Anuwave LLC v. TCF Financial Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anuwave LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: TCF Financial Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01082, D. Del., 08/03/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a corporation established under the laws of Delaware and is therefore a resident of the district. The complaint also alleges Defendant has branches, employees, and conducts substantial business in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Text Banking" system infringes a patent related to methods for enabling interactive, application-like communication using the SMS messaging channel.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a way to deliver interactive services on mobile devices using the ubiquitous SMS protocol, avoiding the need for more costly or less available IP-based data connections like WAP or GPRS.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, any post-grant proceedings before the USPTO, or any prior licensing history.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,295,862 - “Method and system to enable communication through SMS communication channel”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,295,862, “Method and system to enable communication through SMS communication channel,” issued October 23, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of providing advanced mobile services over basic SMS. It notes that many services require IP-based connections (e.g., WAP, GPRS) that are not always available or are costly, while using standard SMS requires users to remember and manually type specific text commands, which is described as a "tedious process" ('862 Patent, col. 1:34-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system centered on a "network aware application" (NWA) that resides on the user's mobile device. This application presents a user-friendly interface, such as a menu of available services, based on pre-packaged "meta information." When a user makes a selection, the NWA automatically converts the choice into a command, encodes it, and sends it via SMS to a remote gateway. The gateway processes the command and sends a response back via SMS, which the NWA then decodes and displays to the user in a readable format, creating an interactive, application-like experience over the SMS channel ('862 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-27).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make interactive mobile commerce and information services more accessible by leveraging the universal SMS channel, bypassing the need for a device to have an active IP data connection ('862 Patent, col. 1:52-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 7 ('862 Patent, Compl. ¶31).
• The essential elements of independent claim 7 are:
  • listing all services at a terminal station that are available with an SMS gateway according to meta information available at the terminal station;
  • upon selecting a service, a network aware application configured to allow a user to type in a desired parameter;
  • upon user entering the desired parameter, submitting a request to the SMS gateway;
  • the SMS gateway responding back with a response,
  • wherein the desired parameter is not listed at the terminal station.
• The complaint states the patent contains two independent claims and appears to reserve the right to assert others (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Product Identification: Defendant’s “Text Banking” system (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentality is a service that allows Defendant's customers to use their SMS-enabled mobile devices to access account information via text commands (Compl. ¶21).
• The complaint alleges a user can initiate an interaction by sending a command like "HELP ALL" to a specific short code. The system then allegedly responds with a list of available services and their corresponding commands (Compl. ¶22). To retrieve specific information, such as an account balance, a user sends a command (e.g., "BAL") followed by a parameter (e.g., an account's mobile short name) to the short code and receives the requested information in a reply SMS message (Compl. ¶23-¶25).
• The complaint alleges Defendant offers these services to both individuals and businesses but provides no further detail on market position or commercial importance (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Claim Chart Summary:

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The complaint alleges the use of a "network aware application," a term central to the asserted claim. A potential dispute is whether the functionality described—a user manually typing text commands into a standard SMS client—meets the definition of the "network aware application" as described in the patent, which appears to be a distinct software program with a graphical user interface that automates command generation ('862 Patent, col. 2:11-13, Fig. 5A).
  • Technical Question: Claim 7 requires "listing all services at a terminal station...according to meta information available at the terminal station." The complaint alleges this is met by the system's response to a "HELP ALL" command (Compl. ¶22). This raises the question of whether a dynamically-fetched list of services is equivalent to the patent's description of a list generated from "meta information" that is "bundled with" the application on the device itself ('862 Patent, col. 2:46-51).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network aware application"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patented solution. The central infringement question may be whether this term can be construed to cover a standard SMS messaging client used to interact with Defendant's server, or if it is limited to the specific type of client-side software described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with structural limitations in the claims themselves. An argument could be made that any application using a network to communicate, including a standard SMS client, is "network aware."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "network aware application" as a distinct entity from the "standard SMS module" ('862 Patent, col. 3:35-39). It is described as being "embedded," presenting a graphical "interface with questions and options," and converting user selections into commands, suggesting it is more than just a generic messaging client ('862 Patent, col. 2:11-16; Fig. 5A).

• The Term: "listing all services at a terminal station...according to meta information available at the terminal station"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for determining when and how the list of services must be made available to the user. This will be key to comparing the accused on-demand "HELP ALL" system with the patented method.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that once the list of services is received in an SMS message from the gateway, it is then "available at the terminal station" and therefore meets the claim limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the "network application application is bundled with a meta information of available SMS based services" and that it "when opened, lists all the services" ('862 Patent, col. 2:46-53). This language suggests the information is locally present on the device within the application before a request is sent to the gateway, supporting a narrower interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement. The infringement count is based on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶29, ¶31).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has had "knowledge of infringement of the '862 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶30). This allegation, if proven, could support a finding of post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "network aware application," which the patent describes as a specific client-side program that automates command generation from a graphical interface, be construed to cover the accused system where a user manually types text commands into a standard mobile phone messaging client?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's method of providing a list of services in response to a user's "HELP ALL" query perform the same function as "listing all services...according to meta information available at the terminal station" as required by the claim, or does this represent a fundamental difference in how and where the service information is stored and presented?