DCT

6:09-cv-00498

Child Protect LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-04-18 Priority Date for ’782 and ’700 Patents
2006-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,046,782 Issues
2008-08-22 Helio acquired by Virgin Mobile
2009-01-09 Alltel acquired by Verizon
2009-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,515,700 Issues
2009-11-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,046,782 - “Telephone Call Control System and Methods” (Issued May 16, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies two primary problems arising from the proliferation of telephones, particularly mobile phones: the high costs incurred from uncontrolled use by individuals like children or employees, and the safety risks and distractions caused by receiving unwanted calls at inopportune times, such as while driving (’782 Patent, col. 1:26-32, col. 2:2-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system embedded in a telephone that restricts both incoming and outgoing calls by checking them against pre-defined "authorized" lists (’782 Patent, col. 2:38-50). For incoming calls, the system compares the caller's information (e.g., Caller-ID) to an authorized list and connects the call only if a match is found. A key aspect of the invention is the ability for a specifically authorized caller to request and receive the telephone handset's geographic position (’782 Patent, col. 7:26-44, Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents an early approach to integrating granular, user-administered parental controls and location tracking directly into a telecommunication device's core functionality, rather than relying solely on network-level blocking or third-party services.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • creating a list of authorized callers;
    • storing the authorized caller list;
    • monitoring incoming calls;
    • determining whether an incoming call is from an authorized caller;
    • connecting the incoming call if it is from an authorized caller; and
    • reporting position information to the authorized caller if properties associated with the caller indicate they are authorized to request it, where the list includes a "position information request authorization attribute."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,515,700 - “Methods for Controlling Telephone Position Reporting” (Issued April 7, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’782 patent, this patent addresses the same general problems but focuses more specifically on securing the process of reporting a telephone's location (’700 Patent, col. 1:11-17). The implicit problem is ensuring that only properly vetted individuals can access a user's location data.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where an administrator first provides "authorization information" (e.g., a PIN) to gain programming access to the device (’700 Patent, col. 7:46-50, Fig. 4). Once validated, the administrator can create and store a list of "authorized callers" who are permitted to request the phone's position. The system then monitors for incoming requests and will only provide the handset's position if the request comes from a caller on that stored list (’700 Patent, col. 11:8-20).
  • Technical Importance: This patent details a specific method for establishing and enforcing access control over a device's location-reporting feature, a critical function for privacy and security in location-based services.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • receiving authorization information;
    • if the information is valid, providing an opportunity to enter a list of authorized callers who can determine the handset's position;
    • receiving and storing the list of authorized callers;
    • receiving a request for the position of the telephone handset;
    • providing the position of the handset if the request is from a caller on the authorized list.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are a set of mobile carrier services identified by their marketing names: Sprint’s “Sprint Family Locator,” AT&T’s “AT&T Family Map,” Verizon’s “Verizon Chaperone,” Alltel’s “Alltel Family Finder,” and Virgin Mobile/Helio’s “Buddy Beacon” (Compl. ¶¶17-22, 32-37).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are services that, by making, using, or selling them, Defendants practice the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17-22). Based on their names, these services appear to be marketed to families for the purpose of tracking the location of a family member’s mobile device and potentially managing its communications. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on how these services operate.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a high-level, notice-pleading style of infringement allegation, identifying the accused products and asserted claims without including a detailed element-by-element mapping. The following charts summarize the infringement theory as implied by the complaint's allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’782 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
creating a list of authorized callers; ... storing the authorized caller list; ... wherein the authorized caller properties include a position information request authorization attribute. The complaint’s theory suggests that Defendants' services provide a mechanism for a primary user (e.g., a parent) to create and store a list of authorized contacts who are permitted to perform certain actions, such as locating the phone. ¶17-22 col. 2:41-44
monitoring incoming calls; determining whether an incoming call is from an authorized caller; connecting the incoming call if the incoming call is from an authorized caller... The complaint alleges infringement of methods covered by the patent, which includes controlling calls based on an authorized list. The implied theory is that Defendants' services provide features to screen or permit calls based on pre-set rules. ¶17-22 col. 6:31-50
reporting position information to the authorized caller if the properties associated with the authorized caller indicate that the authorized caller can request such information... The complaint alleges that Defendants' services, such as the "Sprint Family Locator" and "AT&T Family Map," infringe by providing the core functionality of reporting a telephone's geographic location to an authorized user upon request. ¶17-22 col. 7:26-44

