DCT

2:22-cv-08555

Wave Linx LLC v. Convoso Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wave Linx LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Convoso, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Murthy Patent Law PLLC; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08555, C.D. Cal., 11/22/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides in the district through its regular and established place of business.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s contact center software infringes a patent related to a method for delivering real-time telephone system notifications to a user's web browser.
Technical Context: The technology concerns integrating traditional public switched telephone networks (PSTN) with internet-based applications, allowing web clients to receive live status updates about telephone calls.
Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-27	U.S. Patent No. 8,843,549 Priority Date
2014-09-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,843,549 Issued
2022-11-22	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,843,549 - Streaming Method for Transmitting Telephone System Notifications to Internet Terminal Devices in Real Time

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of integrating internet-based applications with traditional telephone systems, which often resulted in proprietary, complex solutions that lacked interoperability and scalability ('549' Patent, col. 1:12-28). The goal was to provide real-time call notifications to a web user without the drawbacks of these custom systems.
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a client (e.g., a PC with a web browser) establishes a persistent connection with a server ('549 Patent, col. 2:41-45). When the server receives a notification from a telephone switching system (e.g., an incoming call), it transforms the notification message into a programming language code (like JavaScript or HTML) that the client's browser can execute ('549 Patent, col. 2:56-61). This code is then sent to the browser using an "HTTP streaming" technique, which keeps the connection open to allow for subsequent, real-time updates without the client needing to repeatedly request new information ('549 Patent, col. 2:61-66). The browser then executes the code to display the notification to the user ('549 Patent, col. 2:66-col. 3:2).
Technical Importance: This approach aimed to leverage standardized, widely adopted web protocols like HTTP to reduce protocol overhead and simplify security, avoiding the need for client-side plugins or custom software installations ('549 Patent, col. 2:2-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶17).
Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- opening a connection between the client and a server;
- transmitting notification messages from the telephone switching system to the server using a networking protocol;
- transforming the notification messages at the server into a programming language code executable by the client's browser;
- using said networking protocol for sending the programming language code to the client;
- using an HTTP streaming mechanism for transmission of the notification from the server to the browser through the open connection;
- whereby the connection between the client and the server remains open in the intervening period between the transmission of individual notification messages; and
- executing the programming language codes by the browser whereby the respective notification messages are displayed or outputted at the client.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims ('549 Patent, col. 5:22-col. 6:53; Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Convoso Omni Contact Center" (the "Accused Product") ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Product is alleged to be a system that provides real-time notifications, such as for incoming phone calls, to a client using a telephone switching system ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶18). The complaint describes a user logging into a web-based version of the Convoso contact center via a browser to receive these notifications ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶19, ¶21). The system allegedly receives call information originating from a traditional phone network, processes it on a server, and transmits it to the user's browser for display ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶20-23).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" which was not attached to the publicly filed document ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶18). The following is a summary of the narrative infringement allegations provided in the body of the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges the Accused Product practices the method of Claim 1. The complaint alleges a user opens a connection to a Convoso server by logging into a Convoso account ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶19). It further alleges that notification messages, such as calls from a traditional phone network, are transmitted to the Convoso server via a networking protocol like IP ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶20). At the server, these notifications are allegedly transformed into a "markup language code such as HTML code" which is then sent to the client's browser, where it is executable ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts the Accused Product uses an "HTTP streaming (e.g., call session streaming...)" mechanism to transmit these notifications through an open connection, such as a "chat or a call queue," which remains open between messages ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶22). Finally, the user's browser allegedly executes the code to display the notification or play a sound ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶23). For dependent Claim 4, the complaint alleges the Accused Product uses the HTTP protocol for the client-server connection ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

Technical Questions: A central factual question may be whether the Accused Product's architecture uses an "HTTP streaming mechanism" as claimed, or if it employs a different, more modern technology for maintaining a persistent connection (e.g., WebSockets). The complaint's allegation of "call session streaming" is general and will likely require technical discovery to substantiate ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶22).
Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether "markup language code such as HTML code," as alleged in the complaint, qualifies as a "programming language code" as recited in the claim ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶21; '549 Patent, col. 6:9-13).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "HTTP streaming mechanism"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's method of maintaining a persistent connection to push data from server to client. The validity of the infringement allegation depends on whether the Accused Product's technical implementation for real-time updates falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent contrasts its method with traditional request-response HTTP ('549 Patent, col. 5:58-61), and the specific nature of the accused "call session streaming" is undefined in the complaint ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶22).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the mechanism's purpose is to ensure "the connection remains open while fresh notification messages are pushed to the client" ('549 Patent, col. 5:58-61). This functional description could support an interpretation covering various techniques that achieve a long-lived, server-push HTTP connection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "preferred embodiment" based on "server-side Java servlets" and notes that "streaming is a call back by the server to the client" ('549 Patent, col. 5:48-51). This could support a narrower construction limited to the specific "pushlet"-style implementation detailed in the patent ('549 Patent, col. 5:8-10).
The Term: "programming language code"
Context and Importance: The claim requires "transforming" telephone notifications into a "programming language code" executable by a browser. The complaint alleges this is satisfied by generating "markup language code such as HTML code" ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶21). The distinction between a markup language (like HTML) and a programming language (like JavaScript) is a well-established concept in computer science, and the construction of this term will be critical to infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists "JavaScript, XML, HTML or Java-serialised objects" as examples of formats the code can be generated in ('549 Patent, col. 6:9-13). The inclusion of "HTML" in this list provides direct intrinsic support for Plaintiff's position that HTML falls within the claimed term's scope for the purposes of this patent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that in the context of code that is "executed," the term should be limited to languages with procedural logic, like JavaScript, which is also listed as an example ('549 Patent, col. 6:9-13). They may argue that a browser "renders" HTML but "executes" JavaScript, suggesting a functional distinction that could narrow the term's meaning despite the specification's explicit list.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the '549 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶28). This allegation provides a basis for post-suit willfulness and a claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not allege pre-suit knowledge ('549 Patent, col. 5:1-col. 6:35; Compl. ¶34.e).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the Convoso Omni Contact Center's architecture for real-time notifications utilize an "HTTP streaming mechanism" as understood and defined within the '549 Patent, or does it rely on a fundamentally different technology for persistent client-server communication?
The case will also involve a question of definitional scope: Can the term "programming language code" be construed to encompass "HTML code" as alleged in the complaint, given that the patent's own specification explicitly includes HTML in a list of exemplary codes?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: Does the accused system in fact maintain a connection that "remains open in the intervening period between the transmission of individual notification messages," as required by the claim, and what factual evidence will be presented to prove or disprove this continuous state?