Lattice Tech LLC v. Alert 360 OpCo 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., 10/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing acts of patent infringement in the district, and causing harm to the Plaintiff in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response systems and services infringe a patent related to providing emergency response to a user via a user device communicating over the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols (IP) and Voice-over-IP (VoIP) to connect a user's mobile device to a central monitoring service, which then notifies a prioritized list of contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit claims priority from a provisional application filed in 2003 and is part of a continuation chain.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-22	U.S. Provisional Patent Application Priority Date
2012-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 Issues
2024-10-04	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153, issued January 17, 2012 (the "’153 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of traditional personal emergency response systems that rely on the public switched telephone network (PSTN) (’153 Patent, col. 1:26-42). These systems often use a speakerphone, which is ineffective if the user is not nearby, potentially leading to unnecessary emergency dispatches and user reluctance to activate the system for fear of embarrassment (’153 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable user device and a central "monitoring database" communicate using internet protocols (’153 Patent, Abstract). The monitoring database stores a prioritized list of emergency contacts for each user and, upon receiving an alert from the user device, automatically processes this list to notify contacts using IP-based methods (like VoIP or email) or traditional telephone networks (’153 Patent, col. 4:11-28). This allows for direct communication between the user and the contact via the device, regardless of proximity to a fixed base station (’153 Patent, col. 9:46-53). Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the system, showing the user device (32) connecting via the internet (36) to a monitoring database (34), which in turn contacts various parties (60, 62, 64, 66).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to modernize personal emergency alert systems by integrating them with internet and VoIP technologies, which were becoming increasingly prevalent, to offer more flexible and effective communication during an emergency (’153 Patent, col. 1:61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’153 Patent without specifying them, referring to an attached but unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • establishing a monitoring database including an identification for a user device;
  • storing in the monitoring database a plurality of contacts and contact methods;
  • arranging the contacts and contact methods in a priority order determined by the user;
  • establishing an internet protocol (IP) address for the monitoring database and the user device;
  • establishing communication over the Internet between the monitoring database and the user device;
  • transmitting an alert from the user device to the monitoring database;
  • automatically establishing communication with one of the contacts according to the priority order to notify the contact of the emergency;
  • receiving a response (accepted, not accepted, or unresponsive) from the contact; and
  • 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 does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. ¶11). These charts were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports emergency response products and services that "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Based on the nature of Defendant's business, these instrumentalities are understood to be personal emergency alert and security monitoring systems. The complaint provides no specific details on how these accused systems operate or their market positioning.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or claim charts within its body. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements" of the claims (Compl. ¶16). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The infringement theory is therefore purely conclusory as pleaded in the public document.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, multi-step notification process recited in the claims. This includes transmitting an alert over the internet, processing a priority list of contacts, automatically attempting to contact them in order, and continuing this process based on the response received from each contact.
  • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's systems "automatically" establish communication with contacts in a "priority order determined by the user" as required by the claims, or if the notification process is managed differently, for instance, by a human operator at a call center without a strictly automated, user-defined hierarchy.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically establishing communication" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's automated nature, which distinguishes it from systems requiring significant human intervention to initiate contact notifications. The degree of automation required by "automatically" will be a critical issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's flowcharts (e.g., ’153 Patent, Fig. 13-14) depict a complex, conditional process, and Defendant may argue its system involves more human discretion than the claim allows.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the monitoring database as being able to "fully automate[] the notification of contacts," which "reduces the cost of operating and maintaining the system" (’153 Patent, col. 9:38-42). This suggests the term should encompass any system that removes the need for a human to manually dial a list of contacts.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed flowcharts show a specific machine-executed logic: building a call list (step 268), fetching a record, dialing, detecting the result (e.g., busy, no answer, accepted), and then proceeding to the next contact based on that result (’153 Patent, Fig. 13, 14). This could support a narrower construction requiring a system to execute this specific type of sequential, programmatic logic without human decision-making at intermediate steps.

• The Term: "priority order determined by the user" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires that the notification hierarchy be set by the user. The dispute will likely center on how directly the user must be involved in setting this priority.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Selected contacts may have administrator level access to update and modify the list on behalf of the user, especially when the user is elderly" (’153 Patent, col. 4:18-21). This language may support an interpretation where the order can be "determined by the user" indirectly, such as through instructions given to an administrator.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "determined by the user" itself suggests direct user control. Defendant might argue that if the priority is set by a system administrator according to a default protocol, it is not "determined by the user," even if the user implicitly consents. The ability for a user to access the list via a "web-based application to allow the user to update or modify the list" could be used to argue direct user control is the intended meaning (’153 Patent, col. 4:15-18).

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). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14). These allegations could form the basis for a post-suit willfulness claim.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, a threshold issue will be whether Plaintiff's evidence, once produced, can show that Defendant's unidentified products actually perform the complete, multi-step method of Claim 1. The case may turn on whether Defendant's systems execute the specific automated, prioritized, and sequential notification logic that is central to the patent.

2. A Definitional Question of Automation: The dispute will likely focus on the scope of the term "automatically establishing communication". The key question for the court will be whether this term requires a fully machine-driven notification sequence as depicted in the patent’s flowcharts, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover systems where human operators at a call center facilitate parts of the notification process.

3. A Question of User Control: The construction of "priority order determined by the user" will be pivotal. The core issue is whether this requires direct, personal configuration by the end-user, or if the requirement is met when a service provider configures the order on the user's behalf, potentially based on verbal instructions or a standard operating procedure.