DCT
2:22-cv-07614
Communication Interface Tech LLC v. Starbucks Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Communication Interface Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-07614, C.D. Cal., 10/19/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Starbucks mobile application infringes three patents related to establishing, maintaining, and efficiently resuming client-server communication sessions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for maintaining a "virtual session" between a client device and a server without requiring a continuous physical connection, a foundational concept for modern mobile application push notifications and data synchronization.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents have been the subject of extensive prior litigation against numerous other companies. The complaint also notes that the lead patent was previously litigated but that those cases settled before any claim construction hearings were conducted. Plaintiff also alleges that as of the filing date, there are more than 180 licensees to the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-10-07 | Priority Date for ’239, ’296, and ’010 Patents |
| 2003-06-03 | U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239 Issued |
| 2012-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,266,296 Issued |
| 2012-10-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010 Issued |
| 2018-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239 Expired |
| 2019-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,266,296 Expired |
| 2019-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010 Expired |
| 2022-10-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239 - VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, maintaining a connection between a mobile device and a server (e.g., via dial-up or cellular modem) was costly and inefficient, especially when continuous access was not required (Compl. ¶¶11-13). Each time a connection was needed, a new session had to be established from scratch, a process that consumed time and computational resources (’239 Patent, col. 2:15-26).
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a "virtual session" layer that allows a communication session to be maintained in a deactivated or "inactive" state even when the physical connection is terminated (’239 Patent, col. 3:45-54). When communication is needed again, the session can be quickly reactivated using stored parameters (e.g., cryptographic keys, user credentials), avoiding the need for a full re-authentication and renegotiation process (’239 Patent, col. 4:13-24; Fig. 5). This creates a seamless user experience that mimics a persistent connection without the associated cost and resource drain (Compl. ¶17).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled more efficient use of network resources, particularly for emerging wireless and mobile applications where bandwidth and connection time were expensive and limited (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
- establishing a virtual session with a remote unit to support an application layer program;
- placing the virtual session in an inactive state;
- sending a signal from a server to the remote unit, where the signal is indicative of an incoming communication request and includes an "application-program identifying packet" that identifies the specific application program needing to resume the session;
- placing the virtual session back into an active state and transferring data in response to the sending of the signal.
- The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis to include other claims (Compl. ¶40).
U.S. Patent No. 8,266,296 - APPLICATION-LAYER EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY A MOBILE DEVICE
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a server to efficiently initiate a communication session with a specific application on a remote mobile device that is not actively connected (Compl. ¶15). Prior art methods required the client to initiate all connections, which was inefficient for applications needing timely, server-pushed updates (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method from the perspective of the mobile device (e.g., a "mobile handset"). The device receives an unsolicited communication from a remote server, which contains information identifying a specific application installed on the device (’296 Patent, Abstract). A "control program" on the handset evaluates this information, launches the corresponding application, and reactivates the previously established communication session, allowing data to flow from the server (’296 Patent, col. 24:1-21; Fig. 8).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a mechanism for server-initiated "push" notifications that could wake up a specific, otherwise inactive, application on a mobile device to receive data, a foundational concept for modern mobile app functionality (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- receiving, at a control program on a mobile handset, a first communication from a remote entity that was not initiated in response to a request from the handset;
- the communication includes a set of information identifying an application layer program installed on the handset;
- the control program causes the handset to evaluate this set of information;
- in response to the evaluation identifying the application, the control program causes the handset to launch the application and reactivate a communication session with the remote entity from an inactive state.
- The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis to include other claims (Compl. ¶58).
U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010 - VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010, “VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER,” issued October 16, 2012.
- Technology Synopsis: As a member of the same patent family, the ’010 patent also discloses methods for managing client-server communications through a "virtual session" that can be deactivated and reactivated. The claims focus on the establishment of a communication session, its subsequent deactivation, and the client device's receipt of an unsolicited communication from the server that triggers the reactivation of the session for a specific application (’010 Patent, col. 29:36-52).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶¶74-75).
- Accused Features: The accused features are the Starbucks App's systems and methods for using push notifications to re-establish communication between the app and Starbucks's servers after a period of inactivity (Compl. ¶73).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Starbucks App" and other associated mobile device applications, systems, and methods provided by Starbucks (the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities are mobile applications that perform methods where wireless push notification messages are sent over Transport Layer Security (TLS) sessions to a user's device (Compl. ¶37). It is further alleged that the remote server and the client-side application establish a separate TLS connection for traditional client-server communications (Compl. ¶37). The screenshot provided in the complaint's infringement chart shows an example of a push notification sent to a user's device. (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 97).
