Lattice Tech LLC v. BH Security LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: BH Security, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00109, N.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for providing an emergency response using internet-based communications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols to connect a user's device with a central monitoring service, which then automatically contacts a prioritized list of responders.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 - "System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153, issued January 17, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art emergency response systems, which were often tethered to a home's public switched telephone network (PSTN) line. This limited their use to a specific location and, in an emergency, a user might be too far from the device's speakerphone to communicate the nature of the problem, potentially leading to unnecessary emergency dispatches or reluctance by the user to activate the system (’153 Patent, col. 1:29-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a portable user device communicates over the internet with a "monitoring database" (’153 Patent, Abstract). This database stores a user-defined, prioritized list of emergency contacts and their preferred contact methods (e.g., phone, email, SMS) (’153 Patent, col. 4:11-27). When an alert is triggered, the system automatically processes this priority list, attempting to notify contacts in sequence using internet protocols (like VoIP) or traditional telephone networks until a response is secured (’153 Patent, col. 2:10-25). The overall architecture is depicted in the patent's Figure 1.
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach represented a step beyond simple location tracking or PSTN-based alarms by combining user monitoring with user-initiated, automated, multi-modal contact sequences over the internet (’153 Patent, col. 1:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, reserving the right to identify specific claims later (Compl. ¶11). Independent method claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • Establishing a monitoring database with an ID for a user device.
  • Storing a plurality of contacts and contact methods in the database.
  • Arranging the contacts and methods in a "priority order determined by the user."
  • Establishing IP addresses for both the monitoring database and the user device.
  • Establishing communication over the Internet between the database and the user device.
  • Transmitting an alert from the user device to the database.
  • Automatically establishing communication with a contact according to the priority order.
  • Receiving an "accepted," "not accepted," or "unresponsive" response from the contact.
  • Automatically establishing communication with another contact according to the priority order until an "accepted response" is received.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are emergency response systems that "practice the technology claimed by the '153 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It provides no specific technical details about how the accused products operate, instead incorporating by reference an unattached "Exhibit 2" which purportedly contains claim charts comparing the products to the patent claims (Compl. ¶16-17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the '153 Patent because they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '153 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements within the body of the document. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached Exhibit 2, which are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶17). The narrative theory is that the Defendant's products are emergency response systems that operate in a manner covered by the patent’s claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products perform each limitation of the asserted claims. Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, discovery will be required to determine if the accused products actually implement, for example, a "priority order determined by the user" or an automated escalation process that continues until an "accepted response" is received, as required by claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: The case may turn on the precise operational logic of the accused systems. A key question is whether the Defendant's notification system functions in the specific, sequential, and automated manner claimed, or if it operates differently, for example, by alerting multiple contacts simultaneously or involving manual intervention from a call center operator at a stage the patent claims is automatic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"priority order determined by the user" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the automated notification logic. The outcome of the case could depend on how much control and what type of ordering is required to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the scope of the automated contact sequence required for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "The contacts may be defined by the user and the list may be accessible through any web-based application to allow the user to update or modify the list," suggesting that any user-configurable ordered list could suffice (’153 Patent, col. 4:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides a more detailed example where a single contact has a prioritized list of contact methods (e.g., home phone, then work phone, then cell phone) (’153 Patent, col. 4:23-27). A defendant could argue this implies the "priority order" requires a more complex, multi-level hierarchy, not just a simple list of names.

"automatically establishing communication with another contact ... until the monitoring database receives an accepted response" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the escalation logic of the system. The definitions of "automatically" and "accepted response" are critical to determining whether a system infringes.
• Intrinsic evidence for interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Automatically" could be interpreted broadly to mean any system-initiated contact that occurs without contemporaneous human intervention from the monitoring service.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts, such as Figure 14, depict a specific, programmed process for handling busy signals, no-answers, and rejections, before moving to the next contact (e.g., step 274) (’153 Patent, FIG. 14). A party could argue that "automatically" requires this type of deterministic, pre-programmed escalation. Likewise, an "accepted response" might be construed narrowly to require an explicit, machine-readable confirmation (e.g., a key press), as opposed to merely a person answering the phone.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the '153 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the '153 Patent acquired no later than the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues its infringing activities (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Given that the complaint relies on an unattached exhibit for its infringement contentions, a primary question for the case will be one of evidence: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, through discovery, that the accused products in fact perform the specific, multi-step process of automated, prioritized contact escalation and response validation as recited in the patent’s independent claims?

2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim construction. A core issue will be whether the term "priority order determined by the user" requires the complex, multi-method hierarchy described in the patent’s specific embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any user-configurable, ordered list of contacts. The resolution of this and other terms will be critical in determining the boundary between the patented invention and non-infringing systems.