Emergency Safety Solutions Inc v. Haas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Emergency Safety Solutions, INC. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Haas, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rigrodsky Law PA., GABLEGOTWALS
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00838, D. Del., 07/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's vehicle hazard communication platform infringes a patent related to server-based systems for alerting vehicles to road hazards, and that this use also constitutes a breach of a prior license agreement.
• Technical Context: The technology involves vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication systems that provide non-line-of-sight warnings about road hazards, a field of increasing importance for enhancing the safety of both human-driven and autonomous vehicles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses a significant prior business relationship where Plaintiff granted Defendant a limited, non-exclusive license to the patent-in-suit under a Master System Sub Supply Agreement (MSSSA). Plaintiff's allegations suggest Defendant's current activities exceed the scope of that license, which forms the basis for both the patent infringement claim and an alternative claim for breach of contract. This prior agreement is a central element of the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-08-12	'938 Patent Priority Date
2024-09-25	Master System Sub Supply Agreement (MSSSA) executed
2024-10-08	'938 Patent Issued
2026-06-25	Defendant provides notice of MSSSA termination
2026-07-10	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,109,938 - "System for Communication of Hazardous Vehicle and Road Conditions"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,109,938, "System for Communication of Hazardous Vehicle and Road Conditions", issued October 8, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the limitations of conventional vehicle hazard warnings, such as flashing lights, which are dependent on line-of-sight and driver attentiveness. These limitations apply to both human drivers and autonomous vehicles, which cannot react to hazards they cannot "see" or otherwise detect ʼ938 Patent, col. 1:35-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system where a vehicle experiencing a hazard transmits its status and location data to a remote server. The server then processes this information and selectively transmits a warning to other vehicles in the vicinity, specifically those determined to be on a related path and within a certain proximity, thereby providing an advance, non-line-of-sight alert ʼ938 Patent, col. 14:1-21 ʼ938 Patent, Fig. 3
• Technical Importance: This server-mediated approach enables proactive warnings for hazards that are around a curve, behind an obstruction, or otherwise not visible, representing a significant safety advancement over traditional visual-only alert systems ʼ938 Patent, col. 1:42-53

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶15
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A server configured to receive a first communication from a first vehicle, which indicates the vehicle is in a hazardous condition and provides its location.
  • The server receiving a second communication from a second vehicle, indicating the second vehicle's location.
  • The server providing a third communication to the second vehicle only when it is determined that the locations of the two vehicles "lie on a common roadway path and within a predetermined distance of one another."
• The complaint notes that claims 2 through 4 are also infringed Compl. ¶15

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies Defendant's "Safety Cloud Systems" as the "Accused System" Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused System practices the inventions claimed in the '938 Patent Compl. ¶14 While this implies the system involves server-based communication of hazard information between vehicles, the complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation or architecture of the Safety Cloud Systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused System infringes at least claim 1 of the '938 Patent by including every element of the claim Compl. ¶15 The core of this allegation is that Defendant's "Safety Cloud Systems" operate as a system with a central server that performs the three-step communication process recited in Claim 1: receiving a hazard alert from a first vehicle, receiving location data from a second vehicle, and transmitting a warning to the second vehicle based on a specific logical determination of a shared path and proximity Compl. ¶16 The complaint references an attached claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support these allegations, but this exhibit was not included with the filing Compl. ¶15

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be whether the architecture of the "Safety Cloud Systems" aligns with the specific server-centric, three-part communication flow required by Claim 1. The dispute could focus on whether Defendant's system uses a different architecture (e.g., peer-to-peer, broadcast-based) that does not rely on a server performing the claimed functions.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely scrutinize the specific logic used by the Accused System's server. A key question will be whether the server makes a determination based on whether vehicles "lie on a common roadway path" and are "within a predetermined distance," as required by the claim Compl. ¶16, or if it uses an alternative, technically distinct set of criteria for issuing alerts.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "server"
  • Context and Importance: The entirety of independent claim 1 is defined by the actions of the "server." Its construction is therefore foundational to the scope of infringement, as it defines the required system architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term in a general sense, suggesting it could encompass any device capable of fulfilling the claimed role of "processing, analyzing, prioritizing, and distributing indications of hazard conditions" over a network, such as the internet ʼ938 Patent, col. 10:54-59
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the depiction of "server 302" in Figure 3 as a single, centralized entity connected to the internet (301) suggests a more limited definition that excludes distributed or decentralized computing architectures ʼ938 Patent, Fig. 3
• The Term: "common roadway path"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the critical spatial logic the server must use to trigger an alert. Whether the Accused System's logic meets this definition will be a central issue in the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any two vehicles on roadways that are functionally related (e.g., the same highway, an upcoming intersection), not necessarily the exact same named road.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides language that could support a more precise and predictive definition, describing a "road pathway" as "the roadway the receiving vehicle is travelling on, considering the direction, or on a side road, turn, exit, etc. that the vehicle is likely to take" ʼ938 Patent, col. 12:40-45 This suggests a more complex analysis than simple co-location.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of contributory infringement and inducement Compl. ¶17 but does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendant allegedly encourages or facilitates infringement by others (e.g., through user manuals or specific instructions).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "actual knowledge and notice of the Patent-in-Suit" Compl. ¶18 and that its infringement was "willful, deliberate and objectively reckless" Compl. ¶21 This allegation is substantially supported by the complaint's assertion that the parties entered into a Master System Sub Supply Agreement (MSSSA) which granted Defendant a license under the '938 Patent, demonstrating clear pre-suit knowledge Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶11

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following key questions:

1. A question of contract versus patent law: A threshold issue will be whether Defendant's actions constitute patent infringement or are more properly characterized as a breach of the prior Master System Sub Supply Agreement. The court will need to determine if the alleged conduct falls outside the scope of the license granted in the MSSSA, which would give rise to an infringement claim Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶26
2. An evidentiary question of server functionality: Should the case proceed on patent grounds, it will likely hinge on factual evidence regarding the operation of the Accused System's server. The central question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that the server performs the specific logical determination recited in Claim 1-assessing if vehicles lie on a "common roadway path" and are "within a predetermined distance"-or if Defendant's system uses a technically distinct method for triggering alerts Compl. ¶16
3. A definitional question of claim scope: The construction of the term "common roadway path" will be critical. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term is interpreted to require a simple proximity check or a more complex, predictive analysis of a vehicle's likely future route, as potentially taught in the patent's detailed description ʼ938 Patent, col. 12:40-45