Lattice Technologies v. ADT: Infringement Claim Dismissed With Prejudice in 63 Days
Lattice Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action against ADT in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US8098153B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for providing emergency response to users carrying a mobile device. The case closed in just 63 days when Lattice voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, extinguishing its claims permanently and leaving each party responsible for its own costs.
A rapid voluntary exit: Lattice drops its ADT emergency-tech patent suit
On October 4, 2024, Lattice Technologies LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against ADT in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of US8098153B2, a patent directed to systems and methods for delivering emergency response services to a user carrying a mobile device. ADT, one of the largest security and monitoring services companies in the United States, was the named defendant. The case was assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00805 and handled within the court’s standard patent-track procedures.
Just 63 days after filing, Lattice filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), electing to dismiss the case with prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing the case on December 6, 2024. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits in effect — Lattice cannot re-file the same claims against ADT in any court. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, meaning no prevailing-party fee award was entered.
The 63-day lifespan suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution — whether a licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or a simple decision by Lattice that the case lacked merit or commercial value — before any substantive court proceedings occurred. The public record is silent on the precise commercial rationale. Notably, the with-prejudice designation goes beyond what a plaintiff strictly must concede under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before a responsive pleading is served, suggesting a negotiated or tactical choice rather than a unilateral early withdrawal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 63 days
63 days — significantly faster than the median Eastern District of Texas patent case
Dismissed with prejudice: what Lattice’s voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): voluntary dismissal with prejudice explained
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Electing to do so with prejudice — as Lattice did here — converts that procedural exit into a permanent bar. The dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits, meaning Lattice cannot reassert these patent claims against ADT in any future proceeding.
Final on the meritsLattice permanently surrenders its infringement claims against ADT
By dismissing with prejudice, Lattice Technologies has permanently relinquished its right to pursue US8098153B2 against ADT. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal would require, and typically signals either a negotiated settlement (with a license or covenant not to sue running in parallel) or a strategic recognition that the claims faced significant obstacles. The public record does not disclose which scenario applies here.
Claims permanently barred vs. ADTADT exits with no liability finding and no fee award against it
ADT achieves a clean exit: no infringement finding, no damages, no injunction, and no adverse costs ruling. The each-party-bears-own-costs order means ADT also received no fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, even though the rapid dismissal might otherwise have supported an exceptional-case argument. The with-prejudice term provides ADT with lasting protection against Lattice re-asserting the same patent in future litigation.
Protected against re-litigationEmergency-response tech IP: rapid dismissals signal settlement pressure
Cases resolved this quickly — before any claim construction or responsive pleading — consistently suggest that defendants in the security and emergency-response technology sector are weighing the cost of defence against early settlement. For companies operating connected safety, monitoring, or personal emergency response (PERS) products, this case is a reminder that PAE assertions targeting mobile emergency-response functionality remain commercially viable as leverage, even where merits are uncertain.
PAE leverage in safety techFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lattice Technologies LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8098153B2, emergency response mobile-device systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ADT | Individual | ADT — major U.S. security monitoring and emergency response services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Lattice Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Lattice Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Hines Borofsky | Attorney | Counsel for ADTSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing ADTSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting Lattice’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice tracks the plaintiff’s own characterisation precisely, closing all claims with prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. The explicit with-prejudice designation is the critical operative term: it forecloses any future action by Lattice on the same claims against ADT, providing a res judicata-equivalent shield without requiring a full trial. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral capitulation, though the record does not confirm what, if any, commercial terms accompanied the dismissal.
US8098153B2 — Emergency response system and method for mobile user devices
US8098153B2, filed under application number US11/981463, protects a system and method for providing emergency response services to a user carrying a user device — a claim scope that spans mobile-triggered emergency alerts, location-aware distress signalling, and the infrastructure that routes and acts on those signals. The patent’s application date places it in the mid-2000s wave of innovation that anticipated ubiquitous mobile connectivity as the substrate for personal safety systems, pre-dating the smartphone era’s explosion of personal emergency response applications.
Strategically, US8098153B2 sits at the intersection of two high-value commercial domains: personal emergency response systems (PERS) and connected-device safety services. As ADT and its competitors have expanded from premises-based alarm monitoring into mobile, wearable, and app-based safety products, the addressable scope of this patent’s claims grows correspondingly. Any company shipping a product that detects a user’s distress state and routes an emergency response — whether a smartwatch, a mobile app, or a home hub with personal-alert capability — should assess whether its implementation falls within this patent’s claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8098153B2?
If your organisation develops or ships products that provide emergency alerting, SOS signalling, personal emergency response, or any service that detects a distress condition on a user-carried device and dispatches a response, US8098153B2 is a directly relevant prior art and freedom-to-operate reference. This applies to wearable device manufacturers, mobile safety app developers, smart home security integrators, and enterprise lone-worker monitoring platforms — not just traditional alarm companies like ADT.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8098153B2’s independent and dependent claims against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support an invalidity position, and identify continuation or related applications in Lattice Technologies’ portfolio that may carry similar or extended claim scope. Running a proactive FTO analysis before receiving a demand letter is significantly less expensive than negotiating under filing-deadline pressure in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8098153B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar emergency-response and mobile safety patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving emergency response and mobile safety system patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE assertions against security and monitoring technology companies.
What this case signals for the emergency-response and security tech IP landscape
A 63-day with-prejudice exit in the Eastern District of Texas carries specific strategic implications for anyone operating in the connected-safety or monitoring sector.
With-prejudice exits often mask private licensing deals — monitor for patterns
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice within weeks of filing, a confidential licence or covenant not to sue is a common driver. Companies holding or acquiring IP adjacent to emergency response and mobile safety should track Lattice Technologies’ assertion activity across other defendants to assess whether a licensing programme is active.
Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for PAE emergency-tech assertions
Filing in E.D. Tex. signals a plaintiff optimised for early settlement dynamics. Security and monitoring companies — particularly those offering personal emergency response or connected-device features — should maintain pre-litigation FTO analyses for US8098153B2 and related continuations to avoid reactive decision-making under time pressure.
Lattice v ADT — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Lattice Technologies LLC is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims under US8098153B2 against ADT in any court. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits, providing ADT with res judicata-equivalent protection. Lattice retains the right to assert the patent against other defendants.
The sole patent asserted was US8098153B2, filed under application number US11/981463. It covers a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device — a claim scope relevant to mobile-triggered emergency alerts, personal emergency response systems, and connected-safety products.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a dismissal with prejudice filed just 63 days after the complaint — before any answer, claim construction, or substantive ruling — typically suggests either a confidential settlement (potentially including a licence or covenant not to sue), a strategic reassessment of claim viability, or a business decision that further litigation costs outweighed expected recovery.
There was no adjudicated win for either party on the merits. Lattice voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, and the court ordered each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. ADT received no damages or fee award, but it also faces no infringement finding and is permanently protected against Lattice re-asserting the same claims.
Yes. The dismissal only extinguishes Lattice’s claims against ADT specifically. Lattice Technologies retains ownership of US8098153B2 and may assert it against other defendants. Companies developing personal emergency response devices, mobile safety apps, wearables with SOS features, or connected-home security products with emergency alerting functions should consider running an FTO analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.