Anuwave LLC v. Symantec Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anuwave LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Symantec Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00509, D. Del., 04/04/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's status as a Delaware corporation, which makes it a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Norton Mobile Security App" infringes a patent related to methods for enabling application-like functionality over an SMS communication channel.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a user-friendly, menu-driven interface for accessing services via SMS, bypassing the need for users to manually type complex commands and avoiding reliance on more costly or less available IP-based data connections.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 cumbersome nature of using SMS-based services, which often required users to remember and manually type specific command codes. This process was described as "tedious" and difficult, particularly on mobile phones with limited keypads. At the same time, more advanced IP-based communication channels like WAP or GPRS were not universally accessible or could be cost-prohibitive for users. (’862 Patent, col. 1:28-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "network aware application" on a mobile device that provides a structured, graphical user interface for interacting with SMS-based services. A "middleware" component on the device intercepts communications, presents users with menus and options, converts their selections into the required SMS command format, and sends the command to a remote gateway. The gateway's response is then processed by the middleware and displayed to the user in a readable format, creating an experience closer to a native application than a command-line interface. (’862 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-27; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to make sophisticated mobile services accessible over the ubiquitous SMS network, enhancing user experience without requiring a device to have an active and affordable IP data connection. (’862 Patent, col. 1:52-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7. (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;
  • the SMS gateway responding back with a response,
  • wherein the desired parameter is not listed at the terminal station.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement is alleged for "at least claim 7." (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Norton Mobile Security App" system. (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on the app's anti-theft features, which allegedly "enable communication through an SMS channel." (Compl. ¶21). Specifically, the complaint alleges that a user can locate their phone by sending an SMS message containing a "locate" command and a password. The system then allegedly responds with the phone's location information via SMS. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25). The complaint characterizes these as "text security services for individuals and businesses." (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

’862 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused functionality falls within the scope of the claim terms as defined in the patent. For example, does an authentication token (a password) function as a "desired parameter" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like a location ("JP Nagar") or a train number ("7054")? (’862 Patent, col. 5:29-44).
• Technical Questions: A central question will be how the accused app "lists" available services and whether this is done "according to meta information available at the terminal station." The court will need to determine if the app's method of presenting features like "locate" matches the patent's description of a system built around pre-defined "meta information." (’862 Patent, col. 2:46-49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "meta information available at the terminal station"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the source and nature of the service list presented to the user. The infringement analysis depends on whether the Norton app's service menu is based on this type of "meta information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a dynamically generated or server-side list of services could infringe, or if the information must be pre-loaded on the device.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the meta information is part of the application itself, stating the "network application application is bundled with a meta information of available SMS based services." (’862 Patent, col. 2:46-48). This supports a construction where the information is stored locally on the "terminal station."
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly forbid the meta information from being updated or retrieved from a server, which could support a broader reading. The term itself is not narrowly defined, leaving open the possibility that any information used to build the interface on the terminal could qualify.

The Term: "a desired parameter" ... "not listed at the terminal station"

• Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes between selecting from a pre-set menu and providing novel user input. The complaint alleges the user's password satisfies this element. The validity of this infringement theory hinges on whether a password, primarily an authentication credential, qualifies as a "desired parameter" for a service in the context of the invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, simply requiring a "desired parameter" that is typed by the user. An argument could be made that if the service requires a password to function, the password is a "desired parameter" from the user's perspective.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples of such parameters are inputs that define the substance of a service request, such as a location name ("JP Nagar") or a train number ("7054"). (’862 Patent, Fig. 5C-5D; col. 5:29-44). This suggests the term may be limited to service-specific data rather than authentication credentials.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory). It focuses on Defendant's alleged direct infringement through acts like "making and using a product, at least during internal testing." (Compl. ¶29).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It alleges that "Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ’862 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint," which provides a basis for alleging post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶30).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "desired parameter", which in the patent's examples refers to service-specific data like a location or train number, be construed to cover a user's password, which functions as an authentication credential?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Norton Mobile Security App present its services based on "meta information available at the terminal station" as described in the patent, or does it retrieve service information from a remote server in a manner technically distinct from the patented method?
• A final point of contention will be whether the combination of a fixed command ("locate") and a user-provided password constitutes a "network aware application configured to allow a user to type in a desired parameter" in the way envisioned by the patent's more interactive, menu-driven examples.