Lattice Tech LLC v. Vivint Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Alert 360 OpCo, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00804, E.D. Tex., 12/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response systems and services infringe a patent related to methods for notifying a prioritized list of contacts over an IP network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS), which allow individuals, often the elderly, to signal for help, and which have evolved from landline-based systems to incorporate cellular, GPS, and internet-based communications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge of the infringement upon service of the Original Complaint on October 4, 2024. This date establishes the basis for the allegation of post-filing willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-22	’153 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-17	’153 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-04	Original Complaint Filing Date
2024-12-22	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 - System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device, Issued January 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art emergency response systems as limited. Systems connected to public switched telephone networks (PSTN) act as speakerphones, which are ineffective if the user is not nearby, and users may be hesitant to trigger them for fear of unnecessarily dispatching emergency personnel (e.g., police) for a non-critical event (’153 Patent, col. 1:28-44). Other systems that track users via GPS did not, at the time, utilize the internet or Voice-over-IP (VoIP) to establish communication between the user and a monitoring service (’153 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a portable user device communicates an alert over the internet to a central "monitoring database." This database contains a prioritized list of contacts (referred to as "angels") and their preferred contact methods (e.g., phone, email, SMS). Upon receiving an alert, the database automatically processes the priority list, attempting to notify contacts in sequence using internet protocols or the PSTN until one of them "accepts" responsibility for the incident, at which point the system can establish direct communication between that contact and the user (’153 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-25; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method integrated portable devices with internet-based (IP) automated notification logic, allowing for a more flexible and tiered response than traditional systems that were limited to a single point of contact or a direct call to 911 (’153 Patent, col. 9:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" but does not specify them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • Establishing a monitoring database with user device identification.
  • Storing a plurality of contacts and contact methods in the database.
  • Arranging the contacts and methods in a priority order determined by the user.
  • Establishing an IP address for the monitoring database and for the user device.
  • Establishing communication over the Internet between the database and the user device.
  • Transmitting an alert from the user device to the database.
  • Automatically establishing communication with a contact according to the priority order.
  • Receiving an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" response from the contact.
  • Automatically establishing communication with another contact according to the priority order until an "accepted" response is received.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). As Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint, the specific accused products and services are not identified in the available document.

Functionality and Market Context

The Defendant, ALERT 360 OPCO, INC., operates in the home and business security and personal monitoring market. The infringement allegations suggest the accused instrumentalities are personal emergency response systems that include a user-wearable device and a corresponding monitoring service that notifies pre-selected contacts or emergency services when a user sends an alert (Compl. ¶14-16). The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and offered for sale by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). It incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided Exhibit 2 rather than presenting an element-by-element infringement analysis in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The narrative theory is that Defendant's systems, when used as intended, perform the patented method of receiving an alert from a user and automatically notifying a list of contacts.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around the scope of "priority order determined by the user" as required by claim 1. The case may question whether the accused system's logic for selecting which contact to notify first constitutes a "priority order" and whether that order is "determined by the user" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide factual evidence demonstrating how the accused systems perform the claimed automated response loop. A key question will be what evidence shows that the accused system, after receiving a "not accepted" or "unresponsive" response from one contact, proceeds to "automatically" contact the next person on a priority list, and ceases this process upon receiving an "accepted" response, as specifically required by the final limitations of claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "priority order determined by the user"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's automated notification logic. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system’s method for sequencing notifications falls within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires both a specific sequence ("priority order") and a specific source of that sequence ("determined by the user").
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the contact list "may be accessible through any web-based application to allow the user to update or modify the list," which could support an argument that any user-influenced sequence qualifies (’153 Patent, col. 4:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the order itself to be determined by the user. A defendant might argue that a system where the user provides a list of contacts, but the system itself determines the notification sequence based on other factors (e.g., time of day, contact availability), does not meet this limitation. The specification's allowance for an "administrator" to modify the list on the user's behalf could also be used to argue about the directness of the user's determination (’153 Patent, col. 4:18-21).

The Term: "automatically establishing communication"

• Context and Importance: This phrase appears twice in claim 1 and defines the core function of the monitoring database. Whether the accused system operates "automatically" will likely be a significant point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention "fully automates the notification of contacts," which suggests a high degree of automation without human intervention from the monitoring service (’153 Patent, col. 9:41-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term implies a system that operates entirely without human oversight from the service provider's side once an alert is received. The patent's detailed flowcharts (e.g., Fig. 13) depict a multi-step logic process, and a defendant may argue its system involves human-in-the-loop steps or system-level decisions that prevent the process from being truly "automatic" as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the original complaint on October 4, 2024, provided Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter has been willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of "definitional scope:" can the phrase "priority order determined by the user" be construed to cover the specific contact notification logic implemented in the accused systems? The case may turn on the degree of control the user must exert over the notification sequence to satisfy the claim language.
• A key "evidentiary question" will be one of "operational proof:" as the complaint provides no specific factual allegations or evidence mapping product features to claim elements, the case will depend on what evidence Plaintiff can marshall in discovery to prove that the accused systems actually perform the specific, multi-step automated notification and response-handling loop recited in the asserted claims.