Lattice Technologies v. Alert 360 Opco: Emergency Response Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Lattice Technologies LLC asserted US8098153B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for delivering emergency response to users via a carried device — against home security operator Alert 360 Opco, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 201 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
NPE Emergency Response Patent Claim Ends by Joint Stipulation in E.D. Texas
Lattice Technologies LLC filed suit against Alert 360 Opco, Inc. on October 4, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00804), asserting infringement of US8098153B2. The patent, filed under application number US11/981463, claims a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device — technology directly relevant to Alert 360’s home security and monitoring services business.
The case closed on April 23, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff Lattice’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning it is barred from re-asserting the same claims against Alert 360 on the same patent. Alert 360’s counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to revive those claims in a future proceeding. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees.
Resolution in 201 days — before any Markman hearing or merits ruling — is consistent with pre-trial settlement in NPE-driven patent cases in E.D. Texas. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims suggests the parties reached a resolution, though the public record does not disclose financial terms. The asymmetric treatment of counterclaims (without prejudice for defendant) is a notable structural feature that leaves Alert 360 with latent optionality on its defensive positions.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 201 days
201 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early settlement patterns in E.D. Texas NPE cases
With-prejudice dismissal: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. Here, both Lattice and Alert 360 signed the stipulation. The court accepted and acknowledged the filing — it did not independently adjudicate the merits. This mechanism is the standard vehicle for case resolution by settlement without requiring court approval of the underlying terms.
No merits ruling issuedLattice’s claims extinguished — no second bite at Alert 360
Dismissal with prejudice of Lattice’s claims operates as a final judgment on the merits against Lattice with respect to Alert 360. Lattice cannot re-file the same infringement claims under US8098153B2 against Alert 360 Opco in any court. This is the most consequential term for the plaintiff — it permanently forecloses this specific enforcement avenue. Whether a licensing payment was extracted before dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently barred vs. Alert 360Alert 360 counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Alert 360’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not decided on the merits and Alert 360 retains the legal right to revive them. This asymmetric structure is commercially significant: Alert 360 preserves optionality on any invalidity or unenforceability arguments it raised. In practice, defendants rarely re-file counterclaims after settlement, but the legal door remains open.
Counterclaim optionality preservedUS8098153B2 remains enforceable against the broader market
Because the dismissal was by stipulation without any merits adjudication, US8098153B2 has not been invalidated or found unenforceable. Lattice retains the patent and can pursue other operators in the home security and emergency response sector. Companies offering mobile or IoT-connected emergency response features should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider FTO analysis.
Patent remains live enforcement threatFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lattice Technologies LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8098153B2 covering emergency response systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ALERT 360 OPCO, INC. | Company | Alert 360 Opco, Inc. — home security monitoring and alarm services operatorSearch 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 | Aaron P Pirouznia | Attorney | Counsel for ALERT 360 OPCO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bret Thomas Winterle | Attorney | Counsel for ALERT 360 OPCO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for ALERT 360 OPCO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing ALERT 360 OPCO, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges the joint stipulation without independently reviewing the merits. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is a deliberate negotiated outcome. The with-prejudice component carries preclusive effect under res judicata, permanently barring Lattice from re-asserting these claims against Alert 360. The without-prejudice counterclaim dismissal is procedurally standard where a defendant does not wish to pursue invalidity post-resolution but preserves the option.
US8098153B2 — Emergency Response System via User-Carried Device
US8098153B2 (application no. US11/981463) covers a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device. The patent is positioned at the intersection of mobile communications, location services, and emergency dispatch technology — a domain that has grown substantially with the proliferation of smartphones, wearables, and IoT-connected home security products. The patent’s claims are likely directed at the detection of an emergency condition and the automated or semi-automated initiation of a response via a user-carried device.
Strategically, US8098153B2 sits in a space contested by home security operators, telecom carriers, wearable device makers, and personal safety app developers. Its assertion against Alert 360 — a company whose core product is monitored home security — suggests the patent holder views alarm monitoring platforms with mobile or connected components as within scope. Companies building emergency response features into apps, wearables, smart home hubs, or fleet management systems should evaluate this patent carefully before launch.
Should you run an FTO against US8098153B2?
Any company developing or commercialising emergency response features delivered via a user-carried device — including personal safety apps, connected alarm systems, wearable SOS buttons, or smart home monitoring platforms — should treat US8098153B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent remains in force, has been asserted in active litigation, and its owner has demonstrated willingness to pursue enforcement in E.D. Texas, a historically plaintiff-favourable venue.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim landscape of US8098153B2 against your product architecture in minutes — identifying overlapping claim elements, relevant prior art, and design-around opportunities. Eureka also surfaces related family members and co-pending applications that may extend the enforceability window beyond the primary patent number.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8098153B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Emergency Response & Home Security Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving emergency response systems, home security technology, and NPE assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the home security and emergency response IP landscape
The with-prejudice dismissal pattern in E.D. Texas NPE cases typically signals a confidential resolution — and leaves the asserted patent fully intact for future enforcement.
US8098153B2 is still active — other home security operators remain exposed
The dismissal did not touch the validity or scope of US8098153B2. Lattice Technologies retains full enforcement rights. Any company providing emergency response features via a user-carried device — particularly in the home security, personal safety, or IoT monitoring sectors — should assess whether their products fall within the patent’s claims.
E.D. Texas NPE patterns: early resolution before Markman is the norm
This case resolved in 201 days with no claim construction order on the docket. This is consistent with NPE strategy in E.D. Texas — filing in a plaintiff-friendly venue to create settlement pressure before costly litigation milestones. Defendants in similar postures should budget for early motion practice and prepare IPR petitions as leverage.
Lattice v ALERT — key questions answered
The case was dismissed via joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Lattice Technologies’ infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring re-assertion against Alert 360. Alert 360’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits against the plaintiff. Lattice Technologies cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims under US8098153B2 against Alert 360 Opco in any federal court. The res judicata effect is permanent with respect to this defendant, though the patent remains enforceable against other parties.
Yes. The joint stipulation dismissal did not include any adjudication of the patent’s validity or enforceability. No claim construction order or invalidity finding was issued. US8098153B2 remains an active, enforceable patent that Lattice Technologies can assert against other defendants in the home security and emergency response technology sector.
The asymmetric dismissal — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is a negotiated outcome typically reflecting that the defendant did not wish to formally abandon its invalidity or other defensive arguments as part of settlement. Without prejudice preserves Alert 360’s ability to revive counterclaims, though in practice post-settlement re-filing is uncommon.
The dismissal order references Case No. 2:24-cv-00804 as a ‘Member Case’ and directs the clerk to maintain the ‘Lead Case’ as open. This strongly suggests that Lattice Technologies filed US8098153B2 against multiple defendants in a coordinated campaign consolidated under a single lead docket in E.D. Texas — a common NPE litigation strategy. IP professionals should monitor the lead docket for additional member case activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.