DCT
2:25-cv-00952
AGIS Software Development LLC v. Trimble Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Agis Software Development LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Tyler Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00954, E.D. Tex., 12/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer-aided dispatch and mobile public safety software suites infringe patents related to the creation and management of ad hoc, server-mediated digital and voice communication networks.
- Technical Context: The technology enables first responders, military, and other groups to rapidly form temporary, secure communication networks on mobile devices for sharing real-time location data and coordinating activities without pre-configuration.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all three Patents-in-Suit successfully underwent Ex Parte Reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, during which the patentability of all asserted claims was confirmed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-09-21 | Earliest Priority Date for ’251, ’838, and ’829 Patents |
| 2016-09-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 Issues |
| 2016-10-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 Issues |
| 2017-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 Issues |
| 2021-05-27 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for ’838 Patent Issues |
| 2021-06-08 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for ’251 Patent Issues |
| 2021-08-16 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for ’829 Patent Issues |
| 2025-12-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 - “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of coordinating different organizations (e.g., police and fire departments) during an emergency due to a lack of interoperable communication systems and the need to rapidly establish private networks without pre-entering user data (’251 Patent, col. 2:20-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for users with mobile devices to join a temporary, password-protected network by entering a server IP address and a shared network name (’251 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-57). A central server manages communications, receiving location and status data from each participant and forwarding it to all other group members, enabling them to see each other’s positions on an interactive map and coordinate activities through digital and voice channels (’251 Patent, col. 3:15-28; FIG. 5).
- Technical Importance: This server-mediated approach allows for the rapid formation of a common operating picture for groups of users who may not have known each other or shared contact information prior to an event, a critical capability for emergency response (’251 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 24, a system claim directed to a first device, include:
- Receiving a message from a second device relating to joining a group.
- Participating in the group by sending its location information to a server and receiving location information of other group members from the server.
- Presenting a first interactive, georeferenced map with user-selectable symbols representing other devices at their respective locations.
- Sending a request to the server for a second, different georeferenced map.
- Receiving and presenting the second georeferenced map with the symbols.
- Identifying user interaction with the symbols to specify an action and, in response, using an Internet Protocol to send data to the selected devices via the server, where the first device lacks direct access to the IP addresses of the other devices.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 - “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’838 Patent addresses the same problem as the ’251 Patent: the need for disparate emergency response units to establish cross-communication and coordinate activities at the scene of a disaster (’838 Patent, col. 2:16-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a device joins a group network by transmitting a message with a group identifier. Once joined, it participates by exchanging location information via a "first server" and displays group members as symbols on an interactive map. The system also allows the device to request different map data from a "second server" and interact with the symbols to send data to other devices via the first server (’838 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:48-67).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for creating a unified digital and voice network that bridges communication gaps between different organizations in time-critical situations (’838 Patent, col. 2:35-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 54 (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent claim 54, a system claim directed to a first device, include:
- Joining a communication network by transmitting a message with a group identifier.
- Participating in the group by sending its location information to a "first server" and receiving other members' location information from that server.
- Presenting a first interactive, georeferenced map with a first set of symbols representing other devices.
- Sending a request for different georeferenced map data to a "second server."
- Receiving the second georeferenced map data.
- Presenting the second georeferenced map with a second set of symbols.
- Identifying user interaction with the symbols to specify an action and, in response, sending data to the selected devices via the "first server."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 - “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’829 Patent describes a server-mediated communication system where a device can request to join a group. Upon server-authorized acceptance of the request, the device is enabled to repeatedly share its location and participate in remote control operations with other group members. The system facilitates displaying and updating member locations on a georeferenced map and sending messages to remotely control another device (’829 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 34 is asserted (Compl. ¶43).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses product functionalities that allow users to form and join groups, facilitate group participation by exchanging location information via servers, present locations on interactive maps, and permit users to send messages that cause an action or remote control operation on another device (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names a suite of public safety software solutions, including Tyler Enterprise CAD, Enterprise Mobile, Public Safety, Fire & EMS Suite, and integrations with RapidSOS and Carbyne, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are computer-aided dispatch (CAD) and mobile software platforms for public safety agencies, such as fire departments and law enforcement (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these products provide functionalities for real-time data sharing, communication, location tracking, and mapping to improve situational awareness and response times for first responders (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). A screenshot from Defendant's materials describes the Enterprise CAD product as providing "real-time access to data and powerful mapping capabilities, allowing for unparalleled situational awareness" (Compl. p. 7). Another visual shows a series of smartphone screens depicting mobile access to routing details, real-time call narratives, and secure messaging (Compl. p. 8). The complaint also highlights features such as Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and Esri-powered mapping (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’251 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first device programmed to perform operations comprising: receiving a message from a second device, wherein the message relates to joining a group; | Accused Products allow devices to establish groups and exchange messages related to joining groups via interaction with servers. | ¶¶25, 26 | col. 10:36-40 |
| based on receiving the message from the second device, participating in the group, wherein participating in the group includes sending first location information to a server and receiving second location information from the server... | The products facilitate group participation by communicating with a server to send and receive location information. | ¶¶25, 26 | col. 3:15-24 |
| presenting, via an interactive display of the first device, a first interactive, georeferenced map and a plurality of user-selectable symbols corresponding to the plurality of second devices... | The products present location information on interactive displays which include interactive maps and user-selectable symbols for other devices/users. | ¶¶25, 26 | col. 6:13-19 |
| sending, from the first device to the server, a request for a second georeferenced map different from the first georeferenced map, wherein the request specifies a map location; | The products permit users to request and display additional maps, for example, by moving the map screen or selecting different map types. | ¶¶25, 26 | col. 3:38-44 |
| identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the user-selectable symbols...and user interaction with the display specifying an action and, based thereon, using an Internet Protocol to send data to the one or more second devices via the server, wherein the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices. | The products permit interaction with the display where a user may select one or more symbols and permit data to be sent to other devices based on that interaction. | ¶¶25, 26 | col. 3:29-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: An issue may arise as to whether the architecture of the Accused Products meets the negative limitation "wherein the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices." Evidence regarding the specific communication protocols and data flows within the accused system will be central to this determination.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the functionality described in Defendant's marketing materials. A potential point of contention will be whether the actual operation of the Accused Products' features, such as "Esri-powered mapping" (Compl. p. 9), performs the specific steps of requesting and presenting a "second georeferenced map" as required by the claim.
