Lab Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00338, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unspecified products from Defendant infringe a patent related to methods and systems for obtaining the location of an emergency caller.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the public safety challenge of accurately locating users of mobile or Voice over IP (VoIP) telephones during emergency calls, a capability not inherent in legacy 911 systems.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is part of a family tracing its priority to an application filed in 2005. The patent document indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in the family. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

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”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,503,973, issued August 6, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty in providing accurate location information for emergency calls made from mobile technologies like cellular and VoIP phones. Unlike traditional landlines with fixed addresses, these devices are portable, creating a risk that emergency services could be dispatched to an incorrect location (e.g., a user's home address when they are traveling). (’973 Patent, col. 2:13-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a mobile phone actively determines if its location has changed. It does this by obtaining a "current wireless base station identity" and comparing it to a previously "stored wireless base station identity." If the identities do not match, the phone concludes it has moved, obtains a new "subscriber location" corresponding to its current position, and sends this updated location to the phone system, enabling accurate emergency dispatch. (’973 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:10-27).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a device-centric framework for dynamically updating location information, addressing a critical gap in emergency response infrastructure created by the shift from fixed to mobile communications. (’973 Patent, col. 2:57-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary claims from the ’973 Patent, with Independent Claim 1 being representative of the core method. (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Obtaining by the 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 identity.
  • Sending the subscriber location by the mobile phone to the phone system.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, reserving the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality, operation, or market position. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the ’973 Patent. (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by referencing claim charts in Exhibit 2, which is not available for analysis. (Compl. ¶17). A detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the asserted claims and the general nature of the technology, the infringement analysis raises several questions.

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "wireless base station identity," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the specific types of location-identifying data used by modern Cisco systems (e.g., Wi-Fi BSSIDs, cellular network identifiers, GPS data). The patent specification discusses a range of wireless technologies, but the claim term itself is not explicitly defined. (’973 Patent, col. 4:12-24).
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the claimed steps on the mobile phone itself? Claim 1 repeatedly recites that the mobile phone performs the obtaining, determining, and sending steps. A key factual dispute may arise over the locus of these actions—whether they are performed by the end-user device as claimed, or by network-side servers. (’973 Patent, col. 11:15-27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wireless base station identity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the fundamental data point used in the claimed method to detect a change in location. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused products use a data type that falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "subscriber access line" technology to include various wireless modalities such as radio frequency bands and multiplexed channels used in TDMA, CDMA, or FDMA systems, which could support an argument that the "identity" is not limited to one specific format. (’973 Patent, col. 4:12-24).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the term "base station" throughout the claims could be argued to limit the scope to components of a traditional cellular network, potentially excluding other wireless location markers like Wi-Fi access points if they are not considered "base stations." (’973 Patent, claim 1).

The Term: "determining by the mobile phone"

• Context and Importance: This limitation (and similar phrasing for other steps) dictates the location where a key logical operation must occur. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused system architecture performs this comparison on the end-user device or on a remote server.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "by the mobile phone" means the phone initiates or is the ultimate agent of the determination, even if processing is offloaded to a connected system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 recites five distinct steps, all of which are to be performed "by the mobile phone." This repetition suggests that the patentee intended for the mobile device itself to be the component that executes the logic of comparing the current and stored identities. (’973 Patent, col. 11:15-27).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’973 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based exclusively on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the filing of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any subsequent infringing activity is therefore willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A central issue will be one of locus of infringement: does the accused system perform the critical claim steps—comparing a current and stored identity to detect movement and obtaining a new location—"by the mobile phone" as strictly required by the claim language, or are these functions executed by network-side components?
• The case will also involve a key question of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products, a primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating how Cisco's technology actually operates and maps to the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
• Finally, the outcome may depend on a definitional scope question: can the term "wireless base station identity," which is rooted in the patent's description of cellular-era technology, be construed broadly enough to encompass the more diverse location-identifying data points utilized in contemporary wireless and IP-based communication systems?