E Beacon LLC v. Connect America LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Connect America, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00400, E.D. Tex., 04/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency services for VoIP products infringe a patent related to determining and transmitting the physical location of a VoIP phone during an emergency call.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of providing reliable E911 location services for nomadic VoIP devices, a critical public safety feature that was a known limitation in early VoIP systems.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2005. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,515,386, "Emergency services for voice over IP telephony (E-VOIP)," issued August 20, 2013. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a key deficiency in VoIP telephony compared to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS): a VoIP phone is not tied to a fixed physical address. This creates a public safety risk, as a 911 operator may be unable to determine the caller's actual location if they are using the VoIP phone away from their registered home or office address. (’386 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "E-VoIP system" that determines a VoIP phone's current physical coordinates using location technologies like GPS or cellular triangulation. When an emergency number is dialed, the system is designed to automatically transmit these coordinates to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). The system also describes logic for using the last known location if a current fix is unavailable and for using alternative networks (e.g., cellular) if the primary VoIP service fails. (’386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-65).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to bridge the 911 reliability gap between traditional landlines and emerging VoIP technology, a necessary step for the widespread adoption of VoIP as a primary communication service. (’386 Patent, col. 1:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method:
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming specific product lines or services. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '386 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). It incorporates by reference "extensively referencing" claim charts in an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an independent analysis of the accused products' functionality or market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶17). The infringement theory, as described in the complaint's narrative, is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" perform a method of determining and transmitting location data for emergency VoIP calls that satisfies all elements of at least one claim of the ’386 Patent. (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A primary factual dispute may center on the operational reality of the accused systems. The case will require evidence demonstrating that the products make a "plurality of attempts" to find a location using "separate" technologies, rather than, for example, defaulting to a single location source or a static, pre-configured address.
  • Scope Question: The analysis will raise the question of whether the methods used by the accused products fall within the scope of the patent's claims. For instance, does the accused system's process for conveying location information to an emergency operator meet the "automatically transmitting" limitation as it is construed from the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location ... each using a separate location detection technology ("LDT")" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the central inventive concept of the asserted independent claim. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system is found to use more than one distinct type of LDT. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific, multi-technology approach that may not be present in all E911 solutions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential LDTs, including "GPS, CDMA, GSM... A-GPS... Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and other such technologies," which could suggest the term is intended to be inclusive of a wide range of methods. (’386 Patent, col. 7:60-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "separate" and the flow charts depicting parallel attempts (e.g., GPS, CDMA, GSM) suggest that the LDTs must be technologically distinct (e.g., satellite-based vs. terrestrial cellular) and not merely different queries to the same type of system. (’386 Patent, Fig. 4).

The Term: "automatically transmitting" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines how the location data is conveyed to the emergency call center. Its construction is critical to determining whether the accused system's communication protocol infringes. The dispute may turn on the degree of automation required and whether any intermediate steps (e.g., by a system administrator or a secondary software process) disrupt the "automatic" nature of the transmission.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "automatically" simply means the user making the 911 call is not required to take any additional action to send their location after placing the call.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description suggests a specific technical implementation where location coordinates are sent "as part of a data packet" that is prioritized via a Quality of Service (QoS) protocol, implying a tightly integrated and programmed process rather than a simple data push. (’386 Patent, col. 4:56-68).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and end users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’386 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its request for enhanced damages on alleged post-suit willfulness. It pleads that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what proof will be offered that the accused products make "a plurality of attempts" using "separate" location detection technologies as required by the claim, as opposed to relying on a single technology or a pre-provisioned address?
• The case will likely involve a key question of claim scope: can the phrase "separate location detection technology" be satisfied by different software-based lookup methods using the same network hardware, or will the court construe it to require the use of fundamentally different underlying technologies, such as satellite-based GPS versus ground-based cellular triangulation?
• A third issue will be one of causation for inducement: what specific instructions in Defendant's "product literature and website materials" will Plaintiff identify to show that Defendant knowingly encouraged its users to perform the specific, multi-step method of the asserted claims?