- Plaintiff alleges that these features provide convenience and efficiency for customers, enhance customer engagement, and increase the efficiency of Defendant's operations (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’239 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| establishing a virtual session with a remote unit, the virtual session being instantiated to support at least one application layer program; | The Transport Layer Security (TLS) session established between the Starbucks server backend and the Starbucks App running on a user's smartphone or tablet. | ¶37; Ex. 4, p. 97-98 | col. 4:13-24 |
| placing the virtual session in an inactive state; | The TLS session is placed into an inactive state after the application data phase is finished, allowing it to be resumed later with an abbreviated handshake. | ¶37; Ex. 4, p. 99 | col. 10:55-11:5 |
| sending a signal indicative of an incoming communication request and an application-program identifying packet to said remote unit... | The server sends a wireless push notification to the user's device. This notification allegedly contains an "app-specific device token" which identifies the Starbucks App. | ¶37; Ex. 4, p. 99-100 | col. 25:52-56 |
| placing the virtual session back into the active state and transferring data... in response to said step of sending. | Upon user interaction with the notification, the TLS session is resumed using an abbreviated handshake, placing it back into an active state to allow new data to be passed. | ¶37; Ex. 4, p. 101 | col. 17:3-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a standard Transport Layer Security (TLS) session constitutes the claimed "virtual session." The patent specification depicts the "Virtual Session" layer as distinct from and superior to the "Transport" layer (’239 Patent, Fig. 1A), whereas TLS is a transport layer protocol. The definition and scope of "virtual session" will likely be a key point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the "app-specific device token" used in modern push notification architectures performs the same function as the claimed "application-program identifying packet." The patent's primary embodiment for this element is a "caller-ID packet" (’239 Patent, col. 23:18-21), raising the question of whether the two are technically equivalent.
’296 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, at a control program executing on a mobile handset, a first communication initiated by a remote entity... not in response to a request sent by the mobile handset; | The Starbucks App, in conjunction with the mobile OS, receives a push notification from the Starbucks server. Push notifications are server-initiated ("push") rather than client-initiated ("pull"). | ¶55; Ex. 5, p. 113-114 | col. 29:36-44 |
| ...wherein the first communication includes a set of information identifying an application layer program that is installed on the mobile handset... | The push notification allegedly includes an "app-specific device token" that uniquely identifies the Starbucks App on the user's device. | ¶55; Ex. 5, p. 114 | col. 29:40-44 |
| the control program causing the mobile handset to evaluate the set of information included in the first communication; | The mobile device's operating system, in concert with the Starbucks App, allegedly evaluates the app-specific device token to route the notification to the correct application. | ¶55; Ex. 5, p. 115 | col. 24:1-4 |
| in response to determining... the control program causing the mobile handset to: launch the application layer program; and reactivate... a communication session... | Upon user interaction with the notification, the Starbucks App is brought to the foreground (launched), and the underlying TLS communication session with the server is resumed from an inactive state. | ¶55; Ex. 5, p. 115-116 | col. 24:5-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: What constitutes the "control program" on the mobile handset may be a point of contention. The infringement theory appears to rely on the combined operation of the Starbucks App and the underlying mobile operating system (e.g., iOS or Android). Whether this combination meets the definition of the claimed "control program" may be disputed.
- Technical Questions: The precise technical steps and division of labor between the mobile OS and the Starbucks App in "evaluating" the push notification and "causing" the app to launch and reactivate the session will be a key factual inquiry. A defendant may argue that the OS, not the app's "control program," performs the critical evaluation step.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’239 Patent:
- The Term: "virtual session"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the invention. Its construction will determine whether a widely used, standardized protocol like TLS falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's own figures suggest it is a distinct protocol layer, potentially creating a significant non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept as allowing a session to be "maintained in a deactivated state when no physical connection exists" (’239 Patent, col. 3:48-50), a functional description that could be argued to read on TLS session resumption.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1A explicitly depicts the "Virtual Session" layer (154, 156) as separate from and superior to the "Transport" layer (158, 160) (’239 Patent, Fig. 1A). As TLS is a transport layer protocol, this could support an argument that a TLS session is not the claimed "virtual session."
For the ’296 Patent:
- The Term: "control program"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the entity on the mobile device that performs the active steps of the claim. The infringement case depends on mapping this term to the functionality of the accused Starbucks App, potentially in combination with the mobile OS.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term in a general sense to refer to the software that governs the operation of the remote unit, which could be interpreted to encompass a modern mobile application that utilizes OS services (’296 Patent, col. 6:17-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description of a "control program module 120" executing on a CPU 105 could be argued to contemplate a more monolithic software architecture with direct hardware control, rather than a sandboxed application that relies on the OS to receive and initially process push notifications (’296 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual session," which the patent specification illustrates as a distinct protocol layer above the transport layer, be construed to cover a standard Transport Layer Security (TLS) session, which operates at the transport layer?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical agency: does the accused Starbucks App itself perform the claimed steps of "evaluating" an incoming communication and "causing" the launch and session reactivation, or are those functions primarily performed by the underlying mobile operating system, potentially creating a disconnect between the accused instrumentality and the claim's requirement that the "control program" perform these actions?