HS Treasure Contacts Ltd v. BeReal SAS

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: H.S. Treasure Contacts LTD (Cyprus)
  • Defendant: BeReal SAS (France)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Joseph J. Zito
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01681, D.D.C., 05/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: The complaint was filed in the District of Columbia. However, it alleges that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, asserting that as a foreign corporation, the defendant is subject to venue in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and that such jurisdiction exists in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BeReal mobile application infringes a patent related to methods and systems for the viral distribution of software applications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a server-based system for expanding a mobile application's user base by leveraging a new user's contact list to automatically propagate invitations to non-users.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the right to assert and enforce the patent-in-suit by license from the named inventors, which may suggest that the plaintiff is a patent assertion entity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,655,341 - Methods for mobile phone applications

• Issued: February 18, 2014 (’341 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of distributing mobile applications in a market with diverse hardware and operating systems, which often required different software versions for each phone model. This process was further complicated for a large market of users who had internet-enabled phones but limited or no access to a personal computer, which was often required to download and install applications. (ʼ341 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for "viral distribution" of an application directly between mobile devices, independent of a PC. An application installed on a user's device reads the user's contact list, transmits it to a central server, and the server's "application distribution unit" then sends installation invitations to the contacts identified as non-users. (’341 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:1-12). When a new user accepts the invitation and installs the application, the process can repeat, creating a self-replicating distribution cycle. (’341 Patent, col. 12:40-44).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to streamline application distribution and user acquisition by automating the sharing process and bypassing the need for PC-based installation, targeting the "large 'invisible' market for mobile applications." (’341 Patent, col. 2:18-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-18 of the ’341 Patent (Compl. ¶10). The primary independent claims detailed are Claim 1 (a method) and Claim 10 (a system).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • installing software on networked mobile devices;
  • reading, by means of the software, a portion of a contact list stored on the devices;
  • transmitting the contact list portion to a server;
  • sending an invitation to install the software to unregistered users from the contact list;
  • installing the software on the devices of users who accept the invitation;
  • repeating the process for each new user to achieve viral distribution; and
  • providing a server with an applications database and a client database that is "subdivided into registered clients Sub database and unregistered clients Sub database" to manage the invitation process.
• Independent Claim 10 (System):
  • an application running on networked mobile devices;
  • a database storing a contact list;
  • means for sending an installation invitation to contacts;
  • installing the application upon acceptance of the invitation;
  • means to repeat the process for new contacts;
  • a server with a similar subdivided database structure as recited in Claim 1; and
  • whereby viral distribution is achieved.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "BeReal application" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies BeReal as a mobile application that includes an "Invite Friends" feature. (Compl. ¶16). This feature allegedly allows users to invite non-users from their mobile device's contact list to download and install the BeReal application. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a screenshot of the BeReal user interface that displays a list of contacts next to corresponding "INVITE" buttons, which allegedly initiates the viral distribution process. (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a narrative breakdown of how the BeReal application's "Invite Friends" feature allegedly meets the limitations of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶23, pp. 6-8). The complaint states in error that the feature invites users to "install Signal Messenger," though the context and screenshots refer to BeReal. (Compl. ¶16).

’341 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the server architecture alleged in the complaint meets the specific claim limitation of "a client's database being subdivided into registered clients Sub database and unregistered clients Sub database." The defense may argue that a general-purpose user database that can distinguish between users and non-users does not equate to the explicit, subdivided structure recited in the claim.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation for the subdivided server database appears to be based on inference rather than direct evidence. A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that BeReal's back-end infrastructure actually employs the specific database architecture required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a client's database being subdivided into registered clients Sub database and unregistered clients Sub database"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims 1 and 10 and describes a specific server-side architecture. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether BeReal's server system can be shown to possess this structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could be a significant hurdle for the plaintiff's infringement case.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "subdivided" does not require physically separate databases but can be satisfied by a logical division, such as a single database table where a "status" field differentiates registered users from unregistered contacts. The claim language does not explicitly forbid such a logical implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires a structure more akin to what is shown in Figure 1 of the patent, where "Reg." (222) and "Non-Reg." (224) are depicted as distinct blocks within the "Client's Database" (220). The specification's description of the server sorting users into "Already-registered" and "unknown users" could be used to support a more formal, structural requirement. (ʼ341 Patent, col. 6:15-20).

• The Term: "viral distribution"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the objective of the claimed method and system. Its construction could influence the interpretation of other claim elements, such as the "repeating steps" limitation, by setting an expectation for the outcome of the process.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be interpreted as any user-driven growth mechanism where existing users invite new ones. The patent's Background section defines it broadly as "distribution techniques using phonebooks or contact lists to distribute information." (’341 Patent, col. 2:35-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the term to a specific, repeating cycle that leads to "exponential growth of potential users." (’341 Patent, col. 5:46-49). This could support a narrower definition requiring an automated, self-replicating process as detailed in the claims, rather than just any form of manual sharing.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides the BeReal software and instructions (e.g., the "Invite Friends" user interface) that cause its users to directly infringe the method claims. (Compl. ¶¶18, 36). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Defendant supplies the BeReal application, which is a material part of the claimed system and is not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶¶19, 39).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "is intentionally continuing their knowing infringement" and seeks enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶30; Prayer for Relief). The complaint does not allege facts establishing pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the BeReal server architecture contains the specific, "subdivided" registered and unregistered client databases required by the claims, or will discovery reveal a material difference between the accused system and this claim limitation?
• A second key question will be one of claim scope: can the term "a client's database being subdivided," which is rooted in the patent's specific architectural diagrams, be construed broadly enough to read on a modern, logically-organized user database that may not have the explicit structural partitions shown in the patent?