DCT

1:24-cv-01497

CentralSquare Tech LLC v. Carbyne Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01497, W.D. Tex., 08/25/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Carbyne has established regular places of business in the district, employs individuals residing in the district, conducts sales and marketing to Texas customers, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's emergency communication products infringe a reissue patent related to technology that enables emergency operators to obtain a mobile caller's location by sending a text message containing a hyperlink.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a critical challenge in public safety: accurately and rapidly locating emergency callers who are using mobile devices, which often do not automatically provide precise location data through traditional 911 infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE50,016, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,301,117. The complaint details extensive pre-suit correspondence beginning in November 2021, where Plaintiff notified Defendant of alleged infringement of the original patent. Defendant contested both infringement and validity during these exchanges. The complaint also notes a prior one-year reseller agreement between the parties, which has since expired.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-08-21 '016 Patent Priority Date (Original Application Filing)
2015-01-01 Carbyne allegedly founded
2016-03-29 Original U.S. Patent No. 9,301,117 Issued
2021-11-04 CentralSquare sends Carbyne licensing proposal for original patent
2022-01-01 One-year reseller agreement signed between parties (approximate)
2022-01-03 Carbyne responds to CentralSquare, denying infringement
2022-02-22 Carbyne reiterates non-infringement arguments
2022-07-21 Carbyne responds to CentralSquare, alleging invalidity
2024-06-18 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,016 Issued
2024-06-26 CentralSquare informs Carbyne of reissue patent and offers license
2026-08-25 Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE50,016, SMS Communication During Emergencies, issued June 18, 2024.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: In an emergency, operators at call centers often struggle to gather critical information, particularly the precise location of a caller using a wireless mobile device Compl. ¶7 '016 Patent, col. 1:28-36 Traditional 911 systems were not designed for the ubiquity of mobile phones, creating a gap in location-gathering capabilities.
    • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system and method that works alongside an emergency voice call. An operator at an emergency call center can trigger the system to send a textual message (like an SMS) to the caller's mobile device '016 Patent, col. 1:46-54 This message contains a URL link. When the caller clicks the link, it opens a web-based application that can query the phone's geolocation data (e.g., from GPS) and transmit that location back to the emergency operator's display interface, without requiring the caller to have a special app pre-installed '016 Patent, col. 4:30-49 '016 Patent, FIG. 4 A key aspect is the use of a separate communication network for the text message, distinct from the network used for the initial voice call '016 Patent, col. 16:29-37
    • Technical Importance: This approach leverages the native web browser and location services of modern smartphones to solve the location-data problem, providing a more reliable and app-free method for locating mobile 911 callers.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim of the '016 Patent Compl. ¶39 The patent's independent claims are representative of the core invention.
    • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
      • A system with processors executing modules, including:
      • A "call reception module" to receive emergency voice calls from wireless devices over an emergency network.
      • An "outgoing message module" to generate a textual message for the device, including a URL link to web resources.
      • A "transmission module" to send the message over a "second communications network" that is "different" from the emergency network.
      • A "web-hosting module" to host the web resources, which query the device for location information and share it.
      • A "presentation module" that presents the shared location information to emergency operators on a user interface.
    • Independent Claim 9 (Method Claim):
      • A method comprising steps that mirror the system claim's functionality:
      • "receiving" emergency voice calls.
      • "generating" and "transmitting" an outgoing textual message with a URL link over a "different" network.
      • "presenting" calls and information to an operator via a user interface.
      • "querying", via the web resources, the mobile device for location information.
      • "sharing" and "presenting" the resulting location information on the operator's user interface.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims that add further limitations Compl. ¶¶48, 50

