DCT
8:19-cv-02356
Hypertext Tech LLC v. Google LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hypertext Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-02356, C.D. Cal., 12/06/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Google maintains several regular and established places of business in the district, including offices in Irvine, Los Angeles, and Playa Vista, and because the accused products are sold in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Google’s SMS messaging applications and the devices running them infringe a patent related to overcoming the data size limitations of SMS by using an embedded protocol identifier and URL to connect to a web server and retrieve larger amounts of data.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a fundamental limitation of early text messaging by enabling a short message to act as a gateway to rich content on the internet, a concept now foundational to mobile communications and marketing.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was originally assigned to KTFreetel Co., Ltd. of South Korea. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff Hypertext Technologies, LLC is the current legal owner with a complete chain of title. The complaint also asserts that no product practicing the patent has ever been sold by a prior owner or licensee, which, if true, would obviate any patent marking requirement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-02-06 | Earliest Priority Date for the ’801 Patent |
| 2006-09-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,113,801 Issues |
| 2019-12-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,113,801 - Method For Receiving Data Using SMS And Wireless Internet And System Thereof
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, Short Message Service (SMS) technology was severely constrained by a small data limit (e.g., 140-bytes), which restricted its use to truncated information like weather reports or stock prices and prevented the transmission of larger files like images ('801 Patent, col. 1:39-51; Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method and system where a device receives an SMS that includes both "URL information" (a web address) and an "application protocol identifier" (e.g., HTTP). The receiving device is configured to recognize the protocol identifier, automatically execute a corresponding program (like a web browser), and use that program to connect to the specified URL over the internet. This allows the user to access a large amount of data from a web server, effectively circumventing the size limitation of the initial SMS message ('801 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-24). Figure 2 illustrates a user terminal with distinct components for receiving the message, determining the protocol, and connecting to the network ('801 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanism for SMS messages to serve as pointers to rich, web-based content, a feature the complaint alleges was "revolutionary" and "opened the door to modern SMS mobile marketing" (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶55).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): The key elements include:
- Receiving a short message comprising an "application protocol identifier" and "URL information."
- Determining and executing an "IP channel-connecting program" based on the protocol identifier.
- Determining an "application program" based on the protocol identifier.
- Connecting to a web server using the URL and the application program.
- Receiving data from the web server.
- Independent Claim 5 (User Terminal-Readable Medium): This claim covers a storage medium with instructions for performing the method steps outlined in Claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as "Google's devices that store and execute SMS (Short Message Service) text messaging application(s)," with specific examples being "Google Hangout and Google Messenger" (Compl. ¶1). The hardware examples provided are the "Google Pixel 4 XL and Google Pixelbook Go" running the Android operating system (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that when the Accused Products receive an SMS text message containing a URL, they are able to recognize it as a "clickable link" (Compl. ¶36). Tapping the link causes the device to launch an application, such as a web browser, to connect to the internet and retrieve data from the server indicated by the URL (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges this functionality is a "vitally important feature" of modern messaging and is incorporated in "most if not all SMS messaging applications currently available" (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 44). The complaint includes Figure 2 from the patent, a schematic of a user terminal, to illustrate the allegedly infringing process (Compl. ¶45, p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’801 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a short message at said user terminal from said SMS server, wherein said short message comprises at least an application protocol identifier and URL information | Google’s messaging applications (e.g., Messenger) on its devices (e.g., Pixel phones) receive SMS messages that can contain a web link, such as "https://messages.google.com/". The "https" protocol acts as the "application protocol identifier" and the rest of the link is the "URL information" | ¶¶1, 36, 58 | col. 7:22-26 |
| determining an IP channel-connecting program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The device’s operating system (Android) and/or messaging application recognizes the "https" protocol and determines that a web browser is the appropriate program for connecting to the internet to handle the request | ¶¶1, 8, 36 | col. 7:27-29 |
| executing the IP channel-connecting program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | Upon the user tapping the link, the device executes the web browser program to initiate a connection | ¶¶1, 36 | col. 7:30-32 |
| determining an application program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The device determines that the web browser is the specific application to be used for accessing the content at the URL associated with the "https" protocol | ¶¶1, 8, 36 | col. 7:33-35 |
| connecting said web server in correspondence with said URL using the application program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The launched web browser uses the URL from the SMS message to connect to the designated web server (e.g., "messages.google.com") | ¶1 | col. 7:36-39 |
| receiving said data in correspondence with the application protocol identifier from the web server | The web browser receives data from the web server, such as the HTML and other assets for a webpage, which can "significantly surpass the 140-byte size limitation" of the original SMS | ¶¶1-2 | col. 7:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the common URL prefix "https://" qualifies as an "application protocol identifier" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue the patent requires a more specific identifier registered on the device for a particular service (e.g., "game," "stock"), as suggested by the specification, rather than a universal protocol for web access ('801 Patent, col. 5:15-20).
