Hublink LLC v. Rakuten USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hublink, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Rakuten USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01514, D. Del., 10/25/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant conducts substantial business in the forum, including the commission of alleged infringing acts and deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Viber software platform and mobile application infringe a patent related to videophone systems and methods.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for providing real-time, two-way video and audio communication over a network, a domain central to modern telecommunications and social media applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,239,338 - "Videophone System and Method," issued July 3, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a state of the art where videotelephony was commercially unviable due to "relatively high cost, complexity both in design and use, the inability to concurrently provide quality image and sound, and the inability to provide a network infrastructure capable of two-way communications with minimal signal degradation" ('338 Patent, col. 1:28-33). Existing systems were also noted as being difficult to set up and lacking features common to traditional telephones, such as caller ID and call waiting ('338 Patent, col. 2:11-16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture to make videotelephony more accessible and functional. The system connects multiple "videophones" over a broadband network to at least one central "networks operation center" (NOC) ('338 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This NOC stores a registry of user information, including telephone numbers and corresponding IP addresses, which facilitates call routing and enables enhanced features ('338 Patent, col. 5:10-24, 6:1-6). The system is designed to manage call quality by checking and reserving network bandwidth before placing a call ('338 Patent, col. 2:47-50).
• Technical Importance: The claimed architecture aimed to solve the practical hurdles of early Voice-over-IP (VoIP) and video communication by centralizing user management and call setup logic, seeking to blend the features of traditional telephony with video capabilities over packet-switched networks ('338 Patent, col. 4:43-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least claim 12" ('338 Patent, Compl. ¶12).
• Independent Method Claim 12:
  • Connecting a plurality of videophones to communications media.
  • Connecting the communications media to a common communications network.
  • Uniquely identifying each videophone and its address on the network.
  • Storing information for each videophone at one or more operations centers.
  • Selectably accessing, with a first videophone, the stored information at the operations center needed to call a second videophone.
  • Connecting the calling party to the called party through the network to establish direct transmission of audio and video.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Viber software platform and mobile application for placing video calls between computers and mobile devices" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Viber application allows users' computers and mobile devices to connect over various communications media (e.g., LAN, LTE, Wi-Fi) to a common communications network (e.g., a WAN) to conduct real-time video and audio calls (Compl. ¶13).
• To facilitate these calls, the system allegedly identifies each device using an IP address or other information and stores this identifying information at an "operations center" or "Viber server" (Compl. ¶13).
• When a user initiates a call, their device accesses this stored information from the server to establish a connection and transmit audio and video to the recipient's device (Compl. ¶13-14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'338 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "videophone", which the patent repeatedly describes and illustrates as a dedicated hardware device (e.g., '338 Patent, Fig. 3), can be construed to read on general-purpose computers and mobile devices running the accused Viber software application.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on whether Viber's server architecture performs the specific functions of the claimed "operations center," which the patent describes as hosting registries to correlate telephone numbers with IP addresses and managing user profiles ('338 Patent, col. 5:10-48). The court may need to determine if the "Viber server" alleged in the complaint meets these specific claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "videophone"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is fundamental. The accused instrumentality is a software application, while the patent's specification appears to describe a physical, dedicated hardware device. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether a general-purpose computer running software falls within the scope of a "videophone".

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the claims define the term functionally. Claim 17, for instance, recites a "personal videophone" by listing its components and capabilities (camera, display, keypad, etc.), all of which are present in a modern smartphone. The patent also contemplates integration, stating that components of the videophone and interface unit can be integrated into a "single unit" ('338 Patent, col. 6:64-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently depict a standalone, telephone-like hardware device distinct from a general-purpose computer ('338 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 9:1-14). The term itself, a portmanteau of "video" and "telephone," may suggest a physical apparatus to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.

• The Term: "operations center"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that a "Viber server" meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent ascribes specific, potentially limiting functions to the "operations center", such as hosting a "master registry of subscribers" and storing user profiles, directories, and custom content ('338 Patent, col. 5:29-48). Infringement will depend on a factual comparison between Viber's server architecture and these claimed functions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "operations center" at a high level as being "connected to said communications network and having means for storing information related to said videophones" ('338 Patent, Claim 1). This broad language could be argued to cover any server system that stores user data to facilitate calls.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of the "operations center"'s role, including correlating PSTN numbers with IP addresses ('338 Patent, col. 6:1-6) and managing bandwidth reservation ('338 Patent, col. 17:30-45). A defendant might argue these more specific functions define and limit the scope of the term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific counts for indirect infringement or allege facts sufficient to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the Prayer for Relief requests a "declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of Hublink's reasonable attorneys' fees," which suggests an intent to pursue enhanced damages or fees should facts supporting such a claim emerge during discovery (Compl., Prayer for Relief, C).

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

This case appears to center on two fundamental questions of claim scope and technical correspondence:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "videophone", described in the patent as a dedicated hardware unit from the early 2000s, be construed to encompass a modern smartphone or computer running a software application?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused "Viber server" architecture perform the specific, multi-faceted functions of the claimed "operations center" as detailed in the patent specification, or is there a material difference in their technical operation and role within the system?