DCT
2:25-cv-00586
Ricmic LLC v. Vigil Health Solutions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ricmic, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Vigil Health Solutions Inc. (British Columbia, Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP; The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00586, E.D. Tex., 05/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of infringement in the United States, including within the Eastern District of Texas, and maintains a place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s interactive emergency call systems, designed for senior living and healthcare facilities, infringe patents related to an interactive wireless life safety communications system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "nurse call" systems that replace traditional one-way pagers with interactive, bi-directional communication platforms using mobile devices to improve caregiver coordination and resident safety.
- Key Procedural History: The two asserted patents are part of the same patent family, with U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873 being a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450. The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its alleged infringement since at least 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-09-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '450 and '873 Patents |
| 2016-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450 Issued |
| 2019-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873 Issued |
| 2022-01-01 | Earliest Date of Defendant's Alleged Knowledge (approx.) |
| 2025-05-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450 - "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,305,450, "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System," issued April 5, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of prior art emergency notification systems in assisted living facilities, such as one-way pagers and two-way radios. These systems made it difficult to confirm if an alert was received, determine which caregiver was responding, or provide detailed information about the alert, leading to inefficient or uncoordinated responses (’450 Patent, col. 2:8-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture comprising resident-activated life safety devices (e.g., pendants, pull cords) on a "first communications network" that send alarm signals to a "central coordination server." The server then generates and transmits a detailed alarm notification to caregiver communication devices (e.g., smartphones) over a "second communications network." Critically, caregivers can send an "action status response" back to the server to indicate they are responding, which updates all other caregivers (’450 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-28; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to transform static, one-way alerts into a dynamic, interactive system for coordinating caregiver responses in real-time, thereby reducing "alarm fatigue" and preventing wasted resources from multiple uncoordinated responses (Compl. ¶10, ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 11 and 14 (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 elements include:
- A central coordination server linked to a first and a second communications network.
- At least one resident life safety device connected to the server over the first network, which generates an alarm signal.
- The second communications network being "different from the first."
- At least one caregiver communications device connected to the server over the second network, which receives an alarm notification and is receptive to a caregiver user input.
- An "action status response" generated from the user input for transmission to the server.
- Automatic updating of all caregiver devices based on the action status response.
U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873 - "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,380,873, "Interactive Wireless Life Safety Communications System," issued August 13, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the ’450 Patent, the ’873 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency and lack of interactivity in conventional emergency call systems used in assisted and memory care facilities (’873 Patent, col. 2:8-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an interactive system using separate networks for resident alerting devices and caregiver communication devices, all coordinated by a central server. The system provides detailed alarm information to caregivers and allows them to transmit a "caregiver acceptance response" to indicate they are handling an alert, with this status being broadcast to other staff to ensure a coordinated response (’873 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-29; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a closed-loop communication system that confirms receipt of and response to an emergency alert, solving the ambiguity of prior art systems where it was unknown if anyone was responding to a call (Compl. ¶48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 14 and 15 (Compl. ¶50).
- Independent Claim 1 elements include:
- A central coordination server.
- A plurality of caregiver communications devices connected to the server.
- The server is receptive to an alarm signal from a resident life safety device.
- A "caregiver acceptance response corresponding to a selectable response" is generated from a user input on a caregiver device.
- This response includes an identification of the responding caregiver and indicates that the caregiver is responding to the alarm.
