Lattice Tech LLC v. ADT LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: ADT LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00805, E.D. Tex., 10/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response products and services infringe a patent related to providing emergency response to a user via a user device that communicates over the Internet.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols (IP), such as Voice-over-IP (VoIP), to connect a mobile user device with a central monitoring service and designated contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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, 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 limitations in prior art emergency response systems. Systems connected to a traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) required a user to be close to a speakerphone to communicate, failing if the user was too far away. Other mobile systems did not utilize the internet or Voice-over-IP (VoIP) to establish communication between the user and a monitoring service or designated contacts (’153 Patent, col. 1:26-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable user device communicates over the internet with a "monitoring database" (server). This database stores a prioritized list of emergency contacts for each user. When an alert is triggered, the database automatically processes the priority list to notify contacts using internet protocols or the PSTN, and can establish direct bidirectional audio communication between the user and a responding contact using VoIP (’153 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-25).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to combine the mobility of a portable device with the flexibility of internet-based communication, overcoming the geographic and functional limitations of systems tethered to landlines (’153 Patent, col. 1:61-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core method.
• Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
  • 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;
  • receiving one of an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" response electrically from the contact; and
  • automatically establishing communication with another contact according to the priority order until an "accepted" response is received.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). These charts, designated as Exhibit 2, were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges at a high level that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Given the defendant is ADT, the products are presumably related to personal security and emergency response services that use mobile devices to connect users with monitoring centers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theory (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). It alleges that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). In the absence of specific charts, the infringement theory must be inferred from the patent claims and the general nature of the allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of claim 1, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions: What constitutes a "monitoring database" under the patent's definition? The analysis will question whether ADT's server infrastructure performs the specific functions recited in the claims, such as automatically processing a user-defined priority list of contacts.
  • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the accused systems "automatically" establish communication with contacts in a specific "priority order determined by the user," as required by claim 1. The evidence will need to show not just that contacts can be notified, but that they are notified according to a specific, sequential, and automated priority logic defined by the user. Further, it raises the question of how the system "electrically" receives an "accepted" response and how that response triggers the system to cease attempting to contact others on the list.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "priority order determined by the user"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the automated notification cascade that distinguishes the invention. The infringement case may depend on whether ADT's system, which may notify multiple parties or a central station simultaneously, can be shown to follow a sequential "priority order" that is specifically "determined by the user." Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a specific user-controlled, sequential notification logic that may not be present in all modern emergency alert systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a "list of contacts to be contacted in an emergency" which is "defined by the user" and may be updated via a "web based application," suggesting flexibility in how the user determines the order (’153 Patent, col. 4:13-17). This could support an argument that any user-configurable list meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "arranging the contacts and contact methods in a priority order" and sequentially proceeding to "another contact" if the first is unresponsive implies a step-by-step, one-at-a-time process (’153 Patent, Claim 1). The flowchart in Figure 13, which shows progressing through a "pass_level" to reach the next contact, may support a narrower construction requiring a strictly sequential and hierarchical notification process (’153 Patent, Fig. 13).

• The Term: "receiving one of an accepted...response electrically"

• Context and Importance: The method requires the system to receive a specific type of electronic signal ("accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive") that dictates whether to continue down the priority list. The definition of this element will be critical to determining if the accused system’s response-handling logic infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is broad, mentioning that a contact may accept by "press a certain key or verbally responding to a prompt" (’153 Patent, col. 10:60-63). This could support a reading that covers any electronic signal resulting from a user action, including a DTMF tone or a voice command converted to data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term appears in the context of an automated system. A defendant might argue that this requires a specific machine-readable signal, and that a response requiring human interpretation at a call center, for example, does not qualify as "receiving...electrically" by the "monitoring database" itself. The patent distinguishes between automated communication and communication with "emergency personnel" (’153 Patent, col. 10:46-49), which could be used to argue for a narrower, fully automated interpretation.

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 knowledge. The complaint asserts that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A central issue will be one of procedural specificity: Does the accused ADT system practice the specific, automated, and sequential notification cascade recited in claim 1? The case may turn on whether ADT's system merely alerts contacts or if it follows a rigid, user-defined "priority order" and stops only upon receiving a specific "accepted" electronic response.
2. A second key question will be one of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "monitoring database"? The plaintiff will likely need to prove that the accused ADT servers are not just generic data hosts but are specifically configured to perform the claimed method steps, including storing and automatically executing a user-determined priority contact list.
3. Finally, an evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system’s handling of responses from contacts—whether by human operators or automated systems—maps onto the claimed step of "receiving one of an accepted...response electrically" in a way that autonomously controls the notification sequence.