Hublink LLC v. Blue Jeans Network Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hublink, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Blue Jeans Network, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00338, D. Del., 03/02/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware, which the complaint alleges constitutes a permanent and continuous presence in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software platform and mobile application for video conferencing infringe a patent related to a videophone system and method.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems for providing real-time, two-way video and audio communication over broadband networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention 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 prior art videotelephony as suffering from high cost, complexity in design and use, poor image and sound quality, and the lack of a network infrastructure capable of supporting two-way communications with minimal signal degradation (Compl. ¶11; ’338 Patent, col. 1:28-33). It notes that prior systems were often difficult to set up, not portable, and lacked features common to traditional telephones like caller ID and call waiting (’338 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where multiple videophones connect over a broadband network to a central "network operations center" (NOC) (’338 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This NOC stores a registry of user information, such as IP addresses correlated with telephone numbers, allowing users to initiate video calls using familiar telephone numbers rather than complex IP addresses (’338 Patent, col. 5:10-44). The system is designed to manage network resources to ensure call quality and integrate traditional telephone features into a video-calling environment (’338 Patent, col. 4:42-59).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to make videotelephony more user-friendly and accessible for a mass market by simplifying the calling process and centralizing account management, thereby overcoming key barriers to adoption (’338 Patent, col. 2:29-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 12, which is an independent method claim (Compl. ¶21).
• Claim 12 (Method) requires:
  • Connecting a plurality of "videophones" to communications media and 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."
  • A first videophone accessing the stored information at the operations center to initiate a call to a second videophone.
  • Connecting the calling and called parties through the network to establish direct transmission of audio and video.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "BlueJeans software platform and mobile application" for placing video calls between computers and mobile devices (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused instrumentality is a "videophone communication system" that allows users on computers and mobile devices to engage in real-time video and audio communication (Compl. ¶22).
• The system requires user devices to connect over communications media like LAN, LTE, or Wi-Fi to a common communications network (e.g., a WAN) (Compl. ¶22). It is alleged that BlueJeans operates servers that function as an "operations center" to store user identifying information (e.g., names, IP addresses) to facilitate the connection of calls between users (Compl. ¶22). A YouTube video is referenced to allege that a BlueJeans server stores information about a second device, allowing a first device to initiate a call (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'338 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A primary issue will be whether a general-purpose computer or mobile device running the "BlueJeans software platform and mobile application" qualifies as a "videophone" as that term is used in the patent. The patent specification frequently illustrates the "videophone" as a dedicated hardware device (e.g., ’338 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges a "BlueJeans server" constitutes the claimed "operations center" (’338 Patent, col. 19:25). The analysis may turn on whether the accused server infrastructure performs the specific functions and possesses the specific architecture (e.g., storing registries of IP addresses correlated to phone numbers) described for the "network operations center" (NOC) in the patent specification (’338 Patent, col. 5:10-6:8).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "videophone"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "videophone" is central to the dispute. The infringement theory depends on this term being construed to cover general-purpose devices (computers, mobile phones) running software, rather than being limited to the dedicated hardware units depicted in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly limit the term to a specific hardware configuration. A party might argue that any device capable of performing the claimed functions (transmitting/receiving synchronized audio/video over a network) is a "videophone."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict a "videophone" as a specific piece of hardware with a camera, display, and keypad, distinct from a general-purpose computer (’338 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 9:3-14). The background section contrasts the invention with prior art by discussing the physical attributes and ergonomics of such devices, which may suggest a hardware-based meaning (’338 Patent, col. 1:34-42).

• The Term: "operations center"

• Context and Importance: The complaint equates a "BlueJeans server" with the claimed "operations center." The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether a modern, cloud-based server architecture meets the functional and structural requirements of the "operations center" described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the center to be "configured to communicate with the videophones" and store "information related to each of the videophones," functions which a modern server performs (col. 19:25-28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "network operations center (NOC) 121" with some specificity, including hosting a "master registry of subscribers" that can "correlate PSTN telephone numbers with IP addresses" (’338 Patent, col. 5:11-15; col. 6:1-8). A party may argue that the term is limited to a system performing these specific registry and correlation functions, not just any server that facilitates connections.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a claim for willful infringement (e.g., knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit). However, the prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶C, p. 6).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "videophone," which is described in the patent specification with reference to specific hardware embodiments, be construed broadly enough to read on general-purpose computers and mobile devices running the accused software platform?
• A related question is whether the architecture of the accused "BlueJeans server" infrastructure is equivalent to the patent’s more structured "operations center," which is described as maintaining specific registries to correlate different types of user identifiers. The case may turn on whether the claim terms are interpreted as describing a general function or a more specific structure.