Anuwave LLC v. Webroot Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Anuwave LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Webroot, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00511, D. Del., 04/04/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Webroot Mobile Security App infringes a patent related to methods for enabling application-like functionality using the SMS communication channel.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses enabling interactive services on mobile devices through the ubiquitous SMS protocol, creating a richer user experience without relying on more advanced or costly 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 technical challenge of providing advanced application services on mobile devices that may lack access to IP-based communication channels like WAP or GPRS. Relying solely on standard SMS protocols required users to remember and manually type specific text commands, which the patent describes as a "tedious process." (’862 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "network aware application" (NWA) residing on the mobile device that acts as an intermediary. This application presents a user-friendly interface, such as a menu of available services, abstracting the underlying SMS command structure from the user. When a user makes a selection or enters information, the NWA converts this input into a structured SMS command, sends it to a remote gateway for processing, receives the SMS response, and then renders that response within the application's interface. (’862 Patent, col. 2:4-27; Fig. 1). This creates an interactive, application-like experience over a basic SMS channel.
• Technical Importance: This method enabled the deployment of more sophisticated, menu-driven services on a wider range of mobile devices by leveraging the universally available SMS channel, rather than requiring more modern and potentially costly data network access. (’862 Patent, col. 1:51-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶¶29, 31).
• Independent Claim 7 Elements:
  • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is a text security service that enables communication via an SMS channel. (Compl. ¶¶9, 21). Its features are triggered by customers using their own SMS-enabled mobile devices to send text commands. (Compl. ¶21). A specifically identified feature is the ability for a user to locate their phone by sending a corresponding "locate" command via SMS, which is then followed by the user's password to request the phone's location information. (Compl. ¶¶21, 23). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’862 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement read appears to depend on whether the user's "password" qualifies as a "desired parameter" within the meaning of the claim. The patent specification provides examples of such parameters as a user-typed location name ("JP Nagar") or a train number ("7054"), which are inputs for a service query. (’862 Patent, col. 5:20-44). A central question may be whether an authentication credential, like a password, serves the same claimed function as a service-specific data parameter.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality includes a "network aware application." (’862 Patent, col. 2:40-45). The patent describes this as a specific type of application, such as a "browser for accessing a plurality of short code based SMS services" that is "bundled with a meta information of available SMS based services." (’862 Patent, col. 2:45-51). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the "Webroot Mobile Security App" functions as such a bundled browser with meta-information, rather than simply being an application that can receive and act upon specific, predefined SMS commands.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network aware application"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 7 and is foundational to the patented method. The complaint alleges the "Webroot Mobile Security App" is a "network aware application." (Compl. ¶23). The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the accused app falls within the proper construction of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not given an explicit definition, which may support an interpretation aligned with its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art. The patent states the application can be written in various programming languages for various platforms. (’862 Patent, col. 3:31-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the term to a specific function: "The network aware application itself can be a browser for accessing a plurality of short code based SMS services or VASs." (’862 Patent, col. 2:45-47). Further, it is described as being "bundled with a meta information of available SMS based services" and using that information to list available services. (’862 Patent, col. 2:47-51). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the application to function as a bundled service browser, not just any application that responds to SMS messages.

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

• Context and Importance: This limitation in Claim 7 requires that the user provide a parameter that is not pre-listed. The complaint maps this element to the user's password. (Compl. ¶26). The case may turn on whether a password, an authentication credential, is a "parameter" in the sense contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit what a "parameter" can be. An argument could be made that any user-provided text string required to complete a service request, including a password, meets the limitation so long as it is not selected from a pre-defined list on the screen.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples of such a parameter are "JP Nagar" (a location for a restaurant search) and "7054" (a train number for a schedule search). (’862 Patent, col. 5:20-44). These are data inputs used to query for information. This may support a narrower construction where the "parameter" must be a variable data input for a service, rather than a static authentication credential like a password.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint." (Compl. ¶30). This allegation provides a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

This dispute will likely focus on claim construction and the factual characterization of the accused product's functionality. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "network aware application", described in the patent as a "browser" for various SMS services bundled with "meta information," be construed to read on the accused "Webroot Mobile Security App," which is alleged to respond to specific commands for security functions?

2. A second key issue will be one of functional and semantic interpretation: does a user's "password", an authentication credential, qualify as a "desired parameter... not listed at the terminal station" as required by Claim 7? This will involve comparing the accused functionality to the patent's examples, which feature service-specific query data like a location name or train number.