto the claim's recitation of sending location information to a "server" and requesting map data from what could be interpreted as a distinct "second server." The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of Defendant’s server architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’970 Patent

• The Term: "forced message alert"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the asserted claim. Its construction will determine whether a remote-control command (e.g., "locate my phone") can be considered equivalent to the claimed alert, which the patent describes as forcing a human-to-human communication loop. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality is remote device management, not compelled interpersonal communication.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the alert as comprising a "text or voice message file and a forced alert software packet," which could be argued to cover any command packet that triggers a remote action (’970 Patent, col. 2:12-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" repeatedly describes the alert's purpose as compelling an "automatic acknowledgement" and a "manual response from the recipient," implying a system designed for interactive communication between users, not remote control of an object (’970 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:34).

For the ’251 Patent

• The Term: "receiving a message sent by a second device, wherein the message relates to joining a group"
• Context and Importance: This is the initiating step of the claimed method for forming a network. The construction will be critical to determining if the process by which users create or join a circle in the Lookout Life application constitutes receipt of the claimed "message." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product's setup process meets this specific claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not narrowly define the "message," which could allow Plaintiff to argue that any data transmission that results in a user joining a group (e.g., accepting an invitation link, entering a group code) satisfies the limitation (’251 Patent, col. 17:61-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's context describes users joining a network by entering a common ad hoc event name and password, which a court could find implies a specific type of authentication message rather than a general invitation or sign-up process (’251 Patent, col. 3:51-56).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Accused Products and "instructing users... through training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installations and/or user guides" on how to use the allegedly infringing features (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 48, 61, 75). The complaint provides hyperlinks to Defendant's online support articles as examples of such instructions (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34). As an alternative, the complaint pleads that Defendant was willfully blind to the infringing acts of its users (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33).
• Willful Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 33, 47, 60, 74). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge or notice.

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

This case presents several fundamental questions of claim scope and technical application for the court's determination.

• A core issue will be one of conceptual scope: can the claims of the ’970 Patent, which describe a method for forcing a human recipient to acknowledge and respond to a message, be construed to cover the accused system for an owner to remotely locate and control their own unattended device? This raises a fundamental question about whether the patent's purpose and the accused product's function align.
• A second key issue will be one of architectural mapping: for the ’251 patent family, does the client-server architecture of the consumer-facing Lookout Life application, used for sharing locations among known contacts, embody the specific multi-step processes and server structures recited in claims originally drafted to solve the problem of creating temporary, ad hoc communication networks for disparate groups of first responders?
• Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what specific evidence will be presented to show that the Accused Products perform claim elements such as transmitting an "automatic acknowledgment of receipt" or presenting a "required response list" (’970 Patent) in the manner described and claimed in the patents? The complaint's allegations are broad, and the alignment between the claimed steps and the actual operation of the accused system will be a primary focus of discovery and expert analysis.