Lattice Tech LLC v. Alarmcom Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lattice Technologies LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Alarmcom Inc (VA)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00033, E.D. Va., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Eastern District of Virginia and having committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s emergency response products and services infringe a patent related to a system for providing emergency response to a user via a portable device that communicates over the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves personal emergency response systems (PERS) that leverage internet protocols (IP) and cellular networks to connect a user's portable device to a monitoring service and a prioritized list of emergency contacts.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2003, establishing a potential priority date that predates the widespread adoption of modern smartphone-based emergency and location-sharing applications.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,098,153 - System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device, Issued January 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art emergency response systems, noting that systems connected to a public switched telephone network (PSTN) tether a user to a speakerphone, limiting their ability to communicate if an incident occurs away from the base unit (Compl. ¶9; ’153 Patent, col. 1:28-39). Other mobile systems are described as not fully utilizing internet protocols for direct communication between the user and their designated contacts (’153 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user carries a portable device (e.g., with GPS and cellular capabilities) that communicates over the internet with a "monitoring database." This database stores a user-defined, prioritized list of emergency contacts and their preferred contact methods (e.g., phone, email, SMS) (’153 Patent, Abstract). When the user triggers an alert, the system automatically attempts to notify the contacts in their specified priority order, using methods like Voice-over-IP (VoIP), until a contact accepts responsibility for the incident (’153 Patent, col. 2:18-25; col. 4:12-24). The overall system architecture is depicted in FIG. 1 of the patent, which is incorporated by reference into the complaint (Compl. ¶9).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach combines portable device technology with a back-end system that automates a cascading notification process to a user's personal support network, aiming to provide a more flexible and responsive emergency alert system than traditional, centralized monitoring services (’153 Patent, col. 9:46-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, instead referencing an external exhibit not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1, a representative independent method claim, requires:
  • Establishing a monitoring database with an ID for a user device.
  • Storing a user-defined plurality of contacts and contact methods in the database.
  • Arranging the contacts and methods in a user-determined priority order.
  • Establishing IP addresses for both the monitoring database and the user device.
  • Establishing communication over the Internet between the device and the database.
  • Transmitting an alert from the device to the database.
  • Automatically establishing communication with a contact according to the priority order using internet protocols or PSTN.
  • Receiving a response from the contact (accepted, not accepted, or unresponsive).
  • Automatically establishing communication with the next contact in the priority order if the prior response was not an acceptance.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" listed in claim charts that were incorporated by reference but not publicly filed as part of the initial complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Based on the defendant's identity, these are understood to be Alarm.com's smart home security and personal emergency response systems and services.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are made, used, sold, and tested by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). Alarm.com’s services typically involve a combination of hardware (e.g., control panels, mobile panic buttons) and a back-end monitoring service. These systems allow a user to send an emergency alert from a device to a central monitoring station, which can then dispatch emergency services or contact individuals on a pre-determined list.
• The complaint alleges that Defendant provides product literature and website materials that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The patent’s FIG. 1, incorporated into the complaint, illustrates a system involving a user device (32), a server (34), and communication links to contacts (60, 62, 64, 66), which provides a high-level analogue to the alleged architecture of the accused systems (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts, instead incorporating them by reference from an un-filed Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for representative Claim 1 based on the complaint's general allegations and the presumed functionality of the accused systems.

’153 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "plurality of contacts" arranged in a "priority order determined by the user" reads on a system where the primary contact is a professional monitoring center, which then follows its own internal protocol. The patent appears to describe a system that directly and automatically notifies a user's personal contacts (family, friends), which may differ from the operational logic of Defendant's professional services.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific evidence showing that Defendant's system "automatically" proceeds through a contact list until an "accepted response" is received, as required by the claim. The functionality of Defendant’s system—whether it involves human operator intervention from a call center versus a fully automated notification cascade as described in the patent—will be a key factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "priority order determined by the user" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement analysis may turn on the degree of control a user has and the nature of the prioritized list. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant’s system may first route all alerts to a professional monitoring center, whose subsequent actions might not strictly follow a "priority order determined by the user," but rather a standardized emergency protocol.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "list of contacts includes a preferred method of contacting each of the contacts" and the user may update the list via a "web-based application," suggesting flexibility could be part of the intended scope (’153 Patent, col. 4:12-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts (e.g., FIG. 13) describe a specific sequence of building a call list and proceeding through it based on user-set priorities and contact validity, which could support a narrower construction requiring this specific automated cascade logic (’153 Patent, col. 9:39-48).

• The Term: "automatically establishing communication" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The "automatic" nature of the system is a core feature. The case may hinge on whether Defendant’s system, which likely involves professional human operators at a monitoring center, can be considered "automatic." If human intervention is a standard part of Defendant's process for contacting anyone beyond the initial alert, it could suggest a mismatch with the claim language.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used broadly to describe the system's response to an alert. An interpretation could be that as long as the initial alert-to-notification process is initiated without human input, it is "automatic," even if humans become involved later.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes that reducing human intervention is an advantage, stating "the monitoring database 34 fully automates the notification of contacts" (’153 Patent, col. 9:41-43). This language may support a construction that requires the entire multi-contact notification sequence to proceed without human involvement from the service provider.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’153 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant's continued infringing activities despite this knowledge are ongoing (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

This dispute appears to center on the specific implementation of the emergency notification process. The key questions for the court will likely be:

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and factual correspondence: Does the "priority order determined by the user" recited in the claims, which the patent describes as an automated cascade to personal contacts, read on the accused system's likely protocol of first alerting a professional monitoring center that then follows its own procedures?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of automation: Given the complaint’s lack of specific technical detail, what evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused system "automatically" establishes communication with and cycles through a list of contacts without the type of human-operator intervention that is common in professional security monitoring services?