DCT
3:25-cv-05387
Five9 Inc v. Random Chat
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Five9, Inc. (Delaware / California)
- Defendant: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Day
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-05387, N.D. Cal., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Five9 alleges venue is proper because Defendant Random Chat has purposefully directed patent enforcement activities at Five9 in the Northern District of California, where Five9 is headquartered. The complaint further alleges venue based on an alter-ego theory, asserting that Random Chat and its parent, Pueblo Nuevo, have availed themselves of the forum by filing numerous other patent lawsuits in the district through various subsidiaries.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its customer support chat products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to methods for multimedia communication, and further asks the court to declare the patent invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for establishing and managing multimedia communications, such as text or video chat, between users over a network like the internet.
- Key Procedural History: This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Five9 in response to a litigation campaign by Random Chat. The complaint states that Random Chat has sued several of Five9’s customers, alleging that their use of Five9’s technology infringes the patent-in-suit. The complaint also includes extensive allegations that Random Chat is a shell corporation and part of a broader "nuisance lawsuit" scheme orchestrated by its parent company, Pueblo Nuevo, LLC. Five9 also asserts a claim that the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-08-28 | ’099 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | ’099 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-06-17 | Random Chat files first cited complaint against a Five9 customer |
| 2025-05-30 | Random Chat files most recent cited complaint against a Five9 customer |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099, "Method for carrying out a multimedia communication based on a network protocol, particularly TCP/IP and/or UDP," issued March 19, 2013 (’099 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that, at the time of invention, existing video and chat systems were "too constrictive" and ill-suited for the complex interaction requirements of emerging "social networks" and "web-based communities" (’099 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user creates a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server, which defines preferences for how multimedia communications are established (’099 Patent, col. 2:22-30). This profile-based approach allows for flexible communication modes, including a "random process" for setting up a link to another random subscriber, intended to create a "surprise effect similar to that encountered in everyday life" (’099 Patent, col. 2:66-3:5). The system is described with a hierarchical layer structure for managing data, links, subscribers, and the user interface (’099 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described approach aimed to upgrade basic chat systems to better replicate the nuanced and flexible social interactions found in real-world communities within an online environment (’099 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as allegedly infringed in the underlying customer lawsuits (Compl. ¶42).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method for executing a multimedia communication (e.g., video, audio, text chat) between terminals on a network.
- At least one subscriber generates a personalized user account as a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
- The subscriber profile is used to freely define a "mode of a subscriber selection," a communication type, or a number of communication links.
- The subscriber selection mode includes a "random process for setting up a communication link" between a first subscriber and "another terminal of a random subscriber profile."
- The subscriber selection mode also includes an "activatable call procedure" for connecting with a subscriber from a "selection list," where subscribers form "sub-pools" based on classifications in their profiles.
- The complaint does not mention any dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Five9 Advanced Chat Agent and Five9 Digital IVA (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are software products that provide customer service chat functionality for Five9's enterprise customers (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges that these products operate through a deterministic, "algorithmic and non-random process" (Compl. ¶44). Specifically, when a customer initiates a chat, the system "must identify the skill the customer needs and route the chat to a pre-defined skill group." The chat request is then placed into a queue, ordered by factors like priority, and connected to the next available agent in that skill group (Compl. ¶44; Compl. Ex. 1). A screenshot in the complaint depicts a customer service chat window with the footer "Provided by Five9," illustrating the technology in a commercial context (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’099 Patent Infringement Allegations
This declaratory judgment complaint alleges non-infringement. The table summarizes Five9's asserted non-infringing functionality against the claim elements recited in the complaint.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method for executing a multimedia communication, in particular at least one of a video, audio or text chat... | The complaint alleges Five9's technology provides chat support features but does not meet all limitations of the claimed method. | ¶¶3, 44 | col. 1:12-14 |
| at least one subscriber generates a personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile on a server... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶43 | col. 2:22-25 |
| via the subscriber profile a mode of a subscriber selection preceding the communication... are freely defined... | Five9's system allegedly uses pre-defined business logic, such as agent skills and queues, rather than allowing a subscriber to freely define the selection mode. | ¶44 | col. 2:26-30 |
| the subscriber selection mode includes a random process for setting up a communication link between a selecting terminal of a first subscriber profile to at least another terminal of a random subscriber profile... | Five9 alleges its products "do not and cannot" perform a random process. Instead, they use a deterministic, non-random process based on agent skills, priority, and availability, routing chats to a queue. | ¶44 | col. 2:60-65 |
| the subscriber selection mode includes an activatable call procedure for establishing a communication link between the selecting terminal of the first subscriber profile and at least one other terminal of a subscriber profile stored in a selection list, wherein these subscribers form a plurality of at least one of an open and a closed subscriber sub-pool... | Five9's system routes chats to "pre-defined skill group[s]," which it implicitly argues are not the "subscriber sub-pools" formed by user classifications as required by the claim. | ¶44 | col. 3:15-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether Five9's deterministic, queue-based system for routing customer service chats to agents performs the "random process for setting up a communication link" required by the claim. The outcome may depend on whether "random process" is construed narrowly to mean serendipitous social connection or more broadly to encompass any method that is not predetermined from the user's perspective.
