DCT
4:25-cv-05387
Five9 Inc v. Random Chat
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Five9, Inc. (Delaware)
- 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 in the Northern District of California because Defendant Random Chat purposefully directed patent enforcement activities at Five9, which is headquartered in the district, by suing Five9’s customers for using Five9’s technology.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its customer support chat technology does not infringe Defendant’s patent related to methods for multimedia communication, and further that the asserted patent is invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for establishing online multimedia communications, such as text chats, by selecting and connecting different users over a network.
- Key Procedural History: This action was filed by a technology provider, Five9, in response to a patent assertion campaign by Random Chat against Five9’s customers. The complaint alleges that Random Chat is a non-practicing entity managed by Pueblo Nuevo, LLC, as part of a "common enterprise" that files a high volume of "low-effort nuisance lawsuits" through various shell companies. The complaint also raises alter-ego allegations to establish personal jurisdiction based on lawsuits filed in the district by other entities allegedly controlled by Pueblo Nuevo.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-08-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Issues |
| 2024-01-11 | Defendant Random Chat, LLC is incorporated |
| 2024-01-11 | ’099 Patent is assigned to Defendant Random Chat, LLC |
| 2024-06-17 | Defendant begins filing patent infringement suits against Plaintiff's customers |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Five9, Inc. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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"
- 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’s background section notes that, at the time of invention, existing video and chat systems were "too constrictive" to adequately support the complex interactions of emerging "social networks" and "communities" (’099 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a process where a user generates a "virtual subscriber profile" that defines preferences for connecting with other users (’099 Patent, Abstract). This profile allows for various subscriber selection modes, including a "random process" designed to facilitate an "'accidental meeting' of two subscribers," thereby creating a "surprise effect similar to that encountered in everyday life" (’099 Patent, col. 2:66-3:5). The method aims to give users flexible control over how they initiate video, audio, or text chats.
- Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to move beyond rigid, directory-based communication systems by enabling more flexible and spontaneous online social interactions that could better replicate real-world encounters (’099 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies Claim 1 as the sole independent claim of the ’099 Patent and the basis for Defendant's infringement allegations against Plaintiff's customers (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 44).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A method for executing a multimedia communication 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.
- Via the subscriber profile, a "mode of a subscriber selection" is freely defined.
- 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 stored "selection list," where subscribers can be organized into sub-pools.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Plaintiff’s "Five9 Advanced Chat Agent" and "Five9 Digital IVA" technologies (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as technology used by Five9's customers to provide chat-based customer support (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4). The functionality at issue is the method by which an end-user (a customer) is connected to a service agent. The complaint alleges this connection is made through an "algorithmic and non-random process" that prioritizes requests based on factors like "agent skills, customer request priority, and/or availability" (Compl. ¶44). A customer chat is routed to a pre-defined "skill group," placed in a queue, and then connected to the next available agent in that group (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff, Five9, alleges non-infringement. The following table summarizes Five9’s position that its technology does not meet a key limitation of the asserted claim. A screenshot included in the complaint shows a chat window for the retailer "SHARPER IMAGE" which explicitly states that the service is "provided by Five9 Inc." (Compl. p. 9).
’099 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | The complaint alleges that Five9’s technology does not perform a random process. Instead, it pairs users "solely through an algorithmic and non-random process" based on pre-defined business logic such as agent skills, skill groups, customer priority, and agent availability in a queue. | ¶44 | col. 2:60-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the definition of "random process." A central question for the court will be whether a skills-based, queue-driven routing system for customer service—a process designed for efficiency and predictability—can fall within the scope of a "random process" as that term is used in the patent, particularly where the patent's specification links the concept to creating a "surprise effect" (’099 Patent, col. 3:3-5).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product’s agent-assignment method is non-random? The complaint states that the Advanced Chat Agent "must identify the skill the customer needs and route the chat to a pre-defined skill group," after which it is placed in a queue and assigned to the next available agent, a sequence of steps alleged to be deterministic rather than random (Compl. ¶44).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "random process"
- Context and Importance: The complaint frames this term as dispositive for the non-infringement analysis (Compl. ¶44). If Five9’s skills-based routing is determined not to be a "random process," its technology may not infringe Claim 1 of the ’099 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader construction might argue that from the end-user's perspective, being connected to one of many possible agents in a large call center is effectively random, as the specific agent is unknown and not pre-selected by the user. The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of the term, which may invite arguments for its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly contextualizes the "random process" as a feature that "allows for an 'accidental meeting' of two subscribers" and creates a "certain surprise effect similar to that encountered in everyday life" (’099 Patent, col. 2:66-3:5). This language suggests the term implies serendipity and social discovery, not the structured, efficiency-driven routing used in a customer service context.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶47). It argues that because there is no underlying direct infringement by users of its technology, Five9 cannot be liable for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45). The complaint notes that the underlying lawsuits filed by Random Chat against Five9's customers included allegations of inducing infringement (Compl. ¶42).
- Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not directly at issue in this declaratory judgment complaint, as Five9 is the accused infringer.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "random process," which the patent specification describes in the context of creating social "surprise" and "accidental meetings," be construed to cover a structured, skills-based, and queue-driven routing system designed for efficient customer service?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational function: does Five9’s algorithmic routing system, which is designed to connect a customer to a specifically qualified and available agent, perform the same function as the "random process" claimed in the patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical purpose and operation?
- A significant procedural question will be jurisdiction and corporate form: will the court accept Five9’s alter-ego allegations against Random Chat and its alleged parent, Pueblo Nuevo, for the purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California, and how might these allegations influence other aspects of the case, such as a potential motion for attorneys' fees?