Lab Technology LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00331, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified Microsoft products infringe a patent related to methods for obtaining the location of a mobile phone for emergency or other location-based services.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of accurately locating mobile and VoIP-based callers, a critical function for routing emergency services like E911.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The patent is part of a continuation chain dating back to 2005, which may be relevant for evaluating prior art. The complaint’s infringement allegations rely entirely on an external exhibit (Exhibit 2), which was not filed with the complaint itself, raising potential pleading sufficiency questions.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973 - “Method and system for obtaining emergency caller location”

Issued August 6, 2013 (’973 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the growing challenge of providing accurate location information for emergency calls made from non-traditional telephone services like cellular and Voice over IP (VoIP), where a user's physical location is not fixed to a specific address as it is with conventional landlines (ʼ973 Patent, col. 2:15-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a mobile device determines its location by first obtaining the identity of its current wireless base station. It compares this "current" identity to a "stored" identity. If they do not match (indicating the user has moved), the device obtains a new "subscriber location" corresponding to the new base station and sends this updated location to a phone system, such as an emergency response system (ʼ973 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:6-57).
• Technical Importance: The described method provided a framework for extending automated location identification, a cornerstone of the E911 system, to the nomadic context of mobile and internet-based telecommunications (ʼ973 Patent, col. 2:54-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '973 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim. Its essential elements include:
  • Obtaining, by a mobile phone, a current wireless base station identity.
  • Obtaining, by the mobile phone, a stored wireless base station identity.
  • Determining, by the mobile phone, that the current and stored identities do not match.
  • Obtaining, by the mobile phone, a subscriber location corresponding to the current base station identity.
  • Sending the subscriber location from the mobile phone to the phone system.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are identified in charts within Exhibit 2, an exhibit that is incorporated by reference but was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '973 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within "charts comparing the Exemplary '973 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint itself contains no claim charts or element-by-element breakdown of the infringement theory.

The narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '973 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the referenced Exhibit 2, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary procedural question will be whether the complaint, which lacks identification of any specific accused product and outsources all infringement details to an unfiled exhibit, meets the plausibility pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal.
  • Technical Questions: Assuming the case proceeds, a key technical question will be what evidence exists that any Microsoft product or service performs the specific sequence of steps recited in the claims. Specifically, evidence will be required to show that a "mobile phone" (as defined by the patent) performs an on-device comparison of a "current" and "stored" wireless base station identity to trigger a location update that is then sent to a "phone system."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mobile phone" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for defining the scope of accused devices. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the claims read on devices beyond traditional cellular handsets, such as laptops, tablets, or other hardware running software-based calling features.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also uses the more general term "subscriber phone equipment" (e.g., ’973 Patent, col. 4:48), which could support construing "mobile phone" to encompass a wider range of communication devices.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the specific term "mobile phone" throughout the claims, in contrast to the broader terms used in the specification, could support an argument that the claim scope is intentionally limited to cellular handsets.

• The Term: "wireless base station identity" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core technical input for the claimed method. Its definition is central to infringement, as it must map directly to a feature of the accused technology. The dispute will likely concern what types of network identifiers (e.g., Cell ID, Wi-Fi BSSID, MAC address, GPS coordinates) meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not highly specific, referring generally to radio network access equipment and various multiplexing technologies (TDMA, CDMA, FDMA), suggesting the term is not tied to one particular wireless standard (’973 Patent, col. 4:10-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that in the context of the patent's 2005 priority date, the term should be limited to the types of cellular base station identifiers prevalent at that time, potentially excluding newer or different types of identifiers like those used in modern Wi-Fi or 5G networking.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Microsoft induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on Defendant's alleged knowledge of infringement acquired from the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

• A central procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that fails to identify any specific accused product and contains no substantive infringement theory within its four corners, instead incorporating them by reference to an unfiled exhibit, state a plausible claim for relief?
• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "mobile phone", as used in the patent, be construed broadly to cover modern computing devices like laptops and tablets that provide calling functionality, or is it limited to the traditional cellular phones contemplated at the time of the invention?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof will be offered to show that any accused Microsoft technology performs the specific, multi-step method of the claims, particularly the on-device determination that a "wireless base station identity" has changed, which in turn triggers the obtaining and sending of a new "subscriber location"?