Anuwave LLC v. Bitdefender LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anuwave LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BitDefender LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00507, D. Del., 04/04/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus a resident of the district. The complaint also alleges Defendant conducts substantial business, solicits customers, and offers the accused services within Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BitDefender Mobile Security and Antivirus App infringes a patent related to methods for enabling application-like functionality over standard SMS channels.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a way for mobile applications to offer a richer, menu-driven user experience by communicating with a server using the SMS protocol, thereby avoiding reliance on more expensive or less ubiquitous IP-based data connections.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff Anuwave is the current owner of the patent-in-suit by assignment. No other significant procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

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 describes two problems with mobile services in the mid-2000s. First, using SMS for services required users to remember and type specific text commands, which was described as a "tedious process" ('862 Patent, col. 1:34-38). Second, more advanced, application-like experiences typically required IP-based data connections (like WAP or GPRS), which were not available to every mobile user or incurred additional costs (’862 Patent, col. 1:45-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "network aware application" (NWA) on a mobile device that works with a "middleware" layer. This system intercepts messages and presents users with a graphical interface (e.g., menus and options) instead of a simple command prompt. User selections are then converted by the middleware into structured SMS commands and sent to a server. The server's response is likewise translated back into a format the NWA can display graphically, creating an application-like experience over the basic SMS channel (’862 Patent, col. 2:4-27; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The patented method sought to enable richer, more user-friendly mobile services on devices that lacked consistent or affordable IP-based internet access, leveraging the ubiquitous SMS infrastructure (’862 Patent, col. 1:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 of the ’862 Patent (Compl. ¶29).
• 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; and
  • the SMS gateway responding back with a response,
  • wherein the desired parameter is not listed at the terminal station.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" and specifically "at least claim 7," which does not preclude the future assertion of other claims (Compl. ¶¶18, 31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "BitDefender Mobile Security and Antivirus App" system (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a text security service that includes a mobile anti-theft feature (Compl. ¶¶21-22). This feature allegedly allows a user to control their device remotely via SMS commands. Specifically, a user can activate "SMS control" which shows available commands, and then send a text message containing the command "locate" followed by a PIN to request and receive the phone's location information via a return SMS (Compl. ¶¶22-25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’862 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory applies the patent, whose specification focuses on a "browser" for general consumer services (e.g., finding restaurants, checking sports scores), to a specific security function (anti-theft remote control). A potential dispute may arise over whether the "BitDefender Mobile Security and Antivirus App" constitutes a "network aware application" as contemplated by the patent, or if that term is limited by the specification's examples to a broader, multi-service "browser."
  • Technical Questions: Claim 7 requires "listing all services ... according to meta information available at the terminal station." A question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused app uses "meta information" as described in the patent to generate its list of commands, versus simply having a hard-coded list of functions.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires that a "desired parameter is not listed at the terminal station." The complaint identifies the user's PIN as this parameter. This raises the question of whether an authentication credential (a PIN) can be considered a "parameter" in the same way as the patent's examples of service-specific inputs (e.g., a location name or train number) (’862 Patent, Fig. 5C-5D).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network aware application"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused product is a specialized security application, whereas the patent specification repeatedly describes the invention as a "browser for accessing a plurality of short code based SMS services" (’862 Patent, col. 2:44-47). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any application using the claimed SMS method, or narrowly to applications that function as a general-purpose service browser.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "embedded client can be written in programming languages including but not limited to Embedded C, on platforms including but not limited to Windows, Linux, Embedded 2 Micro Edition, Brew," which may suggest the term encompasses a wide variety of software applications (’862 Patent, col. 3:32-37).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the "network aware application itself can be a browser for accessing a plurality of short code based SMS services or VASs" and that it "lists all the services that are available" (’862 Patent, col. 2:44-52). The figures exclusively depict general consumer services like checking scores, finding restaurants, and train times, which may support an interpretation limited to such browser-like functionality (’862 Patent, Figs. 5A-5D).

• The Term: "desired parameter"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint's infringement theory for claim 7 hinges on the user's PIN qualifying as the "desired parameter [that] is not listed at the terminal station." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean only a service-specific input (like a search query) and not an authentication credential, the infringement allegation could be challenged.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not restrict the type of parameter, only that it is "desired" by the user and not pre-listed on the device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of user-entered parameters, such as a location name ("JP Nagar") or a train number ("7054") (’862 Patent, col. 5:29-32, col. 5:43-44). A party could argue these examples implicitly limit the scope of "parameter" to service-related data inputs rather than user authentication codes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect or contributory infringement. The sole count is for direct infringement, alleging Defendant makes and uses the accused product (Compl. ¶29).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had "knowledge of infringement of the '862 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶30). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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 specification primarily illustrates as a browser for general consumer information services, be construed to cover the specialized remote anti-theft function of the accused security app?
• A key question of claim construction will be central to the dispute: does the term "desired parameter", as used in claim 7, encompass an authentication credential like a user's PIN, or is its meaning limited by the patent's examples to service-specific data inputs like a location or search term?
• An evidentiary question will be whether the accused app's display of available commands meets the claim limitation of "listing all services ... according to meta information available at the terminal station," and what proof Plaintiff can offer that such "meta information" is used as described in the patent.