E Beacon LLC v. Kyocera Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Kyocera Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00403, E.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
• 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 through subsidiaries acting as its alter egos, including Kyocera International, Inc.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe a patent related to methods for reliably determining and transmitting a mobile device's physical location to emergency services.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of providing accurate location information for emergency calls made from mobile Voice over IP (VoIP) devices, a critical function for public safety.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement since the service of an Original Complaint on April 16, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-08-05	’386 Patent Priority Date
2013-08-20	’386 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-16	Original Complaint Filed
2025-10-23	First Amended Complaint Filed

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 early VoIP telephony systems (Compl. ¶10). Unlike traditional landlines with fixed addresses, a VoIP phone could be used "in practically any location which offers internet access," creating a high risk of emergency responders being dispatched to an incorrect, static address stored in a database (’386 Patent, col. 1:17-44). This was particularly dangerous if the caller was unable to verbally communicate their current location (Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to dynamically determine a VoIP phone's location by "making a plurality of attempts" using "separate location detection technolog[ies] ('LDT')" such as GPS, cellular triangulation, or others (’386 Patent, Claim 1). The system then stores a successfully determined location and automatically transmits it to an emergency services call center when a 9-1-1 call is placed (Compl. ¶15; ’386 Patent, Abstract). This use of multiple, redundant LDTs is intended to increase the likelihood that a location can be successfully detected "whenever and wherever the phone is used" (’386 Patent, col. 7:66-8:1).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to solve a critical public safety issue by replacing static, unreliable location databases with a dynamic system that could provide real-time location data for mobile and nomadic VoIP users (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary claims, with a focus on independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 12 and 27 (Compl. ¶27, 15, 23-24).
• The 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; and
  • 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 other dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims of the '386 Patent" (Compl. ¶27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Kyocera-branded smartphones," including specifically the "DuraForce Ultra 5G smartphone," as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused smartphones are used to make emergency calls and incorporate the infringing technology (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of how the accused products operate, instead referencing external claim charts in a non-proffered "Exhibit 2" for its specific infringement allegations (Compl. ¶32-33). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that these smartphones, when making an E911 call, use multiple location technologies (such as GPS, Wi-Fi, and cellular networks) to determine and transmit location data to emergency services (Compl. ¶18-22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement allegations; as this exhibit was not provided, the following summarizes the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶32-33).

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s smartphones practice the method of Claim 1 of the ’386 Patent (Compl. ¶18, 27). The narrative suggests that the smartphones meet the "making a plurality of attempts" limitation by employing "multiple complementary location detection technologies" to determine a user's location for an emergency call (Compl. ¶19). This use of multiple technologies, such as GPS and cellular signals, is alleged to be an improvement over prior art static database systems (Compl. ¶18, 25). The complaint further alleges that after determining the location, the accused devices "automatically transmit[]" that physical location to the emergency call center, satisfying another key step of the claimed method (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also highlights the inventive concepts of dependent claims, such as comparing locations from different LDTs for reliability (Claim 12) and assessing network quality for call routing (Claim 27), and implies these are also practiced by the accused products (Compl. ¶23-24).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a modern multi-modal smartphone, which uses VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling in addition to cellular voice, is properly categorized as a "VoIP phone" as that term is used and described in the ’386 Patent, which has a 2005 priority date.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused smartphones' method for determining location for E911 calls aligns with the claim language of "making a plurality of attempts... each using a separate location detection technology." The inquiry may focus on whether the device's operating system makes distinct, separate attempts as contemplated by the patent, or if it uses a single, integrated "fused location" process that synthesizes data from multiple sources simultaneously, potentially presenting a mismatch with the claimed steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "VoIP phone"

• Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to modern smartphones hinges on the scope of this term. Defendant may argue that the patent is directed to an older class of internet-only telephony devices, distinct from current cellular smartphones.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "voice over internet protocol" is a broad technological category. Plaintiff may argue that because the accused smartphones can transmit voice calls over Wi-Fi (an internet protocol), they fall squarely within the plain meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts "VoIP phones" with the "Plain Old Telephone System ('POTS')" and discusses their use in "any location which offers internet access," a context that may suggest devices primarily reliant on a user-provided internet connection rather than a carrier-managed cellular network (’386 Patent, col. 1:15-29).

The Term: "making a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location ... each using a separate location detection technology"

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core of the patented method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused devices' operation constitutes distinct "attempts" with "separate" technologies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any process that draws upon data from more than one location technology (e.g., GPS and Wi-Fi) inherently involves a "plurality of attempts," regardless of whether they are sequential or simultaneous.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart in Figure 4 depicts a process where the system attempts to get a location from GPS (2a), CDMA (2b), and GSM (2c) in what could be interpreted as parallel or sequential distinct steps. This may support an argument that the claim requires discrete, separable processes for each LDT, rather than a single, fused location determination (’386 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 8:10-26).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use them in their "customary and intended manner," which includes making emergency calls that allegedly infringe the ’386 Patent (Compl. ¶30-31).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the ’386 Patent upon service of the Original Complaint on April 16, 2025 (Compl. ¶29-30).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "VoIP phone," rooted in the patent's 2005 priority date and its focus on internet-based telephony, be construed to cover modern smartphones that operate across cellular, VoLTE, and Wi-Fi networks?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused smartphones' integrated system for providing location to E911 services, which may fuse data from multiple sources, perform the specific, sequential steps of "making a plurality of attempts" with "separate" technologies as required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technical process?
• A third question will relate to claim differentiation and enablement: given the complaint’s emphasis on the advanced features described in dependent claims (e.g., comparing locations for reliability, ranking network quality), the case will likely examine whether the patent’s specification provides sufficient written description and enablement for these more sophisticated functions as allegedly practiced by modern devices.