Lattice Tech LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00201, E.D. Tex., 02/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products from Defendant infringe a patent related to systems and methods for providing emergency response to a user via a portable device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems that leverage internet protocols (IP) and cellular networks to connect a user's device to a central monitoring service, which can then automatically notify a prioritized list of contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority from a chain of continuation applications tracing back to a 2003 provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or other proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-22	U.S. Provisional Application 60/489,022 Priority Date
2012-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 Issues
2025-02-15	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

• Issued: January 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art emergency response systems, which were often limited to landline-based speakerphones with a limited range within a home. This meant users could not communicate the nature of an emergency if they were far from the base unit, and the systems were unusable outside the home ('153 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a portable user device communicates over the Internet (using IP and Voice-over-IP) with a central "monitoring database." This database stores a user-defined, prioritized list of emergency contacts. When a user sends an alert, the system automatically processes the priority list, attempting to notify contacts in sequence via various methods (e.g., phone, email, SMS) until a response is confirmed ('153 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-44). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing the user device (32) connecting through networks like the internet (36) to a hosted server (34) that manages contact notifications.
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach represented a shift from traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN)-based alert systems to a more flexible, internet-centric model capable of automated, multi-modal contact escalation.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Establishing a monitoring database with user device identifications.
  • Storing a plurality of contacts and contact methods in the database.
  • Arranging the contacts and methods in a user-determined priority order.
  • Establishing IP addresses for both the user device and the monitoring database.
  • Establishing communication over the Internet between the device and the database.
  • Transmitting an alert from the device to the database.
  • 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 if the first response was not "accepted."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or methods by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products," "Exemplary Defendant Products," and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe the ’153 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations to support this conclusion in the body of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶11). Instead, it incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). Without access to these charts or more detailed allegations, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the general nature of the allegations and the technology, the dispute may raise several key questions:

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's products, likely general-purpose communication or smart home devices, can be properly characterized as a system for "providing emergency response" as contemplated by the patent's specification. The patent appears focused on dedicated personal safety and medical monitoring ('153 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may concern the specific logic of contact notification. The complaint provides no evidence that the accused systems perform the claimed method of automatically processing a prioritized contact list and escalating to subsequent contacts based on receiving an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" status from a prior contact attempt ('153 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "emergency response"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's title and preamble of the independent claims. Its construction may be critical for determining the overall scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to mean only responses to medical or safety crises, it may not read on general-purpose communication features of the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 itself does not explicitly limit the "alert" from the user device to any particular type of event, which could support a construction that covers any user-initiated request for contact.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "System and method of providing emergency response..." and the background section frames the invention as an improvement over prior art "emergency response" and "monitoring" systems, suggesting a focus on health and safety applications ('153 Patent, col. 1:26-44).

The Term: "automatically establishing communication with another contact according to the priority order"

• Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 1 defines the core automated escalation feature of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused system's functionality matches this specific, sequential, and conditional logic.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this simply means trying a second person on a list if the first does not answer, a common feature in many communication systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, particularly the flowcharts, describes a detailed, multi-step process. For example, Figure 14 shows distinct logical paths for handling "Busy," "no answer," and "Rejected" call statuses, which then trigger updates to a call status record and initiation of a call to the "Next Call Record" ('153 Patent, Fig. 14; col. 10:50-67). This suggests a specific, programmatic implementation, not just a general attempt to contact another person.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. The allegations are tied to Defendant's knowledge "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the filing of the complaint provided Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement and that Defendant's infringing activities have continued despite this knowledge, which could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶13-14). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does a general-purpose smart home device or communication service constitute a system for "providing emergency response" as that term is used and described throughout the '153 Patent, or is the patent's scope limited to dedicated personal safety and medical alert systems?
2. A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, automated, and conditional escalation logic required by the claims, particularly the steps of processing a prioritized contact list and initiating subsequent contact attempts based on the explicit status ("accepted," "not accepted," "unresponsive") of a prior attempt? The complaint’s conclusory allegations leave this as a primary open question.