ALD Social, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Background

ALD Social alleged that Apple’s Exposure Notification system directly infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,198,054 and 9,402,158, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The patents concern an “Aggregate Location Dynometer,” a system that monitors wireless-device activity, gathers device locations, determines whether a geographic area presents a crowd-safety risk, and sends alerts.

Apple’s system uses Bluetooth technology to identify proximity between devices, process information associated with reported COVID-19 diagnoses, and alert users about possible exposure. ALD Social’s complaint included claim charts and other documents describing the system.

Legal standard

Apple moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, factual allegations generally are accepted as true, but conclusory statements are not. A patent-infringement complaint must provide enough factual content to make infringement plausible; it cannot merely repeat patent claim language. The court also may dismiss when documents attached to the complaint contradict the alleged infringement or when the proposed interpretation of a patent term is implausible.

Analysis

The court examined three patent limitations challenged by Apple: a “network monitor,” “location aggregation,” and a “crowd risk determinant.”

Network monitor. The patents require a monitor that observes a wireless network for an indication of a potential viral event. Based on the claim charts and attached materials, the court found it plausible that Apple’s system sensed real-time proximity among multiple devices over Bluetooth to compute an exposure event and combat the spread of COVID-19. This supported an inference that the system monitored the formation of mobile devices over a wireless network.

Location aggregation. The court found that ALD Social plausibly alleged that Apple’s system obtained and stored some location information. In particular, the system could determine whether a user had traveled outside an application’s geographic region, which supported a plausible inference that it used location data for that purpose. The court rejected Apple’s argument that ALD Social had to prove at the pleading stage that the location data was used for risk determination.

However, the ’158 patent specifically requires aggregation of current device locations associated with a potential viral event. The documents attached to the complaint showed that Apple’s system instead relied on reported COVID-19 diagnoses and proximity data from past interactions. The system uploaded recent Bluetooth beacon keys and notified users about past exposure; it did not aggregate current device locations to identify a potential viral event. The court therefore held that ALD Social did not plausibly plead the ’158 patent’s current-location requirement.

Crowd risk determinant. The patents require a component that determines a “crowd risk,” which the court understood to mean a danger posed by a contemporaneous accumulation of people in a geographic location, based on the observed location and movement of wireless devices. ALD Social alleged that Apple used an algorithm to assess exposure risk based on factors such as proximity and duration.

The court held that the attached documents contradicted or did not support the allegation that Apple’s system assessed crowd risk. Those documents described a system that used Bluetooth proximity and past interactions to alert particular users about possible individual exposure. The court concluded that the risk of an individual’s past COVID-19 exposure was not the same as, and could not plausibly be treated as equivalent to, the risk posed by a crowd. The complaint therefore failed to plausibly allege infringement of the crowd-risk-determinant limitation.

Disposition

The court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss. It stated that the documents attached to the complaint demonstrated that Apple’s product did not satisfy the patents’ crowd-risk-determinant limitation or the ’158 patent’s location-aggregation limitation. The court allowed ALD Social to file an amended complaint on or before August 14, 2023. The order disposed of Docket No. 21.