’700 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving authorization information; if the authorization information is valid, providing an opportunity to enter a list of authorized callers... The complaint implies that setting up the accused services requires an administrator (e.g., a parent) to provide credentials (authorization information) to gain access and subsequently define which other users are authorized to view the phone's location. ¶32-37 col. 7:46-59
receiving and storing the list of authorized callers; The complaint's theory suggests that Defendants' systems receive and store the list of users who are permitted by the administrator to request the phone's location. ¶32-37 col. 7:55-59
receiving a request for the position of the telephone handset; providing the position of the telephone handset in response to said request, if the request is received from any one of the authorized callers. The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused services receive requests for location from users and provide the phone's position back to those users, but only if the requesting user is on the pre-approved list created by the administrator. ¶32-37 col. 11:15-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what specific technical steps do the accused services actually perform? The complaint does not detail whether the services create a "list of authorized callers" that functions in the specific manner claimed, particularly with a "position information request authorization attribute" as required by claim 1 of the ’782 Patent. The defense may argue its security and permissioning systems operate in a fundamentally different way.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of key claim terms. For instance, does the "authorization information" required by the ’700 Patent encompass a standard web login, or does the specification imply a more device-specific PIN or key? The degree to which the Defendants' systems map onto the claim limitations will be a central issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’782 Patent:

    • The Term: "position information request authorization attribute"
    • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and is not a standard term of art. Its meaning is critical for determining infringement, as Plaintiff must show that Defendants' systems associate such an "attribute" with authorized callers. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a very specific limitation that may not be present in generic permission systems.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain meaning: any data or property associated with a caller that indicates they are allowed to request position information.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue the term should be limited to a specific flag or data field as part of the "authorized caller list" data structure described in the patent (e.g., col. 2:41-44), rather than a more general permission status within a complex server-side application.

  • For the ’700 Patent:

    • The Term: "authorization information"
    • Context and Importance: This is the gateway limitation in claim 1; without valid "authorization information," the claimed method of creating an authorized list cannot begin. The scope of this term will determine what type of security mechanism infringes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally, and a party could argue it covers any form of authentication, such as a username/password combination used to log into a web portal that controls the service.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes a specific programming method that begins by requesting a "PIN code, PKI key, biometric identifier, or other authorization information" to program the handset itself (col. 7:45-49, Fig. 4). This could support a narrower construction limited to information used to directly program the device, not a remote server.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of contributory and induced infringement for both patents (e.g., Compl. ¶17, ¶32). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that allegedly instruct customers to perform the infringing methods.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful," but it requests treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that the case is exceptional under § 285, which are remedies associated with willful or egregious infringement (Compl. p. 9). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had knowledge of the patents before the lawsuit was filed.

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

  1. A Definitional Scope Question: Can the specific claim limitations, such as an "authorized caller list" containing a "position information request authorization attribute" ('782 patent), be construed broadly enough to read on the likely architecture of Defendants' server-based location services, or are the claims limited to the device-centric embodiments described in the patent?
  2. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: As the complaint only identifies the accused services by name, a central issue will be what evidence emerges during discovery regarding how these services technically operate. The viability of the infringement case will depend entirely on whether the backend systems and user interfaces of the "Family Locator" and "Family Map" services can be shown to practice the specific, sequential steps recited in the asserted claims.
  3. A Question of Patent Locus: Does the infringement occur on the handset, on the defendants' servers, or both? The claims are directed to methods of controlling and reporting information from a "telephone handset," but the accused instrumentalities are network services. Resolving where the claimed method steps are actually performed will be critical for both infringement and damages.