DCT

1:26-cv-00900

Samscloud LLC v. Rave Wireless Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00900, D. Del., 09/28/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Mobile Safety Suite of products, used for emergency communications and response, infringes two patents related to systems and methods for supervising individuals using dynamically generated, grid-based geofences.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the field of location-based safety and emergency response services, a market critical for public safety agencies, educational institutions, and corporate security.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights the prosecution histories of both asserted patents, noting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed the claims after amendments were made to incorporate a specific parameter-driven, grid-generation arrangement, which the Examiner found was not taught by the prior art. The ’421 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’757 Patent. The complaint also notes that an original complaint was filed on July 23, 2026, which is alleged to have provided Defendant with notice of the patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-03-05 Priority Date for '757 and '421 Patents
2022-07-12 ’757 Patent Corrected Notice of Allowability
2022-10-11 ’757 Patent Issue Date
2024-08-05 ’421 Patent Corrected Notice of Allowability
2024-11-26 ’421 Patent Issue Date
2026-07-23 Original Complaint Filed
2026-09-28 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,468,757 - "Systems and methods for facilitating supervision of individuals based on geofencing"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,468,757, issued on October 11, 2022 Compl. ¶24

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies limitations in conventional geofencing systems, noting they typically used predefined boundaries (e.g., school zones) and did not readily permit users to create geofences based on dynamic factors like criminal activity or crowd density Compl. ¶11 '757 Patent, col. 1:21-28 These systems also could lack seamless communication capabilities with multiple organizations like emergency services and parents '757 Patent, col. 1:29-34
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system that facilitates supervision by generating a geofence from two initial supervisor-provided inputs: a "security parameter" and a "geographical location" '757 Patent, abstract A key aspect of the solution is the subsequent use of a separate, supervisor-supplied "grid parameter" to structure the overall geofence into a "plurality of geofence grid boxes," each with its own geofence area. This resulting grid structure is then used to analyze a supervisee's data and generate supervision notifications Compl. ¶12 '757 Patent, col. 13:8-22 '757 Patent, col. 14:31-45
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of more detailed and dynamic geographical structures for supervision, moving beyond static, predefined boundaries to enable parameter-driven, grid-based monitoring Compl. ¶14

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 10 Compl. ¶49
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • receiving a security parameter and a geographical location from a supervisor device;
    • analyzing the geographical location based on the security parameter;
    • generating a geofence based on the analysis;
    • receiving and analyzing supervisee data based on the geofence;
    • generating, transmitting, and storing a supervision notification;
    • wherein the geofence comprises a plurality of geofence grid boxes, and the method further includes:
    • receiving at least one grid parameter from the supervisor device;
    • analyzing the grid parameter;
    • determining the grid box geofence area based on that analysis; and
    • generating a number of geofence grid boxes based on the determination Compl. ¶27
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" Compl. ¶49

U.S. Patent No. 12,154,421 - "Systems and methods for facilitating supervision of individuals based on geofencing"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,154,421, issued on November 26, 2024 Compl. ¶55

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '421 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the '757 Patent, addresses the same limitations of conventional geofencing systems, such as the use of predefined boundaries and difficulty in creating geofences based on security-related factors '421 Patent, col. 1:24-39 Compl. ¶62
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively similar to the '757 Patent's, involving a parameter-driven approach to generate a geofence and then structure it into constituent grid boxes '421 Patent, abstract The complaint alleges the invention connects supervisor-supplied information to the generation of both the geofence and its grid-box areas, which are then used for supervision Compl. ¶62 '421 Patent, col. 13:26-40 The specification describes a communication device receiving the grid parameter and a processing device using it to determine the grid-box area and generate the grid boxes '421 Patent, col. 32:5-13
  • Technical Importance: The technology enables flexible, dynamically created geofence structures for detailed supervision, consistent with the parent '757 Patent Compl. ¶60

