DCT
8:19-cv-02358
Hypertext Tech LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzen Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hypertext Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co., Ltd (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-02358, C.D. Cal., 12/06/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign (alien) corporation, which under Federal Circuit precedent can be sued for patent infringement in any judicial district. The complaint also notes that Defendant’s products are sold through retailers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe a patent related to using information within an SMS message to initiate a connection to the wireless internet and retrieve data, thereby overcoming the inherent size limitations of the SMS protocol.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a foundational method for linking the limited-data SMS environment with the broader capabilities of the mobile internet, a key development in the evolution of mobile device functionality.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts the patent claims priority to a Korean patent application. It also states that due to the patent claiming a process and no product ever having been sold by the patent owner or its predecessors, no patent marking requirement was ever triggered.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-02-06 | Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-09-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,113,801 Issued |
| 2019-12-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,113,801, Method For Receiving Data Using SMS And Wireless Internet And System Thereof, issued September 26, 2006.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, Short Message Service (SMS) technology was severely limited by its small data capacity (e.g., 140 bytes), which prevented the transmission of large files or extensive information and restricted its use to simple text-based communications ('801 Patent, col. 1:43-46; Compl. ¶35).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method and system where a user terminal receives an SMS that contains not just text, but also an "application protocol identifier" (e.g., "http") and corresponding "URL information." The terminal is programmed to recognize the protocol identifier, execute a corresponding IP channel connecting program (like a web browser), and use the URL to connect to a web server and download data, thus bypassing the SMS size limit ('801 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-27; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This approach allowed the simple, ubiquitous SMS system to function as a gateway for retrieving rich content from the wireless internet, a revolutionary step that expanded the utility of mobile messaging beyond its native constraints (Compl. ¶45).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 5 (a user terminal-readable medium) (Compl. ¶59).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- receiving a short message comprising at least an application protocol identifier and URL information;
- determining an IP channel-connecting program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier;
- executing the IP channel-connecting program;
- determining an application program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier;
- connecting to a web server using the URL and the application program; and
- receiving data from the web server.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are OnePlus smartphones, including but not limited to the OnePlus 3, 3T, 5, 5T, 6, 6T, and 7 Pro models (Compl. ¶7).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused functionality resides in the smartphones' standard operation, which involves running an SMS application and a web browser on the Android operating system (Compl. ¶¶1, 8). The specific accused function is the ability to receive an SMS text message containing a URL, recognize the URL, and allow a user to launch a web browser to connect to the corresponding website, thereby receiving data far in excess of the 140-byte SMS limit (Compl. ¶1). The complaint notes the products are sold through major U.S. retailers like Best Buy and T-Mobile (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' standard functionality for handling links within SMS messages infringes at least Claim 1 of the '801 Patent. The complaint provides a diagram, reproduced from the patent, to illustrate the patented system. The complaint's FIG. 2 is described as a schematic of a user terminal receiving data via SMS and the wireless Internet (Compl. ¶50).
- '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 | OnePlus smartphones receive SMS text messages which can include an application protocol identifier (e.g., "http") and URL information. | ¶1 | col. 7:22-26 |
| determining an IP channel-connecting program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The smartphone's operating system uses the application protocol identifier to determine that a web browser is the correct program to handle the URL. | ¶1 | col. 7:27-29 |
| executing the IP channel-connecting program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The smartphone executes the web browser application. | ¶1 | col. 7:30-32 |
| determining an application program in correspondence with the application protocol identifier | The smartphone's operating system uses the application protocol identifier to use an application program, such as a web browser. | ¶1 | 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 web browser uses the URL information from the SMS to connect to the specified web server over the internet. | ¶1 | col. 7:36-39 |
| and receiving said data in correspondence with the application protocol identifier from the web server | The smartphone receives data from the web server, which can surpass the 140-byte SMS data limit. | ¶1 | col. 7:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the automated link-recognition feature of a modern mobile operating system (e.g., Android) perform the specific, discrete sequence of "determining" and "executing" steps recited in the claim, or does it operate in a technically distinct manner?
- Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the accused devices perform two distinct "determination" steps as required by the claim language ("determining an IP channel-connecting program" and "determining an application program"). The defense may argue that the accused devices perform a single, integrated function, raising a question of whether every claim limitation is met.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "application protocol identifier"
- Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the entire claimed method. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the standard "http://" prefix found in a typical URL within a plain text message meets the definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent reads on the ubiquitous, conventional handling of web links in modern smartphones.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of examples including "HTTP, FTP, advertisement, game, stock, sports and news," which suggests the term is meant to encompass a wide variety of service types and is not limited to a single format ('801 Patent, col. 2:34-37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description of a preferred embodiment and its accompanying FIG. 3 illustrate a structured data format where the "application protocol" is in a separate field from the "URL" ('801 Patent, col. 5:3-14, FIG. 3). A party could argue this disclosure limits the term to messages with such a specific, parsed structure, as opposed to an identifier simply embedded within a larger text string.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing users with devices and instructions (e.g., user manuals) that "encourage" and "urge" them to use the SMS applications in an infringing manner, specifically by including URLs in messages (Compl. ¶62). It also alleges there is no substantial non-infringing use for the accused functionality (Compl. ¶63).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a placeholder allegation that Defendant may have had pre-suit knowledge of the '801 Patent and reserves the right to amend its complaint to seek enhanced damages after discovery (Compl. ¶66). It further suggests that infringement will be willful if Defendant continues its conduct after being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "application protocol identifier", as described in the context of the patent's specific embodiments and data structures, be construed broadly enough to read on the "http://" prefix as it commonly appears within a URL in a standard SMS message?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the integrated process of a modern smartphone OS for handling hyperlinks in text messages perform the distinct, separately-claimed steps of "determining an IP channel-connecting program" and "determining an application program," or is there a functional and operational mismatch with the specific sequence required by the patent claim?