DCT

2:26-cv-00011

Avant Location Tech LLC v. ADT Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00011, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain regular and established places of business in the district, including offices in Tyler and Beaumont.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home security systems and associated mobile applications, which utilize geofencing technology, infringe five patents related to methods and systems for monitoring the presence of a mobile device within a defined special area.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a mobile device's location to define virtual geographic boundaries (geofences) that trigger automated actions or services, a key feature in the modern smart home and security market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-28 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 Issued
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030 Issued
2016-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621 Issued
2017-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 Issued
2018-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 Issued
2026-01-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,738,040 - *"Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a lack of flexibility in prior art mobile networks, which could not easily add one or more "special areas" for monitoring a mobile device's presence without physically modifying the radio "guide units" broadcasting in those areas (’040 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the mobile network associates a special area with a specific mobile device by transmitting "checking data" to that device. The mobile device stores this data and uses it to determine if a signal it receives from a local radio source is a "distinctive defining signal" for one of its designated special areas. When the device determines it is in a special area, it sends an "updating signal" to the network, which can then adapt services (e.g., billing rates) accordingly. This system allows new special areas to be defined for a device remotely without modifying the local radio hardware (’040 Patent, col. 2:40-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a flexible, software-based method for mobile operators to offer location-dependent services without requiring costly hardware modifications for each new special area (’040 Patent, col. 2:7-12, 2:44-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’040 Patent is a method with the following essential elements:
    • Repeatedly transmitting from a "radio communication defining device" a "radio distinctive defining signal" that defines a special area by its coverage.
    • The mobile station observing the channel and processing the signal to determine if it is receiving a defining signal.
    • The mobile station determining if the received signal is a "distinctive defining signal" that defines a special area, and thereby determining its presence in that area.
    • Sending an "updating signal" from the mobile station to the mobile telephone network about its presence, where the sending is uncorrelated to phone call establishment.
    • Routing the updating signal to "special operating means" that adapt an operating parameter.
    • Associating the special areas with the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to it, which the mobile station then uses to determine if a received signal is a "distinctive defining signal."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,009,720 - *"Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’040 Patent, the ’720 Patent addresses the lack of flexibility in prior art systems for adding new location-based service areas without modifying hardware (’720 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method where a mobile station receives and processes a "distinctive defining signal" that defines a special area. A key feature is that this signal also includes information indicating whether the transmitting device is in a "predetermined environment." Based on this, the mobile station sends an "updating signal" to a server, which can then adjust an "operating parameter" such as a "tariff and a service flag." The patent describes the special area being defined by the signal's coverage area, an intersection of coverage areas, or a sum of coverage areas (’720 Patent, col. 21:4-30).
  • Technical Importance: The invention adds a layer of validation by including information about the "predetermined environment," which could help prevent fraud or spoofing related to location-based services (’720 Patent, col. 7:56-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’720 Patent is a method with the following essential elements:
    • Receiving and processing a "distinctive defining signal" in a mobile station.
    • The signal defines a "special area" by its coverage area, a portion of an intersecting coverage area, or a sum of coverage areas.
    • The signal includes information indicating whether the "radio communication defining device" is in a "predetermined environment."
    • Sending an "updating signal" from the mobile station to servers of a "provider of presence related services" about the station's presence in the special area.
    • The updating signal is usable by the servers to adjust an "operating parameter" (e.g., a tariff or service flag).
    • The updating signal itself comprises the information about whether the device is in the predetermined environment.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,119,030, "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area," issued August 25, 2015.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a server-side method for providing presence-related services. It involves storing data that links a mobile station to a special area, transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station, and receiving an "updating signal" from the mobile station about its presence. A processing device then uses this updating signal to determine the mobile station's presence and enable or disable a service accordingly (’030 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ADT's servers, which store user geofence settings, communicate with the user's mobile app, receive location status updates from the app, and enable/disable smart home automations based on those updates, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 75-77).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621, "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area," issued November 1, 2016.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is similar to the ’030 Patent, claiming a server-side method where a "provider of presence related services" (distinct from the mobile network) stores linking data, receives an updating signal from the mobile station identifying its presence, and uses that signal to enable or disable a service based on the presence information (’621 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ADT's system, where ADT (the presence service provider) operates servers that store user geofence data, receive location updates from the user's mobile device via the cellular network, and trigger presence-related services like arming reminders or appliance automation (Compl. ¶¶ 86-88).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032, "Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area," issued April 11, 2017.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method where a mobile station stores and uses "first checking data" to determine if a received signal is distinctive for a special area. A server receives an updating signal from the mobile station, stores its presence status in a parameters database, and can then send "second checking data" back to the mobile station to "modify the special area" (’032 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by ADT's system, where the user's mobile device stores "Home" or "Away" status (first checking data), sends location updates to ADT servers which store parameters, and the servers can send back modified geofence data (second checking data) to the device (Compl. ¶¶ 97-98).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are ADT's smart home security and automation systems, which include mobile applications (e.g., ADT+, ADT Control, Pulse), a central control panel or hub, and various connected devices such as sensors, cameras, and smart locks (Compl. ¶43). The core accused functionality is identified as "geofencing" (Compl. ¶50).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that ADT's geofencing feature allows a user to create a virtual geographic boundary around a location, such as their home (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51). The user's smartphone, running an ADT app, acts as a "Geo-Device" whose location is monitored relative to this boundary (Compl. ¶51). When the smartphone crosses the geofence boundary (entering or exiting), the app sends an updated location status to ADT's servers (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 65). These servers then trigger pre-configured "automation rules and reminders," such as sending arming reminders, adjusting a thermostat, locking doors, or pausing video recording (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53). The complaint presents this geofencing capability as a key feature of ADT's smart home automation and security offerings (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The complaint provides a screenshot from an ADT help article illustrating how a user can create or edit a circular geofence on a map (Compl. p. 27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’040 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) repeatedly transmitting from at least one radio communication defining device a radio distinctive defining signal...that at least partially defines one of the special areas by its coverage The ADT system transmits the definition of the user-created geofence, which defines the special area by its user-defined coverage. ¶51 col. 2:13-18
(b) observing the channel and processing any received signal by the mobile station...to determine whether or not it is receiving a defining signal The user's smartphone with the ADT app observes its location (e.g., via GPS, Wi-Fi signals) to determine its position relative to the defined geofence area. ¶51 col. 2:19-22
(c) processing any received defining signal...and the mobile station determines whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal that at least partially defines one of the special areas, and determines whether or not the mobile station is present in one or more of the special areas The ADT app on the smartphone processes the received geofence definition and its current location to determine if it is inside or outside the geofence, thereby determining its presence in the "special area." ¶52 col. 2:23-28
(d) sending an updating signal from the mobile station to a mobile telephone network about the mobile station presence...where the updating signal sending is uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment The ADT app sends the updated location status (e.g., "Home" or "Away") to ADT's servers via the cellular or Wi-Fi network when the user enters or exits the geofence, independent of any phone call. A screenshot shows how this "Home Away" status is used to automate the system (Compl. p. 32). ¶53
(e) routing the updating signal from the mobile telephone network to special operating means that adapt the value of at least one operating parameter The location update is routed through the network to ADT's servers, which adapt operating parameters to trigger automations like arming reminders, appliance automation, and video recording. ¶53 col. 2:35-39
(f) associating the special areas with the mobile station by transmitting a checking data to the mobile station...this checking data being...used by the mobile station for determining whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal The ADT system associates the geofence with the user's phone by transmitting the geofence definition (checking data) to the ADT app, which uses this data to determine its presence within that specific geofence. A screenshot shows the user selecting a server, which the complaint links to this association process (Compl. p. 31). ¶54 col. 2:40-49

