ALD Social LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ALD Social LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01011, W.D. Tex., 09/28/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having regular and established places of business in the district, and committing acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wireless Emergency Alerts system infringes patents related to using aggregate wireless device location data to monitor, analyze, and predict public safety risks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using location-based services (LBS) not for individual tracking but to analyze the collective behavior of many wireless devices to identify and alert authorities to potential crowd-related dangers, such as riots or flash mobs.
• Key Procedural History: The provided documents include Inter Partes Review (IPR) certificates for both patents-in-suit. Petitions for IPR were filed in September 2023, after this complaint was filed. The IPR proceedings concluded with a determination that all claims of both the '054 and '158 patents are cancelled. This post-filing development is dispositive of the infringement claims asserted in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,198,054 - "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)", Issued Nov. 24, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a gap in prior art location-based services, which were focused on locating individual wireless devices rather than analyzing aggregate data from many devices to predict large-scale public safety events. (’054 Patent, col. 1:19-27, col. 2:46-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "Aggregate Location Dynometer" (ALD) system that resides on a network server. The ALD monitors wireless network traffic for a "viral event" (e.g., an abnormal increase in device density), obtains location data for the devices involved, determines a "crowd risk" by analyzing the aggregate data (e.g., the crowd's shape and movement) against historical databases and risk rules, and issues an alert to authorities if a risk threshold is met. (’054 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-41; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide law enforcement and emergency services with an early warning system for potential civil disturbances by leveraging the ubiquitous nature of mobile devices as network sensors. (’054 Patent, col. 8:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • 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.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,402,158 - "Aggregate Location Dynometer (ALD)", Issued Jul. 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '158 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '054 Patent, addresses the same problem of using aggregate device data to predict public safety risks. (’158 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an ALD system that identifies a potential "viral event" based on an aggregation of wireless device locations and then uses a "crowd risk determinant" to assess the public safety risk posed by that aggregation, triggering an alert if necessary. The core technical disclosure is substantially the same as the '054 Patent. (’158 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-41; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent further builds on the concept of using collective mobile device data as a proactive public safety tool, shifting the focus of location services from individual users to crowd dynamics. (’158 Patent, col. 8:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • An aggregate location dynometer in a physical wireless network server, said aggregate location dynometer 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.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Verizon's Wireless Emergency Alerts system" as the Accused Instrumentality. (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides minimal detail about the accused system, offering only a link to a general FAQ page. (Compl. ¶16). Publicly available information describes the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) system as a public safety infrastructure used by government agencies to broadcast geographically targeted alerts regarding imminent threats, AMBER alerts, and presidential alerts to WEA-capable mobile devices. The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the technical operation of Verizon's implementation of this system.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibit C (for the '054 Patent) and Exhibit D (for the '158 Patent) but does not include these exhibits in the filing. (Compl. ¶¶23, 30). The body of the complaint offers no narrative infringement theory or specific facts mapping elements of the accused system to the patent claims. The allegations are limited to boilerplate recitations that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶¶18, 25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific infringement allegations, any analysis is speculative. However, a central dispute would likely arise from a fundamental difference between the patented technology and the accused system.
  • Functional Questions: A primary question for the court would be whether the accused WEA system performs the functions required by the claims. The patents claim a system that monitors network traffic, collects and aggregates device location data, and independently determines a crowd risk based on that analysis. The WEA system, in contrast, is generally understood to be a broadcast system that receives pre-authorized alerts from government entities and transmits them to users in a specific geographic area. What evidence does the complaint provide that Verizon's WEA system actively monitors and analyzes aggregate user location data to generate its own risk determinations as claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "viral event" ('054 Patent, Claim 1) / "potential viral event" ('158 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the system's risk analysis. Its definition is critical to determine the threshold for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether routine network operations or traffic patterns within the accused system meet the patent's definition of an abnormal, crowd-related occurrence.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a viral event is defined as occurring when "one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed," which could include general network metrics. (’054 Patent, col. 4:40-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples tied to crowd formation, such as an "excessive number and/or use of wireless devices for a given area," a "directed convergence of at least two highly dense clusters of markers," and analysis of "the shape a cluster of location markers...is forming." (’054 Patent, col. 5:12-14, col. 5:29-32, col. 7:9-11). This suggests the "viral event" is not just any network anomaly but one specifically indicative of crowd behavior.

• The Term: "crowd risk determinant" ('054 Patent, Claim 1; '158 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the analytical core of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused WEA system performs any function that could be characterized as "determining" or "assessing" a crowd risk, as opposed to simply relaying an alert determined by an external authority.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the component to "determine a crowd risk based on an aggregation of said location." (’054 Patent, col. 9:18-22). This could be argued to cover any logic that processes location data and outputs a risk-related signal.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that this component "compares the viral pattern...with predetermined risk rules" and analyzes "historical cluster information" and "past shape formations." (’054 Patent, col. 2:61-64, col. 4:33-37). This points to a specific, multi-faceted analytical process, not a passive relay function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement in its general allegations (Compl. ¶3) but does not plead a specific count for indirect infringement or allege any supporting facts, such as providing instructions to a third party to perform the infringing acts. The infringement counts are pleaded exclusively under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) for direct infringement. (Compl. ¶¶18, 25).
• 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...were invalid." (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 26-27). These conclusory allegations form the basis for a potential claim of willful infringement but do not specify whether the alleged conduct was pre- or post-suit.

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

1. Patent Validity: The most critical issue is the post-filing cancellation of all claims of both patents-in-suit during Inter Partes Review. This action, while subsequent to the complaint, appears to render the plaintiff’s infringement case moot and is dispositive of the entire dispute.
2. Functional Mismatch: Had the patents remained valid, a central question would be one of technical operation: does Verizon's WEA system, understood to be a public alert broadcast platform, perform the claimed functions of actively monitoring aggregate user location data, analyzing crowd shapes and movements against historical data, and autonomously "determining" a public safety risk?
3. Pleading Sufficiency: A key procedural question is one of factual basis: does the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations of infringement and omits the referenced claim-chart exhibits, satisfy the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading established by federal court precedent?