- In response, other caregiver devices are "automatically updated to indicate that the responding caregiver is responding."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Systems" include the "Vigil Integrated Care Management System platform," the "Vigil Mobile app," the "Vigil Memory Care System," and the "Nurse Call System" (Compl. ¶14-16).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Systems provide an emergency call and response platform for senior living facilities (Compl. ¶7, ¶15). The system uses resident alerting devices (pendants, pull cords) that connect to a central server, which in turn sends alarm notifications to caregivers via the "Vigil Mobile" smartphone app (Compl. ¶8). A key accused feature is the "Claim Call" or "Claim a Call" capability, which the complaint alleges "lets your co-workers know that you are taking responsibility for the call" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these systems are marketed for senior living and provide "instant, real-time information, facilitating immediate action where needed" (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits C and D) that were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶28, ¶49). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’450 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a central coordination server | The Vigil platform includes a "central communications server" that receives alarm signals and broadcasts notifications (Compl. ¶8). | ¶8 | col. 6:5-8 |
| at least one resident life safety device...connected to the central coordination server over the first communications network | The Accused Systems use "resident alert transmitting devices" such as pendants and pull cords connected to the central server on a "first communications network" (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 6:9-14 |
| a second communications network different from the first communications network | The Accused Systems use a "second wireless network different from the first" for smart phone-like devices to connect to the server (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 4:42-45 |
| at least one caregiver communications device | The Accused Systems use the Vigil Mobile app on devices like iPhones and Android phones, which are described as "smart phone-like wireless caregiver devices" (Compl. ¶14, ¶26). | ¶14 | col. 7:22-24 |
| an action status response representative of an indication to other caregivers that the specific caregiver...is...responding to the alarm condition | The "Claim Call" feature allows a user to communicate that they "are taking responsibility for the call," which allegedly functions as the claimed action status response (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 4:26-29 |
’873 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a central coordination server receptive to an alarm signal | The Vigil platform's "central communications server" receives alarm signals from resident alerting devices (Compl. ¶8, ¶47). | ¶8 | col. 14:30-34 |
| a plurality of caregiver communications devices...connected to the central coordination server | The Vigil Mobile app runs on multiple caregiver devices (iPads, iPhones, Android phones) that connect to the central server (Compl. ¶14, ¶47). | ¶14 | col. 13:36-42 |
| a caregiver acceptance response corresponding to a selectable response to the alarm notification...indicating that the responding caregiver is responding | The "Claim Call" feature is alleged to be a selectable response that functions as the claimed "caregiver acceptance response," indicating a caregiver has accepted responsibility for an alert (Compl. ¶17, ¶47). | ¶17 | col. 13:1-14 |
| in response to the caregiver acceptance response...the plurality of caregiver communications devices are automatically updated | The complaint alleges that using the "Claim Call" feature provides "real time coordination of caregiver services" and transmits "caregiver action status" to other devices, which suggests an automatic update function (Compl. ¶47). | ¶47 | col. 13:15-22 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Do the Accused Systems utilize two genuinely "different" communications networks as required by the ’450 Patent, or does their architecture use a single, unified network (e.g., Wi-Fi) for both sensor data and app communication? The complaint does not provide the technical detail to resolve this.
- Technical Questions: Does the "Claim Call" feature, as implemented in the Accused Systems, meet all the limitations of the "action status response" (’450 Patent) and the "caregiver acceptance response" (’873 Patent)? A key question will be whether selecting "Claim Call" generates a specific type of response that is transmitted to the server and then used to automatically update all other caregiver devices, as the claims require.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"a second communications network different from the first communications network" (’450 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the architecture of the claimed system. Infringement requires proof that the Accused Systems employ two distinct networks. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern systems could potentially use a single, unified IP-based network (like facility-wide Wi-Fi) for both low-power sensors and high-bandwidth smartphone apps, which may raise the question of whether such a configuration is "different."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "different," which could support an argument that any logical or protocol-based separation, even on the same physical hardware, constitutes a "different" network.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the first network in the context of specific, often proprietary, protocols for life safety devices, while describing the second network in the context of standard data communication modalities like "WiFi" for devices like tablets. This suggests the invention contemplated technologically distinct networks (e.g., a low-power radio network vs. a Wi-Fi/cellular network) (’873 Patent, col. 7:31-41; col. 6:15-30).
"action status response" (’450 Patent, Claim 1) and "caregiver acceptance response" (’873 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These terms define the core interactive feature of the invention. The case may turn on whether the accused "Claim Call" functionality is legally equivalent to the claimed "response." The specificity of the claim language, particularly in the ’873 Patent, suggests this will be a central point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the response in functional terms as a way for a caregiver to "provide feedback and updates" and communicate that "he or she is responding" (’873 Patent, col. 9:20-27). This could be argued to cover any feature that achieves this purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the response to be generated from a "selectable" input and to result in an "automatic" update on other devices. The flowcharts (e.g., '873 Patent, Fig. 2) depict a specific sequence of steps: receiving caregiver input (208) and transmitting the response to the server (210). This could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a specific, structured data exchange rather than a simple status flag.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides customers with the Accused Systems, including the mobile app, along with instructions, user manuals, training, and support services that "encourage and/or instruct customers" to use the systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33-35, ¶54-56). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the mobile app is "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement" and is not a "staple article of commodity...suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶36, ¶57).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents "at least as early as 2022" and its continued infringing activity both before and after the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶35, ¶39, ¶56, ¶60).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the Vigil platform’s network architecture, as actually implemented, meet the "second communications network different from the first" limitation of the ’450 Patent? This will likely require discovery into the technical specifications of how resident sensors and caregiver apps communicate with the central server.
- The case will also turn on a question of functional scope: Does the accused "Claim Call" feature perform all the functions required of the "action status response" and "caregiver acceptance response" as defined by the claims? The court’s construction of these terms will be dispositive, focusing on whether a general notification of "taking responsibility" is the same as generating a specific, server-mediated response that "automatically" updates all other caregiver devices.
- An underlying evidentiary question will be one of intent: For the indirect and willful infringement claims, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents as early as 2022 and specifically intended for its customers to use the Accused Systems in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims?