Mod Stack LLC v. Highfive Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mod Stack LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: HighFive Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02350, D. Del., 12/23/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified "HighFive Products" infringe a patent related to managing voice-band calls across different types of telecommunication networks.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of interoperability between legacy circuit-switched telephone networks and modern packet-switched networks (e.g., Voice over IP), a critical issue during the industry's transition to internet-based communications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,460,520, "Apparatus and Method for Using Multiple Call Controllers of Voice-Band Calls," issued December 2, 2008 (’520 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of migrating from traditional circuit-switched telephone networks to "converged" packet-switched networks (’520 Patent, col. 1:18-29). A key problem was that a single "voice gateway" needed to simultaneously support multiple, different call control protocols from various types of switches and softswitches to ensure that any telephone could call any other telephone, regardless of the underlying network technology (’520 Patent, col. 1:46-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a voice gateway apparatus that includes a "protocol adapter" and multiple "protocol endpoints" (’520 Patent, Abstract). Each protocol endpoint is configured to handle a specific external call control protocol (e.g., from a traditional switch or a modern softswitch) by mapping its protocol-specific messages to a common set of internal messages (’520 Patent, col. 9:31-39). The protocol adapter then routes these standardized internal messages between the appropriate endpoints, effectively acting as a universal translator that allows disparate systems to interoperate through the gateway (’520 Patent, col. 9:40-52; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provided a method for enabling interoperability between otherwise incompatible telecommunications systems, facilitating the gradual, evolutionary shift from circuit-switched infrastructure to packet-based technologies like VoIP (’520 Patent, col. 1:46-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary ’520 Patent Claims" but does not identify them in the main body (Compl. ¶11-12). The asserted independent claims are presumably among claims 1, 14, 18, and 27.
• Independent Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • a first protocol endpoint configured to receive a first external message from a first call controller and map it to a first internal call control message;
  • a second protocol endpoint configured to receive a second external message from an integrated access device (IAD) and map it to a second internal call control message; and
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "at least the HighFive Products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11). The specific products are not named in the body of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary HighFive Products practice the technology claimed by the ’520 Patent" (Compl. ¶12). No specific functionality or market context for the accused products is described in the provided document.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are contained entirely within claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶12-13). The complaint states that these charts show the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’520 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶12). Without these charts, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Technical Questions: What specific components or software modules within the "HighFive Products" are alleged to function as the claimed "first protocol endpoint," "second protocol endpoint," and "protocol adapter"? Does the accused system actually receive external messages from distinct "call controllers" and "integrated access devices" using different protocols and map them to a common internal message format for routing, as required by the claims?
  • Scope Questions: The ’520 Patent describes an architecture in the context of voice gateways, traditional telephony switches (e.g., Class 5 switch), and Integrated Access Devices (IADs) from the early 2000s (’520 Patent, Figs. 1-5). A central question will be whether the claim terms can be construed to read on the architecture of a modern, likely software-based, video conferencing platform. For example, does a software client communicating with a server via a single, proprietary API constitute the claimed interaction between distinct "call controllers" and "endpoints" using different "protocols"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "protocol adapter"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the claimed invention, responsible for routing messages between different protocol endpoints. The definition of "protocol adapter" will be critical to determining whether the accused system, which may use a more integrated software architecture, infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the adapter functionally as a component that is "configured to receive the first and the second internal messages and to route" them to the appropriate endpoint (’520 Patent, col. 19:3-7). This functional language may support an interpretation covering any component that performs this routing, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the adapter in the context of routing between distinct endpoints that handle specific telecom protocols like GR-303, MGCP, and SIP (’520 Patent, col. 10:37-50; Fig. 8). This may support an interpretation that limits the term to a component that manages interoperability between these or similarly distinct, standardized telecommunication protocols, rather than internal software modules communicating via a unified API.

• The Term: "protocol endpoint"

• Context and Importance: The claims require at least two distinct "protocol endpoints" that interface with different external devices (a "call controller" and an "integrated access device"). Whether the accused system has components that meet this definition will be a key issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the endpoint functionally as being "configured to receive at least one first external message ... and to map the first external message to at least one corresponding first internal call control message" (’520 Patent, col. 18:61-65). This could be argued to cover any software module that translates incoming data into a standardized internal format.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently ties protocol endpoints to specific hardware ports and their associated external protocols, such as "GR-303 Protocol Endpoint 701a" corresponding to a port on a Class 5 switch (’520 Patent, col. 10:31-34; Fig. 8). This could support a narrower construction requiring a clearer boundary and a more formal, distinct external "protocol" than might exist between modern software components.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a judgment of contributory and induced infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B). However, the single count in the complaint is titled "Direct Infringement" (Compl. p. 2), and the body of the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support the knowledge or intent required for an indirect infringement claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It does request that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees, but provides no factual basis for such a finding (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D.i).

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

1. A Fundamental Evidentiary Question: As the complaint’s infringement theory is contained entirely within an unprovided exhibit, a primary question is what specific features of the accused "HighFive Products" are alleged to infringe the patent, and what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show that these modern systems map onto the patent's claimed architecture.

2. A Core Question of Claim Scope: The case will likely turn on whether claim terms like "protocol adapter" and "protocol endpoint"—defined in the context of 2002-era telecommunications hardware for bridging distinct network types—can be construed to cover the components of a modern, likely unified, software-based video conferencing service.

3. A Question of Technical Operation: Does the accused system actually perform the claimed function of mapping messages from multiple, distinct external protocols into a common internal message format for routing? Or does it operate on a different technical principle, such as a unified client-server architecture where all components communicate via a single, proprietary protocol, potentially creating a mismatch with the claimed invention.