’720 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving and processing the distinctive defining signal in the mobile station, the distinctive defining signal at least defining a special area by one or more of: (1) a coverage area... The ADT app on the user's smartphone receives and processes the user-defined geofence, which defines a special area by its specified coverage and radius. A screenshot of the geofence editing map illustrates this user-defined coverage (Compl. p. 35). ¶63 col. 21:7-15
the distinctive defining signal including information indicating whether or not the radio communication defining device is in a predetermined environment The complaint alleges the defined geofence inherently includes information indicating it is in a predetermined environment, such as the user's home. ¶63 col. 21:16-19
sending from the mobile station via a mobile telephone network an updating signal to one or more servers of a provider of presence related services about the mobile station's presence in the special area The ADT app sends an updating signal (updated location information) via the cellular network to ADT's servers indicating whether the user's phone is within or outside the geofence. ¶65 col. 21:20-24
the updating signal being useable by the one or more servers...to adjust an operating parameter, which comprises one or more of a tariff and a service flag, to adjust, activate, or deactivate the presence related services ADT's servers use the location update to adjust an operating parameter (e.g., a "Home/Away" service flag) which in turn adjusts, activates, or deactivates presence-related services like automated arming reminders or appliance control. ¶¶65-66 col. 21:24-29
and the updating signal comprising the information indicative of whether or not the radio communication defining device is located in the predetermined environment The updating signal sent from the ADT app to the server implicitly contains the information that the presence determination is being made relative to the predetermined environment (e.g., the home geofence). ¶65 col. 21:29-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused geofencing system, which relies on GPS, Wi-Fi, and cellular location data processed by a software application, falls within the scope of the patents' terminology. For instance, a question may arise as to whether a set of geographic coordinates defining a geofence constitutes a "radio distinctive defining signal" transmitted by a "radio communication defining device" as those terms are used in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question may be how the functionality is distributed in the accused system versus the claimed methods. For example, the patents describe a "mobile station" performing key processing steps. The court may need to determine if the "mobile station" (the smartphone with the ADT app) performs all the claimed processing steps, or if some of those steps are performed by remote servers, potentially creating a mismatch with the claim language. Another question may be whether the "Home/Away" status flag in the ADT system functions as the claimed "tariff and a service flag."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’040 Patent:

