DCT
2:20-cv-00253
Kajeet Inc v. Cujo LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kajeet, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Cujo LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fernald Law Group APC; Friedman, Suder & Cooke
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00253, C.D. Cal., 01/09/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its "lone established and regular place of business" in El Segundo, California, within the district, from which it develops and sells the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart firewall and network security platform infringe patents related to the remote, policy-based management of communication devices.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of network-level device management, particularly for parental controls, a significant segment of the home and enterprise network security market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents since at least April 13, 2018, via a notice letter. The complaint also references a statement made during the prosecution of the ’559 Patent to distinguish prior art, emphasizing a "distributed architecture where policy decisions are performed at the server level." Notably, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) was concluded for the ’559 Patent. The resulting IPR certificate, issued June 28, 2023, cancelled claims 1, 5-15, 18-21, and 27-29. This includes independent claim 27, which is the sole independent claim of the '559 Patent asserted in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-06-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’438 and ’559 Patents |
| 2011-03-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,899,438 Issued |
| 2013-10-17 | Office Action Response Filed for ’559 Patent Prosecution |
| 2014-03-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,667,559 Issued |
| 2018-04-13 | Alleged Date of Pre-Suit Notice to Defendant |
| 2020-01-09 | Complaint Filed |
| 2023-06-28 | Inter Partes Review Certificate Issued for ’559 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,667,559, "Feature Management of a Communication Device," issued March 4, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inadequacy of prior methods for controlling device usage, particularly for children. It notes that simply taking devices away negates their communication benefits, prepaid plans can unexpectedly run out of funds and block emergency use, and policies stored directly on the end-user device are vulnerable to tampering ('559 Patent, col. 1:47-2:67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed system where use policies are stored and managed on a remote server, separate from the end-user's device. A request to use a feature on the device is sent to the server, which makes a real-time decision based on the stored policy and sends a response to enable or disable the function. This architecture is intended to provide robust, tamper-resistant control ('559 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). The decision-making function is explicitly located at a "policy decision point" (29) separate from the end-user's "mobile station" (10) ('559 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This server-based approach provided a centralized and more secure method for administrators (like parents) to manage features on increasingly complex and internet-connected devices ('559 Patent, col. 5:11-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 27 ('Compl. ¶41).
- Essential elements of independent claim 27 include:
- A method for controlling a computing device, comprising: sending to a server a request to communicate with a remote computing device.
- Receiving in real-time from the server a response indicative of a decision, with the decision "being based on a policy stored at the server."
- Enforcing the response by enabling or disabling the communication "without storing the policy on the computing device."
- The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims ('Compl. ¶50).
U.S. Patent No. 7,899,438, "Feature Management of a Communication Device," issued March 1, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares a common specification with the ’559 Patent, addresses the same problems of providing effective, non-tamperable control over a user's communication device while ensuring availability for essential uses ('438 Patent, col. 1:40-2:34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system for real-time device management that includes a "policy decider" and a "policy enforcer," both "housed within a network device." This network device stores the policies and enforces decisions, separating the control logic from the managed end-user device ('438 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:52-16:2). Figure 2 illustrates this separation, showing the policy decider and enforcer as part of the network infrastructure, distinct from the mobile station.
- Technical Importance: This system architecture provided a concrete implementation for remotely managing device features, a departure from device-centric control schemes ('438 Patent, col. 5:41-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 27 (Compl. ¶57).
- Essential elements of independent claim 27 include:
- A system for managing in real-time a communication device.
- A "policy decider housed within a network device" for storing a list of policies and automatically deciding to accept or deny a request.
- A "policy enforcer housed within a network device" for enforcing the decision.