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1, independent system claim 11, and independent method claim 22, along with dependent claims 9 and 21 (Compl. ¶¶64-66; Compl. ¶85).
  • Independent claims 1 and 11 are method and system claims, respectively, that mirror the core grid-generation invention of the '757 Patent (Compl. ¶¶58-59).
  • Independent claim 22 recites a different sensor-based tracking arrangement, requiring:
    • selection of a nearby sensor based on which is most proximal to a supervisee in real time;
    • the selected sensor generating supervisee data; and
    • tracking the supervisee as they move between nearby sensors Compl. ¶66
  • The complaint also mentions dependent claim 9, which specifies altitude as a security parameter and building floor as a grid parameter, and dependent claim 21, which adds grid-specific emergency contact routing (Compl. ¶¶64-65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are collectively referred to as the "Rave Mobile Safety Suite," which includes but is not limited to the "Rave 911 Suite," "Rave Panic Button," and "Motorola Solutions Facility" Compl. ¶22

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused suite is a platform for public safety and emergency response that provides features such as mass notification, emergency management, and enhanced 911 operations Compl. p. 13
  • The complaint alleges the products provide "detailed mapping, location tracking, and grid-based geofencing" Compl. ¶20 A key allegation is that Defendant partners with Critical Response Group (“CRG”) to integrate "Collaborative Response Graphics," which provide "building blueprints and grid-based maps" for supervision Compl. ¶20 This CRG technology is alleged to use a "gridded reference system" that subdivides facilities into identifiable grid regions Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶45
  • A marketing screenshot for the Motorola Solutions Facility module states that users can "geo-fence and define each building in the system" Compl. p. 14 This visual describes the geo-fencing of buildings to enable display of critical facility information Compl. p. 14
  • The platform allegedly allows facility managers (supervisors) to upload and maintain data such as floor plans, safety hazards, and other facility information (Compl. ¶¶34-35). It also receives user data through features like "Smart911 Profiles" Compl. ¶39
  • The complaint alleges the products are used by "thousands" of customers, including public safety agencies, and that Defendant advertises "state wide deployments" Compl. ¶5 Compl. p. 14 Defendant was acquired by Motorola Solutions in 2022 Compl. ¶2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,468,757 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, using a communication device, at least one security parameter from at least one supervisor device associated with at least one supervisor; Facility managers (supervisors) upload and maintain data for emergency response, including parameters relating to safety hazards and other emergency response information. ¶34 col. 13:8-12
receiving, using the communication device, a geographical location from the at least one supervisor device; Supervisors upload information including geographical locations and floor plans to Rave’s cloud-based web app. ¶35 col. 13:8-12
generating, using the processing device, a geofence corresponding to a geographical area based on the analyzing; The Infringing Products generate geofences based on "building[s] in the system," which are the uploaded geographical locations. The "Geo-Fenced Locations" feature enables the display of critical facility information. ¶38 col. 13:13-15
receiving, using the communication device, at least one supervisee data associated with a supervisee from at least one supervisee device; The products receive "supervisee data" such as "Smart911 Profiles" that comprise data uploaded by an emergency caller to Rave's cloud-based web app. ¶39 col. 13:16-18
analyzing, using the processing device, the at least one supervisee data based on the geofence; The products analyze supervisee data such as Smart911 profiles based on a supervisee's location within a geofence. ¶40 col. 13:19-20
generating, using the processing device, a supervision notification based on the analyzing of the at least one supervisee data; The products generate notifications that are targeted and customized based on an analysis of supervisee status, location, or availability. ¶41 col. 13:21-22
receiving, using the communication device, at least one grid parameter from the at least one supervisor device... analyzing... determining the grid box geofence area... and generating... a number of geofence grid boxes... The products use a "gridded reference system" from CRG, which incorporates "key landmarks," "critical features," "aerial imagery," and other parameters to establish a grid. This is alleged to be the reception and analysis of a grid parameter to determine and generate the grid boxes. ¶¶45-47 col. 14:31-45
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A primary point of contention may be whether the term "grid parameter," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the inputs used by the accused CRG "gridded reference system" (e.g., "key landmarks," "aerial imagery") Compl. ¶45 The defense may argue these are descriptive inputs for an overlay, not a parameter that actively controls grid generation.
    • Technical Question: A key evidentiary question is whether the accused system performs the claimed sequence of analyzing the alleged grid parameter to determine a grid box area and then generate a number of grid boxes. The complaint's evidence, such as an image from CRG showing a floor plan overlaid with a grid, suggests the existence of a grid but raises the question of whether the accused system dynamically generates that grid structure in the manner claimed Compl. p. 18

