Lattice Tech LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00202, E.D. Tex., 02/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to a system and method for providing emergency response to a user carrying a portable device.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to personal emergency response systems (PERS) that use internet protocols to connect a mobile user's 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 proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint asserts that its service establishes Defendant's actual knowledge for the purpose of willfulness.

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 inadequacies in prior art emergency response systems, noting that some are stationary within a home and cannot assist a user who is away, while mobile systems often lack the ability for a user to effectively communicate the nature of an emergency, a potentially leading to unnecessary dispatches of official personnel (’153 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable user device communicates over the internet with a "monitoring database." This database stores a user-defined, prioritized list of emergency contacts. Upon receiving an alert from the user device, the database automatically works through the prioritized list, attempting to notify contacts via internet protocols (like VoIP) or traditional telephone networks until a contact accepts responsibility for the incident, enabling direct communication between the user and the responder (’153 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-25).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to leverage the growth of internet protocols to create a more flexible and intelligent personal emergency response system than legacy systems reliant on public switched telephone networks (PSTN) (’153 Patent, col. 1:61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" but does not specify them in the main pleading (Compl. ¶11). The patent's independent claims are 1, 11, and 16. Claim 1 is representative of the asserted method.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
  • establishing a monitoring database with an ID for a user device
  • storing a plurality of contacts and contact methods in the database
  • arranging the contacts and methods in a "priority order determined by the user"
  • establishing IP addresses for the database and the user device
  • establishing communication between them over the Internet
  • transmitting an "alert" from the device to the database
  • "automatically establishing communication" with a contact from the priority list
  • receiving an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" response from the contact
  • "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 identify the accused products or services by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). Their specific identities are reportedly detailed in an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant's product literature and website materials instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the patent (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2, which was not made available for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The infringement theory described in the complaint is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Defendant's accused system, which is not identified but could be a general-purpose home security or automation platform, constitutes the specific "emergency response" system described in the patent. The construction of "monitoring database" will be critical—does it read on a general cloud backend for a consumer service, or is it limited to the dedicated emergency monitoring functions described in the patent's specification?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing how the accused system performs the specific, sequential notification logic required by Claim 1. A key technical question will be whether the accused system "automatically" establishes communication with contacts in a "priority order," evaluates whether a response is "accepted" or "not accepted," and then proceeds to "another contact" based on that evaluation, as the patent claims (’153 Patent, col. 14:43-53).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "arranging the contacts and contact methods in a priority order"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to the automated notification feature of the invention. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system provides a simple notification list or performs the specific, sequential, prioritized escalation described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a system that sends a simultaneous alert to all designated contacts infringes, or if the claim requires a cascading, one-by-one notification process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term simply requires a user-configurable list of contacts to be notified, without a strict requirement for sequential processing, pointing to general language about the list being "defined by the user" (’153 Patent, col. 4:15-17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a sequential process. It states the system may "proceed to the next contact" after a "predetermined number of attempts to one contact," and the system "monitors the call status until it is accepted" before closing the incident, which suggests a one-at-a-time notification process rather than a broadcast (’153 Patent, col. 4:26-29; col. 10:42-44). Flowcharts in the patent, such as FIG. 14, depict this sequential logic of attempting a call, waiting for a response, and then moving to the "Next Call Record" if the attempt is unsuccessful (e.g., busy, no answer, rejected) (’153 Patent, FIG. 14).

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 (Compl. ¶14). It also alleges inducement by selling the products to customers for use in a way that infringes (Compl. ¶15).
• 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 continues to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's claims, which describe a system centered on a portable personal emergency device, be construed to cover the accused instrumentality, which may be a broader, fixed-location home automation or security system? This will likely depend on the court's construction of terms like "monitoring database" and "user device."
• The central evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system perform the specific, multi-step, response-dependent notification process required by the claims? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant’s system implements the patent's cascading, prioritized alert logic, as opposed to a more generic system that simultaneously notifies a list of contacts.