E Beacon LLC v. Zello Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: e-Beacon LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Zello Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00169, W.D. Tex., 04/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to providing emergency location services for Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of reliably determining the physical location of a mobile VoIP device to route emergency (911) calls to the correct authorities, a critical safety feature that is inherent in traditional landline telephone systems but not in internet-based communication.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may suggest that during prosecution, the patent examiner raised a non-statutory double patenting rejection over a related patent. The patent is also a continuation-in-part of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,933,580, which could be relevant to claim scope and priority date analysis.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,386, “Emergency services for voice over IP telephony (E-VOIP),” Issued August 20, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the unreliability of emergency services for VoIP telephony systems. Unlike a traditional "Plain Old Telephone System" (POTS) phone with a fixed address, a VoIP phone can be used anywhere with an internet connection, making it difficult for a 911 operator to automatically know the caller's physical location and dispatch help accordingly ('386 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to automatically determine the current physical coordinates of a VoIP device using location detection technologies like GPS or cellular network triangulation. When a user dials an emergency number, the system is designed to transmit these coordinates directly to an Emergency Services Call Center, also known as a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), enabling first responders to locate the caller ('386 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-44). The system is designed to periodically update location information to ensure it is current ('386 Patent, col. 2:57-62).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a dynamic, automated E911 solution for VoIP users, closing a significant public safety gap created by the shift from location-fixed landlines to location-agnostic internet telephony ('386 Patent, col. 1:11-13, col. 2:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1, a method claim, is representative of the patent's core teachings.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • making a plurality of attempts to determine the physical location of the VoIP phone, each using a separate location detection technology ("LDT");
  • if an attempt is successful, storing the physical location determined using the corresponding LDT;
  • placing a call to the emergency services call center with the VoIP phone; and
  • automatically transmitting the physical location of the VoIP phone to the emergency services call center.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). While not explicitly named in the complaint body, Defendant Zello Inc. is known for its push-to-talk "walkie talkie" application and services.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '386 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '386 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). No specific features related to location detection or emergency calling are described.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The infringement theory is presented in narrative form.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes the '386 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). Infringement is also alleged based on Defendant’s internal testing and use of the products (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific facts mapping product features to the limitations of any asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A principal question may be whether the accused Zello service, a push-to-talk application, falls within the scope of the term "VoIP phone" as it is used in the patent. The patent's specification repeatedly contrasts its invention with the "Plain Old Telephone System" and discusses dialing 9-1-1, which may suggest a focus on devices that serve as primary telephone replacements ('386 Patent, col. 1:15-23, col. 3:12-14). The court may need to determine if the term "VoIP phone" is limited to such devices or if it broadly covers any voice-over-IP software application.
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on factual evidence regarding the accused products' operation. Key questions include:
  • What evidence demonstrates that the accused products make "a plurality of attempts" to find a user's location using "separate location detection technolog[ies]" (e.g., both GPS and cellular triangulation), as required by claim 1?
  • What evidence shows that the accused products "automatically transmit" location data to an "emergency services call center"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "VoIP phone"

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is central, as it determines whether the patent applies to the accused instrumentality. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the patent to traditional telephone-like devices or expand it to cover a wide range of modern voice-over-IP applications, such as Defendant’s push-to-talk service.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent occasionally uses broad language, referring to "VoIP-type device[s]" and "software based VoIP phone[s]," which may support a construction that is not limited to physical hardware ('386 Patent, col. 7:38-43).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently frames the invention as a solution for VoIP systems that replace POTS phones, and Figure 3 depicts a hardware-centric embodiment including a "VoIP Phone" 142 connected to an Ethernet MAC, which may support a narrower construction tied to telephone-replacement devices ('386 Patent, col. 1:11-18; Fig. 3).

The Term: "emergency services call center"

Context and Importance

This term defines the destination for the transmitted location data, a critical step in the claimed method. The dispute may turn on whether this term is limited to official government entities or if it can encompass other types of service centers.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. A party might argue that in the absence of a specific definition, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could include any centralized center that handles emergency calls.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the call center is "also referred to as a Public Safety Answering Point ('PSAP')" ('386 Patent, col. 2:41-42). This direct equation with a term of art for official 911 dispatch centers could be used to argue that the claim scope is limited to communications with such government-run facilities.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). It also alleges inducement by selling the products to customers for infringing uses (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation appears to be based entirely on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing of the lawsuit itself provides "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's answers to two fundamental questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "VoIP phone", which is described in the patent in the context of replacing traditional 911-capable landlines, be construed to cover a push-to-talk software application that may not be a user's primary means of contacting emergency services?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the accused products fall within the claim scope, does the evidence show they actually perform the specific multi-step method of the claims—namely, using a "plurality" of "separate" location technologies and "automatically transmitting" that location data to an "emergency services call center"? The complaint's lack of technical detail makes this a central point for discovery.