’838 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 54) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| joining a communication network corresponding to a group, wherein joining the communication network comprises transmitting a message including an identifier corresponding to the group; | Accused Products allow users to establish groups and exchange messages via interaction with servers. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 10:48-52 |
| participating in the group, wherein participating in the group includes sending first location information to a first server and receiving second location information from the first server... | The products facilitate group participation by communicating with a server to send and receive location information. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 10:53-60 |
| presenting, via an interactive display of the first device, a first interactive, georeferenced map and a first set of one or more user-selectable symbols corresponding to a first set of one or more of the second devices... | The products present location information on interactive displays which include interactive maps with user-selectable symbols corresponding to other devices. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 10:61-67 |
| sending, to a second server, a request for second georeferenced map data different from the first georeferenced map data; | The products allow users to retrieve map information from multiple sources, including different types of maps. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 11:1-3 |
| identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the second set of user-selectable symbols...and user interaction with the display specifying an action and, based thereon, sending third data to the selected one or more second devices via the first server. | The products permit interaction with the display where a user may select one or more symbols and permit data to be sent to other devices based on an interaction. | ¶¶36, 37 | col. 11:10-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 54 recites sending location data to a "first server" and requesting map data from a "second server." A central dispute may be whether the terms "first server" and "second server" require structurally separate hardware or if they can be construed to cover logically distinct services that may reside on the same physical server or in a distributed cloud environment.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide detail on the server architecture of the Accused Products. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system, which integrates third-party mapping from Esri (Compl. p. 9), uses a "second server" for map data that is distinct from the "first server" used for location data exchange, as recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "georeferenced map"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’251 and ’838 patents. Its construction is critical because infringement hinges on whether the mapping displays in the Accused Products, which integrate commercial mapping technology (Compl. p. 9), fall within the scope of this term as used in the patents.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term without providing a special definition, suggesting it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. It describes the display of a "geographical map and georeferenced entities" (’251 Patent, col. 6:20-22), which supports a general interpretation covering any map that relates display positions to real-world spatial coordinates.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the device's internal CPU includes "databases and software application programs that provide for a geographical map" (’251 Patent, col. 6:20-23). This language could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring the map data to be stored locally or be part of an integrated, self-contained application, as opposed to being streamed from a third-party service.
The Term: "first server" / "second server"
- Context and Importance: These terms are used in Claim 54 of the ’838 Patent to distinguish the server handling location information ("first server") from the one providing map data ("second server"). Practitioners may focus on these terms because if the Accused Products use a single, monolithic server architecture for both functions, a dispute over infringement is likely.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "Server" that serves a dual role as both a "forwarder of IP communications" and a "database from which data can be requested (i.e. maps, satellite images...)" (’838 Patent, col. 3:15-41). This could support a functional interpretation where "first server" and "second server" refer to distinct software functions or services, regardless of whether they are on the same physical machine.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s explicit use of two different terms ("first" and "second") may imply a structural distinction is required. A defendant could argue that the plain language requires two physically separate servers, and since the patent specification itself does not explicitly disclose a two-server architecture, the claim may lack written description support or may not read on a single-server system.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant intentionally instructs customers to infringe through materials such as "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installations, and/or user guides" that teach the use of the accused functionalities (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 33, 44).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It asserts that Plaintiff's CEO communicated with Defendant's public safety division on several occasions, providing demonstrations and materials identifying the AGIS patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 34, 45). The complaint further alleges that Defendant maintains a "policy of not reviewing the patents of others," which it characterizes as willful blindness (Id.).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural congruence: Does the server architecture of the Accused Products align with the specific requirements of the asserted claims? For the ’838 Patent in particular, this raises the question of whether its "first server" and "second server" limitations require physically distinct machines or can be read functionally onto a single-server or cloud-based system that performs both location-data and map-data functions.
- A second central question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "georeferenced map," as disclosed in the context of early 2000s PDA technology, be construed to cover the sophisticated, third-party mapping services (e.g., Esri) integrated into the modern Accused Products?
- A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be the nature of pre-suit knowledge: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to substantiate the alleged communications and demonstrations with Defendant, and can the alleged "policy of not reviewing the patents of others" be proven and legally established as willful blindness?