- Technical Questions: The asserted claims recite a sequence of discrete steps, including two separate "determining" steps. A potential issue is whether the seamless, integrated functionality of a modern operating system—which automatically recognizes a link and launches a default browser—can be mapped to this specific, multi-step process, or if the accused functionality collapses these steps into a single, undifferentiated action that does not meet the claim limitations literally.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "application protocol identifier"
Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement claim. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers any SMS message containing a standard web link or is limited to messages with more specialized service codes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's case appears to rely on a broad interpretation that includes "https," while the patent's own examples and description may suggest a narrower scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 3, a dependent claim, explicitly recites "a protocol identifier corresponding to hypertext (HTTP)," suggesting HTTP was clearly contemplated ('801 Patent, col. 8:47-48). The specification also provides a non-exhaustive list including "HTTPs, FTPs or other protocols" ('801 Patent, col. 4:18-19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where an "application protocol determiner" checks if a protocol is on a pre-registered list ('801 Patent, col. 5:39-49). It states that the protocol "should be registered in the user terminal 410 in advance," which could imply a more formal system than simply parsing a text string for "http" ('801 Patent, col. 5:17-19).
The Term: "determining an IP channel-connecting program"
Context and Importance: This term, along with the subsequent "executing" and second "determining" steps, defines the logic that translates a received SMS into a web connection. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products actually perform these as separate and distinct steps.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that any logical process that identifies and then launches the correct program (the browser) to handle an internet connection request satisfies this limitation, regardless of how the software is architected.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 and the accompanying text describe a system with distinct software components: a "short message program" (485) and an "IP channel connecting program" (490) ('801 Patent, col. 4:50-54). A defendant might argue that this requires two separate programs and that the integrated nature of the accused messaging apps does not meet this structural requirement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement by encouraging users to utilize its messaging applications to send messages containing URLs, "knowing full well" this will cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶58-59). The complaint also alleges that there is "no substantial non-infringing use" of the messaging applications in this context, given the limitations of SMS without the patented technology (Compl. ¶59).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a placeholder allegation that Google "may have had either actual or constructive knowledge...or was willfully blind to, the '801 Patent before receiving knowledge of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶62). It reserves the right to amend this allegation after discovery, suggesting it lacks specific evidence of pre-suit knowledge at the time of filing (Compl. ¶62).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "application protocol identifier", which the patent describes within a system of potentially registered services, be construed broadly enough to read on the ubiquitous "http://" or "https://" prefix found in any standard web link shared via text message?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the integrated, automatic link-handling function in Google's modern Android OS perform the discrete sequence of "determining", "executing", and "connecting" steps as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused product's unified operation and the patent's more granular, multi-component description of the invention?
- Finally, the case may raise a question of patent eligibility: although the complaint preemptively argues the claims are not abstract and are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 51-54), the defense may challenge the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by characterizing the claims as being directed to the abstract idea of using a reference (a URL) to retrieve information.