BK Technologies Inc v. AT&T Mobility LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: BK Technologies, Inc. (Florida)
  • Defendant: AT&T Mobility, LLC (Delaware) and AT&T Services, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Findlay Craft, P.C.; Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00090, E.D. Tex., 02/03/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have committed infringing acts and maintain regular and established places of business in the district, including retail stores, cellular base stations, the "AT&T Plano Campus," and the "AT&T Foundry."
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FirstNet Fusion Communication Service infringes patents related to systems and methods for managing access to Push-to-Talk-over-Cellular (PoC) communication networks, particularly by granting temporary access to non-subscribers.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses interoperability challenges in public safety communications by allowing ad-hoc, temporary talkgroups to be created over cellular networks that include users from outside the primary network.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringing activities as of November 13, 2025, via a notice letter, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,997,568 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING ACCESS TO A PUSH-TO-TALK-OVER-CELLULAR COMMUNICATION NETWORK

Issued May 28, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the lack of communication interoperability between different public safety agencies during emergency situations, where agencies may use different communication devices or operate on different channels or talkgroups, making coordination difficult '568 Patent, col. 1:15-24 Setting up customized, interoperable talkgroups during an emergency is described as potentially "prohibitively complex and time-consuming" '568 Patent, col. 1:30-33
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for rapidly granting temporary access to a Push-to-Talk-over-Cellular (PoC) talkgroup to "non-subscriber" devices '568 Patent, abstract A control device, such as a server, manages the talkgroup and can transmit a communication (e.g., a text message or email) to a non-subscriber device '568 Patent, col. 5:11-15 This communication contains a link for the non-subscriber to download the necessary PoC software application, allowing them to join and communicate within the secure talkgroup for a predetermined period '568 Patent, col. 5:4-8 '568 Patent, col. 5:25-29
• Technical Importance: This system leverages the widespread availability of smartphones to create ad-hoc, interoperable communication networks for first responders, bypassing the limitations of traditional, disparate land mobile radio systems '568 Patent, col. 1:40-48

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 '568 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶20
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Providing a control device configured to provide a PoC service and manage a first POC talkgroup.
  • Granting a first non-subscriber device access to the POC service and the first POC talkgroup.
  • Transmitting, from the control device to the first non-subscriber device, a first communication that includes a link to download a POC software application configured to join the talkgroup.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims '568 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶20, fn. 1

U.S. Patent No. 12,375,890 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING ACCESS TO A PUSH-TO-TALK-OVER-CELLULAR COMMUNICATION NETWORK

Issued July 29, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '568 Patent, the '890 Patent addresses the same problem of enabling interoperable communications for public safety agencies that may use different systems '890 Patent, col. 1:22-28
• The Patented Solution: The '890 Patent describes a similar method centered on a control device managing a PoC talkgroup and granting access to non-subscribers '890 Patent, abstract The claims emphasize a process where the control device grants access and transmits a communication with a download link, thereby permitting a non-subscriber to join and communicate '890 Patent, claim 1 The specification details how an administrator with a "subscriber device" can initiate this process by providing the non-subscriber's contact information to the control device '890 Patent, col. 4:40-67
• Technical Importance: This method provides a clear workflow for an authorized user (a "subscriber") to quickly bring an outside party (a "non-subscriber") into a secure communication group, which is critical for dynamic emergency response scenarios '890 Patent, col. 9:5-12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 '890 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶21
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Providing a control device configured to provide a PoC service and manage a first POC talkgroup.
  • Controlling the control device to grant a first non-subscriber device access to the POC service and the talkgroup.
  • Transmitting, from the control device to the first non-subscriber device, a first communication including a link to download a POC software application.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims '890 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶21, fn. 1

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the FirstNet Fusion Communication Service ("FirstNet Fusion") Compl. ¶18

Functionality and Market Context

• FirstNet Fusion is described as a service that allows first responders to "rapidly create customizable talkgroups and channels for always-on or on-demand needs" Compl. ¶24 A visual from the complaint's exhibits highlights that these groups can be "set up in seconds" Compl. ¶24
• A key alleged function is its ability to operate "across carriers," allowing a user with a "non-FirstNet SIM" (identified by the Plaintiff as a "non-subscriber") to be provisioned with a license to access and communicate through Fusion talkgroups Compl. ¶25 Another visual from the complaint's exhibits states, "Users on any carrier can then communicate through Fusion talkgroups" Compl. ¶25
• The service is marketed as "FirstNet Built with AT&T" and is positioned as a mission-critical communication platform for first responders, placing it in direct competition with the plaintiff's own systems Compl. ¶¶18-19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the pleading; this analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

'568 Patent Infringement Allegations

'890 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a user with a "non-FirstNet SIM" who is then "provision[ed]" with a FirstNet Fusion license qualifies as a "non-subscriber device" under the patents' definition, which refers to a device that "does not subscribe to the service provided by the operator of the control device" '568 Patent, col. 3:12-15 The defense may argue that provisioning a license makes the device a "subscriber" for the purposes of the service.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the FirstNet Fusion service onboards new users. A key factual dispute may be whether AT&T's process for provisioning licenses to non-FirstNet users involves "transmitting... a first communication including a link to download a POC software application," as explicitly required by the asserted independent claims of both the '568 and '890 patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"non-subscriber device"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the invention, which is premised on bringing outsiders into a communication group. The infringement theory depends on mapping this term to devices with "non-FirstNet SIMs" Compl. ¶25 Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused system's cross-carrier functionality falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition: "the phrase 'non-subscriber device' may refer to a device that does not subscribe to the service provided by an operator of the control device" '568 Patent, col. 3:12-15 This could be read broadly to include any device not already part of the primary service.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides examples of non-subscribers in the context of different public safety jurisdictions and the integration of Land Mobile Radio (LMR) networks '568 Patent, col. 7:29-43 This context could support an argument that "non-subscriber" implies a device that remains part of a separate, distinct communications system, rather than one that is simply given a license to join the primary system.

"a link to download a POC software application"

• Context and Importance: This is a specific, functional step in the claimed method. The complaint's allegations focus on "provisioning licenses" without detailing the mechanism Compl. ¶25 Infringement may turn on whether the accused process meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is not limited to a specific format (e.g., a URL) and could encompass any instruction or mechanism within a communication that directs a user to obtain the required software. The claim language is functional: "configured to join the first POC talkgroup" '568 Patent, claim 1
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment describes the "first communication" as a "text message, email message, or message sent via another suitable communication protocol" '568 Patent, col. 5:11-14 This could be used to argue that the "link" must be an element within such a message that a user can directly act upon, rather than a more abstract "provisioning" process that happens on the back-end.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants "actively encourage and instruct their authorized third parties, customers, and end users to use the FirstNet Fusion Communication Service in ways that directly infringe" '568 Patent, ¶31 '890 Patent, ¶39 The complaint does not cite specific instructional materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement, stemming from a notice letter sent to Defendants on November 13, 2025 '568 Patent, ¶34 '890 Patent, ¶42

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "non-subscriber device," which in the patent is defined as a device not subscribing to the control device operator's service, be construed to cover a device with a "non-FirstNet SIM" that is then actively provisioned with a license for the accused FirstNet Fusion service?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused FirstNet Fusion service's method for onboarding cross-carrier users actually involve "transmitting... a link to download a POC software application" as required by the asserted claims, or does its "provisioning" process use a different mechanism that falls outside the claim scope? The current complaint lacks the factual detail to resolve this question.