DCT
6:22-cv-00970
ALD Social LLC v. AT&T Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ALD Social LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: AT&T Mobility LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00970, W.D. Tex., 11/07/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas and committing the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wireless Emergency Alerts system infringes two patents related to technology for analyzing aggregated wireless device location data to detect and alert on potential public safety risks.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using location-based services (LBS) to monitor the aggregate formation, density, and movement of wireless devices to predict public safety risks, such as riots or flash mobs, and provide early warnings.
- Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In November 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued certificates for IPR2023-01398 and IPR2023-01399, cancelling all claims (1-14) of the '054 patent and all claims (1-16) of the '158 patent, respectively. These post-filing events raise fundamental questions about the continued viability of the litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-02 | Priority Date for '054 and '158 Patents |
| 2015-11-24 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,198,054 |
| 2016-07-26 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,402,158 |
| 2022-11-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,198,054 - "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)"
Issued November 24, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art location-based services were focused on applications for individual wireless device users, rather than leveraging aggregate location data to detect and analyze large-scale crowd behavior for public safety purposes (׳054 Patent, col. 1:24-27, col. 2:46-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "Aggregate Location Dynometer" (ALD), a system residing on a network server that analyzes location data from many wireless devices to predict public safety risks. It comprises a "Network Monitor" to detect a "viral event" (e.g., a rapid congregation of devices), a "Crowd Risk Determinant" to analyze the crowd's shape and movement against risk rules, and an "Alert Module" to notify authorities if a risk threshold is met (׳054 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology claims to provide authorities with a "bird's-eye view" of crowd formation, enabling early warnings for events like riots or flash mobs before they are fully consummated (׳054 Patent, col. 2:56-62, col. 3:22-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- An aggregate location dynometer in a physical wireless network server, comprising:
- a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a viral event;
- a location aggregator to obtain a location of each of a plurality of wireless devices associated with said viral event;
- a crowd risk determinant, triggered by said network monitor, to determine a crowd risk based on an aggregation of said location of each of said plurality of wireless devices associated with said viral event; and
- an alert module to initiate an alert message relating to a public safety risk determined from an analysis of said viral event.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶18).
U.S. Patent No. 9,402,158 - "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)"
Issued July 26, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent '054 Patent, the '158 Patent addresses the perceived gap in using aggregate wireless device data for proactive public safety monitoring, as opposed to individual-focused location services (׳158 Patent, col. 1:20-24, col. 2:50-55).
- The Patented Solution: The '158 Patent describes a similar ALD system that monitors a wireless network for a "potential viral event," which is defined by an aggregation of device locations. A "crowd risk determinant" then assesses this aggregation to determine if it constitutes a public safety risk, which can trigger an alert (׳158 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-44).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a system for early warning of "possible crowd related risks, e.g., riots," by leveraging the ubiquitous nature of wireless devices to monitor crowd dynamics in real time (׳158 Patent, col. 7:57-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- An aggregate location dynometer in a physical wireless network server, comprising:
- a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a potential viral event indicated by an aggregation of current locations of a plurality of physical wireless devices associated with said potential viral event; and
- a crowd risk determinant to assess said aggregation of said current locations of said plurality of physical wireless devices pertaining to said potential viral event triggered by said network monitor.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is identified as "AT&T's Wireless Emergency Alerts system" (WEA) (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not describe the technical operation of the accused WEA system, providing only a link to a general support webpage (Compl. ¶16). It alleges that the Accused Products are made available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States and Texas (Compl. ¶21, 28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits C and D) that purportedly describe how the Accused Products infringe claim 1 of each patent-in-suit; however, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint provided for analysis (Compl. ¶23, 30). The following summary is based on the narrative infringement allegations.
'054 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a viral event | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶18 | col. 9:12-14 |
| a location aggregator to obtain a location of each of a plurality of wireless devices... | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶18 | col. 9:15-17 |
| a crowd risk determinant... to determine a crowd risk based on an aggregation of said location... | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶18 | col. 9:18-22 |
| an alert module to initiate an alert message relating to a public safety risk determined from an analysis... | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶18 | col. 9:23-25 |
'158 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a network monitor to monitor a wireless network for an indication of a potential viral event... | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶25 | col. 9:19-24 |
| a crowd risk determinant to assess said aggregation of said current locations... triggered by said network monitor | The complaint does not specify which feature of the Accused Product performs this function. | ¶25 | col. 9:25-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A principal question is one of operational function. The patents claim a system that aggregates device location data to autonomously determine a crowd risk. The accused WEA system is publicly understood as a service that receives geographically-defined alerts from government authorities and broadcasts them to devices in that area. The complaint does not provide evidence that the WEA system performs the claimed aggregation and risk-determination functions.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the term "viral event," which the patent describes as an organic formation of devices detected from network traffic patterns (e.g., density or movement) ('054 Patent, col. 4:40-44), can be construed to read on the WEA system's function of relaying an alert that originates from an external, non-network source like a public safety agency.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term:
"crowd risk determinant"('054 Patent, cl. 1; '158 Patent, cl. 1)- Context and Importance: This term represents the analytical core of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether any component of the accused WEA system can be said to "determine" or "assess" a crowd risk as claimed, versus merely relaying a pre-determined alert.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional ("to determine a crowd risk"), which a plaintiff might argue could cover any system component that processes information related to a crowd-based public safety issue.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this component as performing specific analytical steps, such as comparing a "viral pattern" to "predetermined risk rules" and analyzing the "shape and movement of wireless devices" ('054 Patent, col. 2:60-65). This language may support a narrower construction requiring autonomous analysis of aggregated location data.
The Term:
"viral event"('054 Patent, cl. 1)- Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed system's operation. Its construction is critical to determining what the "network monitor" must detect. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish between an event detected organically from network traffic and an event communicated from an outside entity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could allow for an argument that it covers any event involving a multitude of wireless devices in a geographic area.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a viral event as occurring when "predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed," such as device density, and is detected by monitoring network traffic ('054 Patent, col. 4:40-44; col. 5:9-15). This suggests the event is one discovered by the system, not an external message received for the system to broadcast.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts (Counts I and II) are limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶18, 25). The complaint does not plead the specific factual elements required to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the ['054 and '158 Patents] were invalid" (Compl. ¶19-20, 26-27). These allegations form the basis for the request for a finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but are not tied to specific facts demonstrating pre- or post-suit knowledge of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Procedural Viability: The central issue in this case is procedural. Given that the USPTO has cancelled all asserted claims of both patents-in-suit via Inter Partes Review, a dispositive question is whether there remains any valid legal basis for the infringement action to proceed.
- Functional Mismatch: Should the case proceed, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused WEA system, a geographically-targeted alert broadcast service, perform the distinctly different functions claimed in the patents—namely, aggregating device locations to autonomously determine a crowd risk?
- Definitional Scope: The dispute would also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term
"viral event", described in the patents as an organic crowd formation detected from network traffic, be construed to cover the WEA system’s function of relaying an alert generated by an external government authority?