12,154,421 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement allegations for claims 1 and 11 of the '421 patent are substantively identical to those for the '757 patent, citing the same accused functionality but with different paragraph numbers Compl. ¶¶68-84 A screenshot of "Smart911 Profiles" shows how the accused system receives data from individuals, or supervisees (Compl. p. 20). The complaint also points to marketing materials for "Geofencing Capabilities" as evidence of analyzing supervisee data based on location within a geofence (Compl. p. 22). The allegations for independent claim 22 are distinct and not detailed in a claim chart format in the complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • For Claims 1 and 11: The points of contention are the same as those identified for the '757 Patent, centering on the interpretation of "grid parameter" and the technical question of whether the accused system computationally generates the grid structure as claimed.
    • For Claim 22: The infringement allegation for claim 22 introduces a separate technical question: what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs real-time tracking by selecting the "most proximal" sensor and handing off tracking as a user moves between sensors? The complaint's allegations on this point are more general and less supported by specific product evidence compared to the grid-generation claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "grid parameter"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the plaintiff's theory of non-obviousness and infringement. The complaint alleges that the unique, two-part process of first generating a geofence and then structuring it using a separate "grid parameter" is the core of the invention that was found novel by the patent office Compl. ¶¶16-17 Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether the inputs from the accused CRG mapping system meet this key limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a single, explicit definition of "grid parameter," which may support an interpretation that covers any data input used to establish a grid.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language states the "grid parameter" is used to "determine" the "grid box geofence area" and "generate" a "number of geofence grid boxes" '757 Patent, col. 30:33-45 This functional language, combined with the flowchart in Figure 5 depicting a sequence of analysis, determination, and generation, may support a narrower construction requiring the parameter to be an active input in a computational process, not just a descriptive label for an overlay.

  • The Term: "generating... a geofence"

    • Context and Importance: The dispute may turn on whether the accused system "generates" a geofence as claimed or merely applies or designates a pre-existing boundary (e.g., a building footprint from a blueprint).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean defining or designating a virtual boundary within the software, a common use of the term in the art.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "generating" the geofence "based on the analyzing" of a security parameter and a geographical location '757 Patent, col. 30:2-5 This may support a narrower construction requiring a dynamic creation process where the boundaries of the geofence are a direct output of the analysis, rather than the simple selection of a pre-drawn shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces infringement by instructing customers and end users to use the Infringing Products in a manner that practices the patented claims, providing user manuals, videos, and other materials to facilitate this use Compl. ¶51 Compl. ¶87
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendant had actual notice of the asserted patents at least as of the filing of the original complaint on July 23, 2026, and continued its allegedly infringing activities thereafter Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶89

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

  1. A central issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused Rave platform, through its integration with CRG's "gridded reference system," actually perform the claimed computational steps of analyzing a parameter to determine a grid-box area and generate a number of grid boxes? Or does it simply overlay a static, pre-defined grid onto a map, which may represent a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?

  2. The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "grid parameter," which the patent claims describe as an input for determining and generating a grid structure, be construed to cover the descriptive data (e.g., "key landmarks," "aerial imagery") used by the accused system? The outcome of this claim construction will be critical to the infringement analysis.

  3. A secondary question, specific to claim 22 of the '421 Patent, will be an evidentiary one: does the accused platform in fact practice the distinct method of real-time tracking by selecting a "most proximal" sensor and handing off monitoring as a user moves between sensors, and what specific evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate this functionality?