- Technical Questions: Does a "pre-defined skill group" of customer service agents, organized by a business, constitute a "subscriber sub-pool" that is "classified by entries within their respective subscriber profiles," as described in the patent in a social networking context? The complaint suggests a fundamental mismatch between its business-logic-driven agent groups and the user-centric social groupings described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "random process"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of Five9's non-infringement argument. Five9 contends its system is deterministic and skill-based, while the claim requires a "random process." The patentee will likely need to argue for a broad construction to cover Five9's system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition for "random process," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning. The term "zapping" is used, which could imply a channel-surfing-like behavior that is not strictly random but appears so to the user ('099 Patent, col. 8:31-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that this random process "allows for an 'accidental meeting' of two subscribers" and creates a "surprise effect similar to that encountered in everyday life" (’099 Patent, col. 2:66–3:5). This language suggests the "random process" is not merely any non-user-directed connection but one specifically intended to facilitate serendipitous social encounters, a purpose distinct from efficient, skill-based customer service routing.
The Term: "subscriber sub-pool"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires subscribers to be organized into "sub-pools" based on their profiles. Practitioners may focus on this term because Five9's system organizes agents into "skill groups" (Compl. ¶44). The question is whether these two concepts are legally and technically equivalent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes sub-pools as subscribers being "logically grouped according to specific criteria" (’099 Patent, col. 8:10-11). This general language could arguably encompass grouping agents by their designated skills.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the formation of sub-pools as resulting from "classifications" based on user-generated "like and dislike tags" and "WhoAmI tags" (’099 Patent, col. 8:36-43, 11:26-28). This suggests the sub-pools are user-defined social constructs, which may be functionally different from the administratively-defined "skill groups" in Five9's system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Five9 preemptively denies all forms of indirect infringement, arguing that because its technology does not directly infringe, there can be no underlying act of direct infringement to induce or contribute to. It further states it has not acted with the specific intent required for inducement (Compl. ¶45).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged, as this is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.
- Subject Matter Ineligibility: The complaint includes a second count for declaratory judgment, alleging the ’099 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Compl. ¶¶48-54). Five9 argues the patent is directed to the abstract idea of "pairing people for communication randomly using a computer system," which it equates to longstanding concepts like "pen pal services, speed dating, or ballroom dances" (Compl. ¶50). It further alleges the patent lacks an inventive concept, merely implementing this abstract idea using generic and conventional computer components as acknowledged in the patent's own specification (Compl. ¶¶51-52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "random process", which the patent describes in the context of creating serendipitous "accidental meetings" in a social network, be construed broadly enough to read on Five9’s deterministic, skills-based system for routing customers to service agents in a commercial support queue?
- A dispositive threshold question will be patent eligibility: Is the ’099 patent directed to a patent-eligible technical improvement in computer communication, or does it, as Five9 alleges, simply claim the abstract idea of random matchmaking implemented using conventional computer technology, rendering it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
- A significant procedural question concerns jurisdiction and litigation conduct: Will the court accept Five9’s alter-ego and purposeful-direction arguments for jurisdiction in this forum, and how will the extensive allegations of a "nuisance lawsuit" scheme influence the court's view of the case, particularly with respect to potential fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285?