Anuwave LLC v. Total Defense Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anuwave LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Total Defense, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00510, D. Del., 04/04/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Total Defense Mobile Security App" infringes a patent related to enabling application functionality on mobile devices through the SMS communication channel.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using the ubiquitous Short Message Service (SMS) protocol to interact with software applications on a mobile device, bypassing the need for more complex and potentially costly IP-based data connections like WAP or GPRS.
• 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. 8,295,862 - "Method and system to enable communication through SMS communication channel"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical challenge in the pre-smartphone era: using SMS for mobile commerce and other services was cumbersome because it required users to remember and manually type specific text commands to interact with a service (U.S. Patent No. 8,295,862, col. 1:26-38). Furthermore, more advanced IP-based communication channels (like WAP or GPRS) were not universally available and could be costly for the user ('862 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "network aware application" (NWA) and associated "middleware" reside on the mobile device ('862 Patent, col. 2:5-12). This NWA presents the user with a graphical interface, such as a menu of available services, instead of a command prompt. When a user makes a selection, the middleware converts that selection into a properly formatted SMS command and sends it to a remote gateway. The gateway processes the command, retrieves the requested information, and sends a response back via SMS. The middleware on the device then intercepts this SMS, decodes it, and presents the information back to the user within the NWA's graphical interface ('862 Patent, col. 2:12-27; Fig. 1). This process creates a rich application experience using only the basic SMS channel.
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled developers to create more user-friendly, menu-driven applications on feature phones without relying on a device's or network's internet-protocol data capabilities ('862 Patent, col. 1:55-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶27, ¶29)
• Claim 7 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
  • 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 other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Total Defense Mobile Security App" system (the "Accused Instrumentality"). (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentality is described as a text security service for individuals and businesses. (Compl. ¶21).
• Its relevant functionality enables customers to use their mobile devices to trigger security features, such as locating a lost phone, by sending specific text commands via SMS. (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The system allegedly shows available services and corresponding commands within the application, allows a user to enter parameters (like a PIN), and sends an SMS request to a server, which then responds with information like the phone's location. (Compl. ¶22-25).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,295,862 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "Total Defense Mobile Security App," a specialized security tool, constitutes a "network aware application" as contemplated by the patent, which describes the NWA in broader terms, such as a "browser for accessing a plurality of short code based SMS services" ('862 Patent, col. 2:45-48). The interpretation of "terminal station" as a "mobile phone" is asserted by the complaint and may also be a point of discussion. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused app lists services "according to meta information found at the terminal station." (Compl. ¶22). A technical question will be what constitutes this "meta information" in the accused product and whether the product's functionality aligns with the patent's description of an application being "bundled with a meta information of available SMS based services." ('862 Patent, col. 2:48-50).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network aware application"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claim and is central to defining the scope of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a specialized, single-purpose application (like the accused security app) falls within the scope of a term that the patent also describes in more general-purpose, browser-like terms.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • 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," suggesting it covers a wide range of software applications. ('862 Patent, col. 3:32-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states, "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 with a SMS gateway." ('862 Patent, col. 2:45-52). This could support an argument that the term is limited to applications that function as a gateway or browser to multiple, distinct third-party services, not just the internal functions of a single app.

• The Term: "desired parameter is not listed at the terminal station"

• Context and Importance: This final limitation of claim 7 is crucial for distinguishing the invention from a simple menu-based system where all options are pre-programmed. The dispute will likely center on what qualifies as a "parameter" and whether the user-entered PIN, as alleged by the complaint (Compl. ¶26), meets this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an example where a user types "JP Nagar" to find a restaurant or "7054" to find train timings ('862 Patent, Fig. 5C, 5D). This suggests any user-provided text or number that specifies a request can be a "desired parameter."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that this limitation requires a parameter related to the substance of the service itself (e.g., a search term), not an authentication credential like a PIN which is ancillary to the service request. The patent's examples all relate to the content of the service (restaurant location, train number) rather than user identity. ('862 Patent, col. 5:19-44).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "knowledge of infringement of the '862 patent at least as of the service of the present complaint." (Compl. ¶30). This allegation does not assert pre-suit knowledge and appears to establish a basis for potential post-filing willfulness only.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "network aware application", described in the patent as a potential "browser" for multiple SMS-based services, be construed to cover a single-purpose mobile security application that communicates with its own server?
• A second key issue will be one of claim construction and evidence: does a user-entered security PIN qualify as a "desired parameter... not listed at the terminal station" as required by claim 7, or is the term limited to substantive, service-specific data like the search terms shown in the patent’s examples? The plaintiff's ability to prove that the accused app's functionality relies on "meta information" as taught by the patent will also be a critical evidentiary question.