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies Carbyne's APEX and Universe products, as well as its related c-Live, c-Lite, and Axon 911 Core products, collectively termed the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶37
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are part of an emergency communications platform sold to public safety agencies Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶37 The core accused functionality is described in an excerpt from an interview with Carbyne's CEO, stating: "the police pinged her device with Carbyne's capabilities...sent her a link, she clicked the link... they got the location" Compl. ¶10 This description suggests a workflow where an operator sends a hyperlink to a caller's device to obtain location data, which is the central feature of the technology described in the '016 Patent. The complaint positions these products as competing directly with Plaintiff's public safety software solutions Compl. ¶¶4-5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference as Exhibits I and J, which were not available for this analysis Compl. ¶49 The following summary is based on the narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'016 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a call reception module configured to receive incoming emergency voice calls being placed to an emergency call center... The Accused Products are used by emergency call centers to handle incoming 911 calls. ¶¶5, 37 col. 5:4-28
an outgoing message module configured to generate outgoing textual messages for transmission to wireless mobile devices... wherein the first outgoing textual message includes a uniform resource locator (URL) link... The Accused Products generate and send a message with a link to a caller's device to initiate the location query process. ¶10 col. 5:32-49
a transmission module configured to transmit the outgoing textual messages... through a second communications network that is different than the emergency communications network... The Accused Products allegedly use a "secondary secure path" to transmit the link, which Plaintiff contends meets the "different network" limitation. ¶14 col. 16:29-37
a web-hosting module configured to host web resources configured to: (i) query wireless mobile devices for location information; and (ii) share... received location information... The link sent by the Accused Products directs the caller's device to a web service that requests and obtains the device's location. ¶10 col. 16:45-54
a presentation module configured to present... shared queried location information to emergency operators through the user interface. The location information obtained from the caller's device is displayed to the dispatcher within the Accused Product's interface. ¶10 col. 16:55-58
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A primary point of dispute, foreshadowed in the pre-suit correspondence, is whether Carbyne's "secondary secure path" constitutes "a second communications network that is different than the emergency communications network" as required by the claims Compl. ¶14 The case may turn on how the court construes the term "different" in this context-whether it means physically separate infrastructure or can include logically separate channels over shared infrastructure.
    • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that clicking the link allows Carbyne to "get the location" Compl. ¶10 A technical question for the court will be whether the specific mechanism used by the Accused Products maps onto the claimed functions of the "web-hosting module," including how it is "configured to... query" the device and "share" the resulting information with the "presentation module."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a second communications network that is different than the emergency communications network"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute and was explicitly identified by Carbyne as a basis for non-infringement during pre-suit discussions Compl. ¶14 Its construction will likely determine whether a core element of the asserted claims reads on the accused system architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers broadly to networks like "cellular networks, the internet, and/or one or more other (communications) networks" '016 Patent, col. 2:63-65 Plaintiff may argue that this language supports a construction where any data channel (like the public internet or a cellular data network) used for the text/link is inherently "different" from the specialized, voice-centric E911 network.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "different." Defendant may argue that this requires a degree of physical or logical separation that its "secondary secure path" does not possess. If Carbyne's system uses channels that are part of the same overall secure infrastructure as the voice call, it may argue they are not "different" as contemplated by the inventor.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Carbyne induces infringement by instructing its customers, such as public safety agencies, on how to use the accused features of its products through training, product manuals, and support activities Compl. ¶¶38, 51-52
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff claims willful infringement based on Carbyne's alleged knowledge of the patent family since at least November 4, 2021, via a detailed licensing proposal for the original '117 patent Compl. ¶53 The complaint alleges that Carbyne continued its infringing activities despite this notice Compl. ¶54

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

The resolution of this dispute appears to hinge on two primary questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the claim term "a second communications network that is different than the emergency communications network"? The case may depend on whether Carbyne's "secondary secure path," as described in pre-suit letters Compl. ¶14, is determined to be "different" from the primary voice call network under the court's interpretation.

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: can Plaintiff demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the architecture and operation of Carbyne's APEX and other products perform the specific functions of each claimed module-particularly the precise interaction between the "web-hosting module" that queries location and the "presentation module" that displays it to the operator-as required by the asserted claims?

Loading Amended Complaint