E Beacon LLC v. Blackline Safety Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (DE)
  • Defendant: Blackline Safety Corp. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00399, E.D. Tex., 04/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to providing reliable location information for emergency calls made over Voice over IP (VoIP) telephone systems.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of locating mobile VoIP users during 911 calls, a critical function for ensuring timely emergency response that is straightforward for traditional landlines but complex for internet-based telephony.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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)"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the unreliability of emergency services for VoIP users. Unlike a traditional landline with a fixed address, a VoIP phone is portable. If a user makes a 911 call from a location other than their registered home address, emergency services could be dispatched to the wrong place, rendering the call ineffective (ʼ386 Patent, col. 1:23-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that determines the current physical coordinates of a VoIP device using technologies like GPS or cellular network triangulation. When an emergency number is dialed, the system automatically transmits these current coordinates to the emergency call center, ensuring first responders are sent to the caller's actual location. The system is also designed to periodically update and store location coordinates to have recent data available even if a live location fix is not possible during the call (ʼ386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-61).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to provide mobile VoIP users with location-aware emergency calling capabilities comparable to those of the established E911 system for mobile phones, thereby closing a critical public safety gap for a growing communications platform (ʼ386 Patent, col. 1:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit, but does not specify claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Essential 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
  • automatically transmitting the physical location of the VoIP phone to the emergency services call center
• 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 name any specific accused products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the '386 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It states that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and that they satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). 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 infringement by incorporating by reference claim charts contained in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint asserts that these charts compare the "Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrate that the products satisfy all elements of the claims (Compl. ¶16). Without the exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products actually perform the specific combination of steps required by the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the products make "a plurality of attempts" to find a location using "separate" technologies, as required by claim 1, rather than relying on a single technology or a fused result from multiple inputs?
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "separate location detection technology ('LDT')." For instance, if an accused device uses both cell tower triangulation and assisted GPS (A-GPS), which itself relies on cellular data, the court may need to decide if these constitute "separate" technologies within the meaning of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a separate location detection technology ("LDT")" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the primary independent claim. The infringement analysis for claim 1 hinges on whether an accused product uses more than one distinct "LDT." The definition of "separate" will be critical to determining if this limitation is met.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of potential LDTs, including "geolocation, location based service (LBS), GSM localization, triangulation," "GPS, CDMA and GSM technologies," and "Assisted Global Positioning System ('A-GPS'), other Cellular systems, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and other such technologies" ('386 Patent, col. 7:56-65). A party could argue this diverse list supports a broad interpretation where any technically distinct method for deriving location qualifies as a "separate" LDT.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's core examples contrast fundamentally different systems (e.g., satellite-based GPS vs. ground-based cellular) ('386 Patent, col. 2:49-53). This could support a narrower reading where two similar technologies (e.g., two different forms of cellular triangulation) might not be considered "separate."

• The Term: "automatically transmitting the physical location" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the degree of user intervention allowed during the transmission of location data. Whether the accused products meet this limitation depends on how "automatically" is defined.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The description of the system's operation suggests the key is removing the burden from the user to verbally communicate their location. A party could argue that "automatically" means the system formats and sends the data packet without requiring the user to manually enter the coordinates, even if a button press initiates the call that triggers the transmission ('386 Patent, col. 4:4-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background emphasizes solving the problem where a user "cannot communicate his location" ('386 Patent, col. 1:40-42). A party might argue this implies the transmission must occur without any user interaction subsequent to dialing the emergency number, and that any intermediate confirmation step would render the process non-automatic.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the '386 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the '386 Patent acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also asserts that the service of the complaint itself constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. The Evidentiary Burden: A primary hurdle for the plaintiff will be one of evidence. Given the complaint’s lack of specific product details, a key question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused products actually perform the multi-step method of the asserted claims, particularly the core requirement of attempting location detection via a "plurality" of "separate" technologies.

2. The Scope of "Separate Technology": The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim construction. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "separate location detection technology," as defined by the patent's specification, be construed to read on the specific combination of location-finding techniques employed by the accused products?

3. The Meaning of "Automatically": A second key construction question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's process for sending location data to an emergency operator meet the "automatically transmitting" limitation, or does the level of user interaction involved in its operation place it outside the scope of the claims?