WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Solace Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Solace Corporation (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01345, D. Colo., 05/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business within the District of Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unspecified products of the Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for achieving symmetrical, bi-directional communication over traditionally asymmetrical network protocols like HTTP.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in client-server protocols (e.g., HTTP), enabling server nodes to initiate communication with client nodes, which is critical for peer-to-peer applications operating behind network address translators (NATs) or firewalls.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer over its parent, U.S. Patent No. 7,403,995, which may limit its enforceable term. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing, or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983 - Symmetrical bi-directional communication

Issued July 13, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inherent asymmetry of the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), where communication is strictly transactional: a "client" must initiate a request, and a "server" can only respond. This model prevents a server from spontaneously sending data to a client, a significant hurdle for peer-to-peer applications, especially when a client is behind a firewall or Network Address Translation (NAT) device that blocks unsolicited inbound connections (U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983, col. 2:8-21, 49-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to create a symmetrical communication channel over a standard, asymmetrical connection. First, a client establishes a normal HTTP session with a server over a persistent underlying connection (e.g., a TCP/IP socket). The two nodes then negotiate a "role reversal." Following this negotiation, the initial HTTP session is terminated, but the underlying TCP/IP connection is preserved. A new HTTP session is then established over this same preserved connection, but with the roles "flipped": the original server now acts as a client, enabling it to initiate requests to the original client, which now acts as a server (’983 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 9; col. 9:11-30).
• Technical Importance: This technique allows for stateful, bi-directional communication using the ubiquitous and firewall-friendly HTTP protocol, circumventing the typical restrictions of NATs without resorting to inefficient workarounds like constant polling (’983 Patent, col. 3:4-17, 21-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '983 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit, but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
  • First and second network nodes engaging in an asymmetric HTTP transactional session with an underlying network connection, with each node having distinct initial client or server roles.
  • Terminating the asymmetric HTTP session while maintaining the underlying network connection.
  • The first and second nodes negotiating a transactional role reversal.
  • The nodes further communicating under a reversed asymmetric transactional protocol, where each node enacts the initial role of the other.
  • The session uses a network connection traversing hardware that enforces asymmetric communication (e.g., a NAT or firewall).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but identifies them only within "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11, 13). These charts were filed as Exhibit 2, which was not publicly available at the time of this analysis.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '983 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). No information regarding the products' operation or market context is provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but incorporates its substantive infringement theories entirely by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which is not provided (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint itself contains no factual allegations mapping specific features of any accused product to the elements of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 and common networking technologies, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions:
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products actually perform the claimed sequence of terminating an initial HTTP session and then creating a new, reversed session, all while preserving the underlying TCP socket. Modern bi-directional protocols like WebSocket, for example, typically achieve similar results by upgrading a single, persistent HTTP connection rather than by terminating and creating a new session, which may present a functional mismatch with the claim language.
  • Scope Questions: The meaning of "negotiating transactional role reversal" will be central. The court will have to determine what specific messaging or handshake protocol constitutes a "negotiation" for a "reversal" as claimed. The analysis will question whether the accused products' method for establishing a bi-directional channel falls within the scope of this term, or if it constitutes a distinct, non-infringing technical approach.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "negotiating transactional role reversal" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core interactive step of the invention. Its construction is critical because it defines the specific action required to "flip" the connection. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome could distinguish the claimed method from other standardized protocols (like a WebSocket handshake) that enable bi-directional communication but may not be characterized as a "negotiation" for a "reversal."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process in general terms, such as a client sending an "HTTP FLIP request" to a server, which the server can "accept" or "refuse" (’983 Patent, col. 11:12-20). This language could be argued to encompass a variety of request/response mechanisms for changing communication roles.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific implementation using a bespoke "HTTP FLIP request" and a "TACT:DFLIP" header (’983 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 12:45-50). Parties may argue this points to a specific, non-standard protocol, narrowing the term to exclude standardized methods that do not use this "FLIP" terminology or sequence.

• The Term: "terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This element defines the specific sequence of events for establishing the reversed connection. It distinguishes the invention from simply opening a second, independent connection or from upgrading a single session without termination.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition of "terminating," which could allow for arguments that a logical or functional termination satisfies the limitation, even if some session state is preserved during the transition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts explicitly depict "TERMINATE EXISTING HTTP LAYER SESSION" as a discrete step (512, 546), followed by a separate "CREATE NEW HTTP LAYER SESSION" step (514, 548) (’983 Patent, Figs. 9-10). This strongly suggests that the claim requires a distinct act of termination followed by a distinct act of creation, not a seamless modification or upgrade of an existing session.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect or contributory infringement and makes no specific factual allegations regarding Defendant's knowledge of the ’983 Patent or intent to induce infringement by its customers or other third parties (Compl. ¶¶ 10-12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations that would support a claim for willful infringement, such as allegations of pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent and infringing conduct. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but does not explicitly request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. pg 4).

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

1. A question of technical mechanism: A central issue will be whether the accused products achieve bi-directional communication by following the claimed method of terminating an HTTP session and creating a new, reversed one on the same underlying socket, or if they employ a different, potentially non-infringing mechanism, such as a single-session protocol upgrade.
2. A question of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of "negotiating transactional role reversal." The key question for the court will be whether this term is broad enough to read on the specific handshake or protocol used by the accused products, or if the patent's own description limits the claim to a more specific, bespoke implementation.
3. A question of pleading sufficiency: Given the complaint's complete reliance on an unprovided external exhibit for its substantive infringement allegations, an initial procedural question will be whether the pleading satisfies the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss, or if it will be deemed impermissibly conclusory.