    • The Term: "radio communication defining device"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to identifying the source of the signal that defines the "special area." The complaint alleges this is met by the ADT system transmitting the geofence definition (Compl. ¶51). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a software-defined boundary based on GPS/Wi-Fi coordinates can be mapped to a physical device transmitting a specific radio signal as described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the device to a specific technology. The specification mentions it can be a "wireless device" or a "base station," suggesting some flexibility beyond just cellular network components (’040 Patent, col. 4:48-49, 4:60-61).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed embodiments focus on concrete hardware such as a "base station" transmitting a special network ID code or a "WIFI, Bluetooth or DECT device" transmitting a distinctive wireless signal, which could support a narrower construction limited to a specific piece of local radio hardware (’040 Patent, col. 6:49-53, 7:43-49).

  • For the ’720 Patent:

    • The Term: "predetermined environment"
    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "distinctive defining signal" to include information indicating whether the transmitting device is in a "predetermined environment." The complaint alleges this is met by the geofence being associated with a location like the user's "home" (Compl. ¶63). The construction of this term is critical because it appears to be a key point of novelty, and its meaning will dictate what kind of validation or location-confirmation is required by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the environment can be broad, including "one or more specific geographical locations (for example several fixed points into a restaurant) or a physical environment that can be mobile (for example a car, a plane or a boat)" (’720 Patent, col. 8:62-65). This could support an interpretation where simply designating a location as "home" suffices.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes methods for confirming the environment is "effectively located," such as by being "physically connected to any fixed network connection points" or being authenticated into a registered system (’720 Patent, col. 8:35-42, 8:66-9:2). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific technical verification of the environment's location, rather than just a user label.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents-in-suit. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant manufacturing and distributing the Accused Products while providing instructions, user manuals, online documentation, and marketing that allegedly encourage and guide customers to use the geofencing features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 67, 78, 89, 99). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that components of the Accused Products, such as the software, are material to the inventions, not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Defendant to be especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 69, 80, 91, 101).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "actual notice of the Asserted Patents, at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶44). This suggests the willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge and continued infringement after the lawsuit was filed.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents' language, which describes "special areas" defined by "radio distinctive defining signals" from a "radio communication defining device," be construed to cover modern geofencing systems where the "special area" is a set of GPS coordinates defined in a software app and presence is determined by the phone's own location services?
  • A second key question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused ADT system, with its division of functionality between the smartphone app, remote ADT servers, and the underlying cellular/Wi-Fi networks, practice the specific sequence of steps and component interactions required by the asserted method claims, particularly regarding which entity (e.g., "mobile station," "special operating means") performs each claimed step?
  • A final evidentiary question may be one of functional correspondence: does the "Home/Away" status flag used in the ADT system to trigger automations perform the same function as the "operating parameter" (e.g., "tariff" or "service flag") described in the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical purpose and operation of these features?