Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Singlewire Software LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Verna IP Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Singlewire Software, LLC (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00072, W.D. Wis., 01/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s devices, products, and systems for providing voice alerts infringe a patent related to the automatic generation and transmission of digitized voice alerts to remote electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for mass notification, which automatically convert text-based information into voice messages for broadcast, a field relevant to emergency services, security monitoring, and public announcements.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with several other entities concerning its patents, though none of those licenses were for producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-05-24	'932 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 Issued
2025-01-31	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 - "Digitized Voice Alerts," Issued August 2, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an improved method of providing timely notifications to an increasingly mobile public, particularly in emergency situations or for security monitoring, where individuals may not be able to read text-based alerts (e.g., while driving) ('932 Patent, col. 1:52-68, col. 15:1-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes methods and systems that can detect an event (e.g., an emergency situation or a sensor trip), automatically generate a text message about the event, convert that text into a digitized voice alert, and transmit the voice alert for broadcast to remote electronic devices ('932 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-40). The process is illustrated in flowcharts such as FIG. 4, which details the steps from detection to transmission ('932 Patent, FIG. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide an "improved and efficient approach for transmitting or broadcasting instant voice alerts to remote electronic devices automatically during times of emergencies or as a part of security monitoring systems" ('932 Patent, col. 1:66-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-18 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Determining an emergency situation affecting a specified region and requiring notification to wireless hand held device users in that region.
  • Generating and converting a text message indicative of the emergency into a digitized voice alert.
  • Converting the digitized voice alert into at least one language selected from a plurality of languages for broadcast.
  • Transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network in the specified region for distribution to at least one wireless hand held device.
• The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-18, but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "devices/products and systems" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Singlewire Software (Compl. ¶8). Specific product names are not provided in the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products provide "instant/real-time Voice alerts automatically to remote electronic devices" by performing "automatic digitized conversion of text messages to voice alerts for transmission" (Compl. ¶7, ¶9). The complaint suggests these products are offered with instructions on their use through Defendant's websites and product manuals (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused products or their market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "attached Exhibit B" for detailed support of its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶10). The complaint's narrative alleges that Defendant's systems infringe by "providing instant/real-time Voice alerts automatically to remote electronic devices," which tracks the general subject matter of the '932 patent (Compl. ¶7). The allegations state that Defendant's products embody the claimed inventions for converting text messages to voice for remote transmission (Compl. ¶9). Without the specific mappings of Exhibit B, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the high-level allegations, the infringement analysis will likely raise several questions:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how Defendant's products perform the claimed steps. A central question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused systems practice the specific limitations of the claims, such as determining an "emergency situation", converting a text message to a "digitized voice alert", and performing multi-language conversion as required by claim 1.
  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the limitation "transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network" ('932 Patent, col. 30:48-54). The court will have to determine if Defendant's system, which may use general internet protocol (IP) networks for transmission, can be read on by this specific language related to cellular infrastructure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "transmitting the digitized voice alert through specific towers of a cellular communications network" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical limitation defining the transmission mechanism. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused system, which may use various over-the-top IP-based delivery methods, is found to transmit "through specific towers." Practitioners may focus on this term as a potential basis for a non-infringement defense if the accused system is network-agnostic.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention in the context of various networks, including "wireless communications networks such as cellular telephone networks and wireless LAN type networks" ('932 Patent, col. 1:44-47) and the internet ('932 Patent, col. 8:48-49), which could suggest the invention is not strictly limited to direct control over cellular towers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific, requiring transmission through "specific towers" of a "cellular communications network." This phrasing suggests a targeted, geographically-bound transmission method akin to the described PLAN (Personal Localized Alert Network) system, rather than a general internet broadcast ('932 Patent, col. 20:5-14).

• The Term: "emergency situation" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of what constitutes an "emergency situation" is fundamental to the claim. Infringement will require that the accused system determines such a situation. The dispute will question whether the types of alerts generated by Defendant's system (e.g., routine operational notifications, IT alerts) fall within the patent's definition of an "emergency".

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a wide range of "activities" that can trigger an alert, from a door opening in a home security context to a live speech by the President, suggesting "emergency" could encompass a broad category of events requiring timely notification ('932 Patent, col. 2:40-48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section and specific examples heavily emphasize life-and-death scenarios, such as public emergencies and security breaches, which could support a construction limited to serious, urgent, or critical events ('932 Patent, col. 1:62-68, col. 15:26-33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It claims inducement is based on Defendant instructing customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner via its "website and product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶11-12). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused product is "not a staple commercial product," has no substantial non-infringing use, and Defendant had reason to know of the infringing use (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the '932 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1; VI.e).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint offers only conclusory allegations of infringement and fails to provide the referenced Exhibit B. A key question is whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence in discovery to show that the accused Singlewire systems actually perform each element of the asserted claims.
• The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: Can the limitation requiring transmission "through specific towers of a cellular communications network" be construed to cover modern notification systems that likely use general IP-based networks for delivery? The resolution of this construction issue may be dispositive for infringement.
• Finally, the Plaintiff's status as a non-practicing entity with a history of licensing settlements will form a significant part of the case's context. This background raises the question of whether the dispute is primarily driven by a desire for a licensing fee rather than preventing active market competition, which may influence case strategy and settlement dynamics.