E Beacon LLC v. Sony Electronic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (DE)
  • Defendant: Sony Electronic Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00893, E.D. Tex., 11/03/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified Sony products infringe a patent related to providing emergency services for Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony by determining and transmitting the user's physical location.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns enhancing E911 capabilities for VoIP systems, which, unlike traditional landlines, are not inherently tied to a fixed, known physical address.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-08-05	'386 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App.)
2011-04-25	'386 Patent Application Filing Date
2013-08-20	'386 Patent Issue Date
2024-11-03	Complaint Filing Date

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 Aug. 20, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the unreliability of emergency services for VoIP telephone users. Unlike traditional landline phones with fixed addresses, a VoIP phone can be used anywhere with an internet connection, making it difficult for emergency responders to automatically determine the caller's physical location when 9-1-1 is dialed ('386 Patent, col. 1:24-28). Existing VoIP E911 systems that rely on a pre-registered address are ineffective if the user is traveling ('386 Patent, col. 1:33-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automatically determines a VoIP phone's current physical location using technologies like GPS or cellular network triangulation when an emergency call is placed. The system attempts to find the location using multiple distinct location detection technologies (LDTs) and then transmits the determined coordinates to the emergency call center (Public Safety Answering Point or "PSAP") ('386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-56). This process is designed to provide responders with the caller's actual location, regardless of where the VoIP phone is being used ('386 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide VoIP services with location-aware E911 capabilities comparable to those of mobile phones, thereby closing a critical public safety gap for an increasingly popular communication technology ('386 Patent, col. 1:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "one or more claims" and "the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method for determining the physical location of a VoIP phone and transmitting it to an emergency services call center.
  • Making a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location of the VoIP phone, with each attempt using a "separate location detection technology ('LDT')".
  • If an attempt is successful, storing the physical location determined by the corresponding LDT.
  • Placing a call to the emergency services call center with the VoIP phone.
  • Automatically transmitting the determined physical location to the emergency services call center.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). These charts are part of an Exhibit 2 that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. It alleges in conclusory fashion that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement but relies entirely on "extensively referencing" materials in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to substantiate its claims (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). The complaint states that this exhibit contains "charts comparing the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The narrative allegations claim that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused, but unidentified, Sony products actually perform the claimed method. Specifically, discovery will need to establish if the products make "a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location... each using a separate location detection technology" and then "automatically" transmit that location to an emergency call center as required by claim 1.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' operations fall within the scope of the claims. For instance, if a device uses a single, multi-modal location chip (e.g., a combined GPS/Wi-Fi/cellular location chip), it raises the question of whether using different modes from that single chip constitutes using "separate location detection technolog[ies]" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "separate location detection technology ('LDT')" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The requirement that each of the "plurality of attempts" uses a "separate" LDT is a central limitation of the method. The definition of "separate" will be critical to the scope of infringement. If "separate" is construed narrowly to mean technologically distinct systems (e.g., satellite-based GPS vs. ground-based cellular triangulation), it could be more difficult to prove infringement than if it is construed broadly to include different software methods using the same underlying hardware.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous LDTs, including "geolocation, location based service (LBS), GSM localization, triangulation, automatic location information (ALI) database correlation, coordinate information and other systems," as well as "A-GPS", "Wi-Fi," and "WiMAX" ('386 Patent, col. 7:56-64). An argument could be made that any of these distinct, named systems constitutes a "separate" technology, even if some rely on similar underlying principles or hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention around distinct categories like "GPS or cellular technology" ('386 Patent, col. 2:36-37). Figure 4 shows distinct parallel paths for different technologies like "LDT - GPS" (2a), "LDT - CDMA" (2b), and "LDT - GSM" (2c), which might suggest that "separate" implies a fundamental difference in the underlying network or physical mechanism, not just a different software algorithm.

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 '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The specific content of this literature is purportedly detailed in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. The basis for willfulness appears to be entirely post-suit conduct, asserting that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

Given the high-level nature of the complaint, the case will initially depend on basic discovery before focusing on more nuanced legal and technical issues. The central questions are likely to be:

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The immediate question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence, presumably from the "Exhibit 2" referenced but not filed, that specifically identifies accused Sony products and maps their functionality to the patent's claims with sufficient plausibility to survive a motion to dismiss.
2. Claim Scope and Technical Operation: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "separate location detection technology," as used in the patent, be construed to read on the specific location-finding architecture of Sony's products? The case will likely turn on whether Sony's devices, if they perform location services at all, do so by making distinct attempts with technologically "separate" systems as required by the claims.
3. Knowledge and Intent: For the indirect and willful infringement claims, a key question will be one of scienter: assuming infringement is found, what evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Sony, either through product manuals or after being served with the complaint, possessed the requisite knowledge and specific intent to encourage infringement by its users?