- The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products include "all versions of the Cujo's Smart Firewall products and services" and the "AI Platform for Network Operators products and services," particularly its "Compass" products (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Cujo Smart Firewall is described as a system combining a hardware appliance and a software application (the "Cujo App") (Compl. ¶22). The appliance is inserted into a home network, typically by connecting to the router (Compl. ¶23, ¶25). An administrator uses the Cujo App to configure "master policies," such as content and time-based rules, which are "stored on Cujo's cloud servers" (Compl. ¶24). The appliance receives and stores "local copies" of these master policies and inspects all network traffic, passing through the appliance to enforce the rules by blocking or allowing communications (Compl. ¶¶24, 26-28). The system is marketed as a tool for parents and others to control device usage on a network (Compl. ¶7, ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
8,667,559 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for controlling a computing device configured to execute a function using a communication network managed by a service provider, the method comprising: sending to a server a request to communicate with a remote computing device over the communication network; | A user on a managed device attempts to access a website. The Smart Firewall appliance detects this attempted use and "formats a usage request for comparison to applicable usage policies." | ¶30 | col. 18:27-31 |
| receiving in real-time from the server a response indicative of a decision granting or denying the request, the decision being based on one or more policies that are stored at the server and based at least in part on input from an administrator; | Master policies are set by an administrator via the Cujo App and stored on "Cujo's cloud servers." The Smart Firewall appliance makes "real time" policy decisions in response to requests. The appliance connects to the Cujo Cloud Service to receive updated copies of the policies. | ¶¶24, 27, 30 | col. 18:32-37 |
| and enforce the response by enabling the requested communication with the remote computing device... when the decision grants the request and by disabling the requested communication... when the response denies the request, the requested communication being enabled or disabled without accessing the one or more policies by the computing device. | For permitted requests, the Smart Firewall allows the communication. For blocked requests, it transmits data blocking the communication. The complaint alleges these decisions are enforced "without storing the master policies applied on the devices, themselves." | ¶¶28, 30, 31 | col. 18:38-48 |
7,899,438 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for managing in real-time a communication device used by a user on a communication network, comprising: a policy decider housed within a network device on the communication network for storing a list of policies that control one or more features or functions... and for automatically deciding to accept or deny a request... | The Cujo Smart Firewall appliance is alleged to be the "network device." It receives and stores "local copies of the master policies." The complaint alleges that "Policy decisions are made in real time in response to requests by the Smart Firewall." | ¶¶22, 24, 30 | col. 17:27-38 |
| and a policy enforcer housed within a network device on the communication network for communicating the request to the policy decider and enforcing a decision by the policy decider... | The Smart Firewall appliance is alleged to be the network device housing the policy enforcer. It enforces decisions by "permitting or blocking execution of the requested function or communication" and transmitting data back to the router or managed device. | ¶¶28, 30 | col. 17:39-18:8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- ’559 Patent Validity: The primary point of contention is that the asserted independent claim 27 of the ’559 Patent was cancelled in an IPR proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed. The continuation of an infringement claim based on a cancelled patent claim raises a threshold, and likely dispositive, legal question.
- Location of Decision-Making (’559 Patent): A potential technical dispute for the ’559 Patent centers on whether Cujo's system meets the "receiving... from the server a... decision" limitation. The complaint alleges that the Cujo appliance makes the decision locally using a "copy" of the policy (Compl. ¶30), which raises the question of whether this architecture is equivalent to receiving the actual decision from the server as claimed.
- Location of Policy Storage (’438 Patent): For the ’438 Patent, the dispute may focus on the interpretation of a "policy decider housed within a network device for storing a list of policies." The complaint alleges the master policies are on Cujo's cloud servers, with only "local copies" on the appliance (Compl. ¶24). This raises the question of whether the primary "storing" function occurs at the cloud server, potentially outside the claimed "network device" (the appliance).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "policy stored at the server" (from ’559 Patent, claim 27)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed distributed architecture. Its construction will determine whether Cujo's system, which uses cloud servers for master policy storage but a local appliance with cached policies for enforcement, infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the location of the decision-making intelligence is a key technical distinction from prior art.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the policy control system in terms of logical components, such as a "policy decision point" (PDP), which could be argued to encompass a distributed system where the authoritative policy resides on a server even if enforcement relies on a local, synchronized copy ('559 Patent, col. 8:31-39, Fig. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "receiving in real-time from the server a response indicative of a decision." This may be interpreted to require that the decision logic itself is executed on the server using the policy stored there, not merely that the policy originates from the server.
The Term: "without storing the policy on the computing device" (from ’559 Patent, claim 27)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the invention against prior art where policies were stored on the end-user device and were thus vulnerable to manipulation. The question is what "the computing device" refers to.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this refers to the end-user device being managed (e.g., the child's phone or laptop), not the intermediary Cujo firewall appliance (Compl. ¶31). This interpretation is supported by the patent's focus on preventing the end-user from circumventing controls ('559 Patent, col. 14:17-21).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the Cujo appliance is also a "computing device" and that it does, in fact, store a copy of the policy. However, the specification consistently distinguishes between the "mobile station" being controlled and the network components that control it ('559 Patent, Fig. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Cujo providing user manuals and setup guides that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 64). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the assertion that the accused products are especially designed for the infringing purpose of controlling device use and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 65).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the patents since at least April 13, 2018, as a result of a pre-suit notice letter (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 62).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive threshold issue will be one of claim viability: what is the legal effect of the post-filing IPR decision that cancelled the sole independent claim of the ’559 Patent asserted in this action?
- A central claim construction question will be one of architectural scope: does the ’438 Patent's requirement for a "policy decider housed within a network device for storing a list of policies" read on Cujo's architecture, where master policies are stored in the cloud and local copies are stored on the network appliance?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional location: what evidence will exist to show whether Cujo's system performs the policy decision on the server (as arguably required by the ’559 Patent) versus on the local appliance (as described in the complaint), and whether that distinction creates a functional mismatch with the claims?