E Beacon LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-889, E.D. Tex., 11/03/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to technology for determining and transmitting the physical location of a Voice over IP (VoIP) phone to emergency services.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the public safety challenge of locating emergency callers using VoIP devices, which, unlike traditional landlines, are not inherently tied to a fixed physical address.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of a prior application, claiming priority back to a 2005 provisional application. No other litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceeding history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,386 - “Emergency services for voice over IP telephony (E-VoIP)”

• Issued: August 20, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the unreliability of emergency services for VoIP telephony systems, noting that a VoIP phone can be used in any location with internet access, unlike a traditional landline phone tied to a specific address. This creates a risk that if a user dials 9-1-1 while traveling and is unable to state their location, emergency responders could be dispatched to the user's registered home or office address instead of their actual current location (’386 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that attempts to determine the current physical location of a VoIP device using technologies such as GPS or cellular network triangulation. When an emergency number is dialed, the system automatically transmits the determined physical coordinates to the emergency call center (Public Safety Answering Point, or "PSAP"), enabling operators to locate the caller accurately regardless of their location (’386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-44). The system is also designed to find an available network (e.g., VoIP or cellular) to place the emergency call if the primary network is unavailable (’386 Patent, col. 3:41-55).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to close a critical public safety gap that emerged with the adoption of portable VoIP devices, providing a method for first responders to locate callers in emergencies that was previously standard for fixed landlines (’386 Patent, col. 1:11-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • making a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location of the VoIP phone, each using a separate location detection technology ("LDT"):
  • if an attempt is successful, storing the physical location determined using the corresponding LDT;
  • placing a call to the emergency services call center with the VoIP phone; and
  • automatically transmitting the physical location of the VoIP phone to the emergency services call center. (’386 Patent, col. 11:26-38).
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No specific technical details of the accused products' functionality are provided. Given the defendant, the accused products are presumably smartphones that incorporate emergency location services for calls placed over VoIP networks (e.g., Wi-Fi Calling) and cellular networks.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by referencing an external exhibit (Exhibit 2) that was not provided with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint's narrative states only that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed claim chart analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent claims and the likely nature of the accused products (modern smartphones), the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions for the court.

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a modern smartphone's integrated location service, which often uses a "fused location provider" to combine data from GPS, Wi-Fi, and cellular signals into a single estimate, constitutes "making a plurality of attempts... each using a separate location detection technology" as required by the claim. The defense could argue this is a single, integrated attempt, not a plurality of separate ones.
• Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over the specific sequence of operations in the accused devices. The complaint does not provide evidence showing that the accused products perform the method steps in the order recited by the claim (i.e., attempting to find location, storing it, placing the call, and then transmitting the location).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a separate location detection technology ('LDT')"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the patent's requirement for multiple, separate attempts covers modern, integrated location services. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its technology uses a single, unified location system rather than the distinct, siloed technologies contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists examples of LDTs such as "GPS, CDMA and GSM technologies," suggesting that "separate" refers to different underlying signal sources, which a modern phone does utilize (’386 Patent, col. 8:16-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flow chart in Figure 4 depicts distinct, parallel process paths for different LDTs (e.g., "LDT-GPS," "LDT-CDMA"), which could imply separate software or hardware modules rather than a single, fused process (’386 Patent, Fig. 4).

• The Term: "automatically transmitting the physical location of the VoIP phone to the emergency services call center"

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will be important for determining whether the claim requires a direct device-to-PSAP transmission or covers the common modern architecture where location data is routed through network carriers or third-party services before reaching the PSAP.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes transmitting the location as a "data packet" over the Internet, a process that inherently involves routing through various network devices, which may support an interpretation that includes intermediaries (’386 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites transmission "to the emergency services call center," which could be construed to require that the call center be the direct destination of the transmission from the infringing device, not a downstream recipient after processing by a carrier.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement. It does allege that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which could form the basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶13).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological evolution: Can the patent's method, which describes determining location via a "plurality of attempts" using "separate" technologies, be construed to cover modern smartphones that use a single, integrated "fused location" service to combine data from multiple sources simultaneously?
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, a central challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused devices perform the precise, ordered sequence of steps required by the asserted method claims.