Mod Stack LLC v. Collab9 LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mod Stack LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Collab9, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02349, D. Del., 12/23/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has an established place of business in the District, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified telecommunications products infringe a patent related to a voice gateway apparatus capable of interfacing simultaneously with multiple, different types of call controllers using distinct protocols.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of interoperability in telecommunications networks, specifically enabling modern packet-switched systems to communicate with legacy circuit-switched systems.
• 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. 7,460,520 - Apparatus and Method for Using Multiple Call Controllers of Voice-Band Calls

• Issued: December 2, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As telecommunications networks evolved from traditional circuit-switched infrastructure to "converged" packet-switched networks (like Voice-over-IP), a technical challenge arose. Voice gateways needed to interface simultaneously with both legacy circuit-switches and modern "softswitches," which often use different and incompatible call control protocols. (’520 Patent, col. 1:46-57).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a voice gateway apparatus that uses a modular software architecture to solve this interoperability problem. The core components are "protocol endpoints" and a central "protocol adapter." Each protocol endpoint is designed to communicate with a specific external system (e.g., a legacy switch or a modern softswitch) by mapping its unique, "external" protocol messages into a common, "internal" message format. The protocol adapter then receives these standardized internal messages and routes them to the appropriate destination endpoint, which translates them back into the required external protocol. (’520 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:26-48; Fig. 8). This architecture allows disparate systems to communicate without being directly aware of each other's protocols.
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for bridging the gap between legacy and next-generation telecommunication networks, allowing for a gradual migration to packet-based voice systems while maintaining universal connectivity. (’520 Patent, col. 1:46-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus claims.
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) Elements:
  • A first protocol endpoint configured to receive a first external call control message of a first protocol from a first call controller and to map it to a first internal call control message.
  • A second protocol endpoint configured to receive a second external call control message from an integrated access device (IAD) and map it to a second internal call control message.
  • A protocol adapter configured to receive the first and second internal messages and route them to the appropriate endpoint.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶B).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "the Collab9 products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Collab9 Products." (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). These charts were not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context beyond the conclusory allegation that they "practice the technology claimed by the ‘520 Patent." (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but incorporates its substantive allegations by reference to an "Exhibit 2," which contains claim charts that were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is limited to the assertion that Defendant "has been and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘520 Patent... by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products. (Compl. ¶11). As such, a detailed claim chart analysis cannot be performed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specific allegations, the initial dispute will likely focus on the fundamental architecture of the accused Collab9 products.

• Architectural Questions: Does the accused system possess the distinct three-part architecture required by the claims: a first protocol endpoint, a second protocol endpoint, and a protocol adapter that routes standardized internal messages between them?
• Functional Questions: Do the components of the accused system perform the specific "mapping" function from an external protocol to an "internal call control message" as required by the claims, or do they operate on a different principle? The existence and nature of this internal message format will be a central question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"protocol adapter"

• Context and Importance: This is the central routing element of the claimed invention. Its definition is critical because infringement will depend on whether the accused products contain a component that performs the specific functions of the claimed "protocol adapter," namely receiving and routing standardized "internal" messages between distinct endpoints.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe its function simply as being "configured to receive the first and the second internal messages and to route" them appropriately, which could be argued to cover any component that directs traffic between two modules. (’520 Patent, col. 20:4-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the adapter as interacting with a "Provisioning object" to "map a pair of endpoints together," and using a "Bearer Connection Manager" to establish communication paths. (’520 Patent, col. 9:49-52, col. 10:1-12). This suggests the adapter is part of a more complex, managed system, potentially narrowing its scope beyond a simple message router.

"protocol endpoint"

• Context and Importance: The claims require at least two distinct endpoints that perform a mapping function. How this term is construed will determine what qualifies as an endpoint, and whether a single, multi-protocol software module in an accused product could be considered one or multiple "endpoints."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any interface point for a given protocol. The patent describes endpoints corresponding to various call controllers and IADs. (’520 Patent, Fig. 8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently require the endpoint to perform a "map[ping]" function between an "external" protocol-specific message and an "internal call control message." (’520 Patent, col. 20:1-3). This suggests an endpoint is not merely an interface but must be a translation module that utilizes the specific internal message architecture. Figure 7 shows that all endpoints use the same set of internal messages (e.g., LINESTATUS, LINECONTROL). (’520 Patent, Fig. 7).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶B), but the single count for infringement is titled "Direct Infringement" and contains no factual allegations to support the knowledge or intent required for indirect infringement claims. (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. It requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to recover attorneys' fees, but it pleads no facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement. (Compl. ¶D.i).

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

This case, as currently pleaded, presents foundational questions of evidence and claim scope before any detailed technical dispute can be addressed.

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s failure to identify the accused products or provide the referenced claim charts leaves the central infringement theory entirely undefined. The initial phase of litigation will likely focus on compelling Plaintiff to provide these basic details.
• A second key question will be one of architectural mapping: Assuming an accused product is identified, the case will turn on whether its software architecture can be mapped onto the patent’s specific three-part model of two distinct "protocol endpoints" that translate messages into a common "internal" format, and a "protocol adapter" that routes them. The existence and function of this internal message system will be a critical point of proof.