E Beacon LLC v. HTC Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (DE)
  • Defendant: HTC Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00402, E.D. Tex., 04/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products infringe a patent related to providing location services for emergency calls made using Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of locating mobile or nomadic VoIP users for E911 services, a problem not present in traditional, fixed-location telephone systems.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term. The complaint itself mentions no prior litigation or other procedural events.

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), issued August 20, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Unlike traditional landlines with fixed, known addresses, VoIP telephones can be used in any location with an internet connection. This mobility makes it difficult for emergency services (like a 911 call center) to automatically determine the caller's physical location when an emergency call is placed (’386 Patent, col. 1:12-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method that uses modern location-finding technologies to automatically determine a VoIP device's current physical location and transmit it to an emergency call center. The system attempts to find the location by using multiple, separate technologies, such as GPS, cellular network triangulation (CDMA, GSM), or other methods, and can fall back to using previously stored coordinates if a live determination fails (’386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-44; Fig. 1). This ensures that emergency responders can be dispatched to the correct location, even if the caller is unable to state their address (’386 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to close a critical public safety gap by making E911 services for nomadic VoIP devices as reliable as those for traditional telephones (’386 Patent, col. 1:47-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, instead referring to "Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 (Essential 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.
  • Each attempt uses a separate location detection technology ("LDT").
  • If an attempt is successful, storing the determined physical location.
  • Placing a call to the emergency services call center with the VoIP phone.
  • Automatically transmitting the determined 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 its general language could be interpreted as doing so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products," "Exemplary Defendant Products," and "numerous other devices that infringe" (Compl. ¶11). The specifics are allegedly contained in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶16, Exhibit 2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges only that they "practice the technology claimed" by the ’386 Patent (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unattached "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16-17). Without this exhibit, the complaint itself provides a conclusory narrative rather than specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused functionality. The core narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented technology and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Defendant's product literature and website materials contain instructions for end-users that demonstrate infringement (Compl. ¶14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "location detection technology ('LDT')"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive concept of using multiple, different technologies to find a location. The scope of "LDT" will define what qualifies as a "separate" technology, which is a required element of independent claim 1. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products use more than one distinct technology that falls within the construed definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Current LDT's include geolocation, location based service (LBS), GSM localization, triangulation, automatic location information (ALI) database correlation, coordinate information and other systems" (’386 Patent, col. 7:58-62). The use of "include" suggests this list is exemplary, not exhaustive.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses specific examples like "GPS or cellular technology" (’386 Patent, col. 2:48-52) and "GPS, CDMA and GSM" (’386 Patent, col. 7:62-63). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these well-defined radio-based triangulation or positioning systems, rather than including database lookups or other software-based methods.

The Term: "VoIP phone"

• Context and Importance: The identity of the "VoIP phone" is the subject of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines what types of devices are covered by the patent. Infringement may depend on whether a modern smartphone, which has many functions beyond VoIP, is properly categorized as a "VoIP phone" in the context of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the term should be construed to include any VoIP-type device, including "soft phones," which are software-based phones using a computer's internet connection (’386 Patent, col. 7:37-44). This suggests the term is not limited to dedicated hardware devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures often depict a system with distinct components, including a "VoIP phone" connected to a network via a modem or switch (’386 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 6:47-54). A party could argue this context implies a device whose primary function is telephony, not a multi-purpose computing device like a smartphone.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’386 Patent (Compl. ¶14). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges Defendant gained "actual knowledge" of infringement upon service of the complaint and continued its allegedly infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶13-14). Plaintiff requests enhanced damages and a finding that the case is exceptional, which are remedies for willful or egregious infringement, but the factual basis alleged is limited to post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶D, E.i).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals that the accused products actually perform the specific steps of the asserted claims—namely, making a "plurality of attempts" using "separate" location technologies to find and transmit a user's location during an emergency call.
• The case will also involve a core question of definitional scope: The viability of the infringement claim will turn on the court's construction of key terms like "location detection technology" and "VoIP phone." Can Plaintiff prove that the accused devices use multiple, distinct technologies that fall within the patent's definition of "LDT"?
• Finally, a key question will be the basis for damages and willfulness: Since the knowledge allegation is tied to the filing of the lawsuit, any finding of enhanced damages will likely require Plaintiff to prove that Defendant’s continuation of its conduct post-suit was egregious or characteristic of wanton and malicious behavior.