Lattice Technologies LLC v. BH Security LLC
Infringement action filed 15 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 23 Mar 2026, with US8098153B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8098153B2
- Application no.
- US11/981463
- Case no.
- 3:25-cv-00109
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Jan 2025 – 23 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 432 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device
The subject invention provides a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device (32). The method establishes a monitoring database (34) including identifications for a plurality of user devices (32) and user information associated with each of the user devices (32). An internet protocol (IP) address is established for the monitoring database (34) and for each user device (32). The monitoring database (34) includes contacts to be contacted in an emergency for each user of each user device (32) and receives priority information for notifying the contacts. Communication is established between one of the user devices (32) and the monitoring database (34) and the monitoring database (34) automatically processes the priority information to notify the contact using either internet protocols or public-switched telephone networks.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Jan 2012
- Earliest priority
- 22 Jul 2003
- Est. expiry
- 23 Dec 2026
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019870 · EPR · filed by Unified Patents LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KRAUS, MARK W. · TOENJES, PAUL G.
- Classification
- G08B1/08G08B25/01G08B25/08H04M11/04H04M15/00H04W4/90H04W76/00
- Examiner
- TRIEU, VAN T.
Parties of record
Lattice Technologies LLC
- Core tech
- G08B1/08G08B25/01G08B25/08H04M11/04
- Counsel
- Benjamin C. Deming · Isaac Philip Rabicoff
- Firm
- DNL Zito, Rabicoff Law LLC
BH Security LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Chad C. Walters · Kurt M. Pankratz · Melissa Leyla Muenks
- Firm
- Baker Botts LLP (Dallas), Baker Botts LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin C. Deming | Lattice Technologies LLC | Plaintiff |
| Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Lattice Technologies LLC | Plaintiff |
| Chad C. Walters | BH Security LLC | Defendant |
| Kurt M. Pankratz | BH Security LLC | Defendant |
| Melissa Leyla Muenks | BH Security LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The court issues this Judgment pursuant to its Order filed earlier today. Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Lattice Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) take nothing against Defendant BH Security, LLC (“Defendant”); that this action Plaintiff filed against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice; that all allowable and reasonable costs of court are taxed against Plaintiff; and that all relief not specifically granted herein is denied.”
Case 3:25-cv-00109 · N.D. Tex. · closed 23 March 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 3:25-cv-00109?
3:25-cv-00109 is a patent infringement action brought by Lattice Technologies LLC against BH Security LLC, filed on 15 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 23 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 3:25-cv-00109?
US8098153B2 (“System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device”), assigned to LATTICE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device.
How was case 3:25-cv-00109 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “The court issues this Judgment pursuant to its Order filed earlier today. Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Lattice Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) take nothing against Defendant BH Security, LLC (“Defendant”); that this action Plaintiff filed against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice; that all allowable and reasonable costs of court are taxed against Plaintiff; and that all relief not specifically granted herein is denied.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 3:25-cv-00109 take?
432 calendar days, from filing on 15 Jan 2025 to closure on 23 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:25-cv-00109?
Benjamin C. Deming and Isaac Philip Rabicoff are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lattice Technologies. Chad C. Walters, Kurt M. Pankratz and Melissa Leyla Muenks appear for defendant BH Security.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:25-cv-00109 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.