Coretek Licensing LLC v. Snap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coretek Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Snap, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00874, D. Del., 06/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat communications application infringes four patents related to methods for enabling wireless devices to establish network connections without relying on a traditional network operator's Home Location Register (HLR) and for dynamically tracking a device's VoIP location.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns bypassing conventional cellular network architecture for communications services, a foundational concept for Over-the-Top (OTT) applications that provide voice and messaging services over general-purpose IP networks rather than carrier-controlled channels.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,861,512 - "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued October 14, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where users of wireless devices are restricted by their home network operator's Home Location Register (HLR), which is the central database controlling subscriber access and services. This control limits user choice in call routing and tariffs, creating economic and technical barriers to competition from alternative service providers (’512 Patent, col. 1:40-50, col. 2:40-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a software "module" on a wireless device bypasses the HLR to initiate a connection. The module sends a "call request" to a separate server using flexible protocols like SMS or HTTP over the internet. This server, not the traditional HLR, then determines the most appropriate (e.g., lowest cost) routing for the communication over any available network and can conference the parties together (’512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-61; Fig. 17).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provides a method for "Over-the-Top" (OTT) services to operate independently of the incumbent mobile network operator's core call-control infrastructure, enabling greater flexibility and potential cost savings (’512 Patent, col. 2:40-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) (Compl. ¶21).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A wireless device uses a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
  • The module sends data defining a "call request" to the server.
  • A software application on the server decides on the appropriate routing for the call to a third-party end-user.
  • This decision is made "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (e.g., claim 12) (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,154 - "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued October 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’512 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of restrictions imposed by a mobile network operator's HLR, which limits user choice and entrenches the operator's control over services and pricing (’154 Patent, col. 1:55-64).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the ’512 Patent, but the claims are directed specifically to a "wireless handheld cellular phone device." A downloadable module on the phone sends a call request to a server, which then manages call routing without using the cellular operator's HLR, thereby bypassing the traditional call setup mechanism (’154 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-63; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology is framed as a way to empower users of cellular phones with more choice and to enable new service models that are not beholden to the infrastructure of traditional mobile carriers (’154 Patent, col. 2:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 22 (system), 23 (server), and 24 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are substantively similar to claim 1 of the ’512 Patent but specify the device is a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" (Compl. ¶27).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (e.g., claim 11) (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575 - "DYNAMIC VOIP LOCATION SYSTEM," Issued June 14, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for dynamically determining and tracking the network location (i.e., the "VoIP address or return path" such as an IP address) of a VoIP-enabled wireless device. The system extracts this address, stores it in a database, and uses it to establish communications. The invention also discloses a client module that authenticates with a server at specific time intervals to keep its location information current (’575 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶39, 41).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Snapchat application and server system infringes by determining and collecting user IP addresses, storing them in databases, and using this information to route VoIP calls between users. The complaint further alleges the Snapchat app authenticates with the Snapchat server at regular intervals (Compl. ¶¶101-107).

U.S. Patent No. 9,591,551 - "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued March 7, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the ’512 and ’154 patents, this patent claims a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory storage medium. When executed, the product configures a wireless device to perform the HLR-bypassing communication method, wherein the device contacts a server to initiate and route a network connection without using the operator's HLR (’551 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶46-48).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (computer program product), 22 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) are asserted (Compl. ¶62).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Snapchat application, as a computer program product stored on a smartphone's memory, executes to enable the phone to contact the Snapchat Server over an IP network and initiate calls (e.g., via SIP Invite), thereby bypassing the cellular operator’s HLR (Compl. ¶¶111, 122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Snapchat" communications software application (the "Accused Product" or "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶63, ¶99).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Product as a downloadable software application for smartphones (Compl. ¶66). Its allegedly infringing functionality involves using an internet connection (e.g., Wi-Fi or cellular data) to establish a voice call. Specifically, the Snapchat application on a user's phone is alleged to send a "call request," identified as a SIP Invite signal, to a "Snapchat Server." This server, in turn, is alleged to use software to manage and route the call to another Snapchat user over an IP network, a process that purportedly occurs without using the mobile network operator's Home Location Register (HLR) (Compl. ¶¶65-68, 81). The complaint also alleges the Snapchat system determines and collects the IP addresses of user devices to facilitate these VoIP communications (Compl. ¶101).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’512 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A central question is whether an OTT application using a cellular data connection operates "without using a network operator's home location register." Defendant may argue that the device's access to the cellular data network itself requires authentication and management by the HLR, even if the HLR is not used for the OTT application's specific call-routing logic.
  • Technical Question: It may be disputed whether a "SIP Invite" sent over an established IP data session, as alleged for Snapchat, constitutes a "call request" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which also describes using discrete mechanisms like SMS to initiate a server-based connection (’512 Patent, col. 3:32-34).

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: Similar to the ’512 Patent, the meaning of "without using a network operator's home location register" will be a key issue. The focus on a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" in the ’154 patent may intensify the debate over the role of the HLR in providing the underlying cellular data connectivity that the accused application relies upon.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’512 and ’154 Patents

• The Term: "without using a network operator's home location register"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the core of the asserted invention. Its construction will likely determine infringement. The dispute will center on whether using a cellular data connection (which is authorized and managed by an HLR) to run an OTT application that performs its own call routing constitutes "using" the HLR in a manner excluded by the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff-favored): The specification repeatedly frames the invention as the server deciding on routing "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register" (’512 Patent, col. 2:56-58). This focus on the server's decision-making process may support an interpretation where the claim is met as long as the application-level routing logic is HLR-independent, regardless of the underlying data transport.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant-favored): The patent's background describes the HLR as the "gateway into the mobile communications system" (’512 Patent, col. 2:42-43). A defendant could argue that any reliance on the cellular data network, which is enabled by the HLR, means the system is not truly operating "without using" it.

• The Term: "call request"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges a "SIP Invite" meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes sending the request via protocols like SMS or HTTP, which can be discrete, out-of-band events, whereas a SIP Invite is typically part of an in-band data session. The question is whether the term is functional and protocol-agnostic or implies a specific architectural interaction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff-favored): The patent specification explicitly states the server can receive communications from the device using "any one of several different protocols," listing SMS and HTTP as examples, not limitations (’512 Patent, col. 2:58-61). This suggests the term is meant to be functional, covering any data that communicates a user's intent to initiate a call.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant-favored): The patent describes a process where the server receives the request and then may "conference the device and recipient into a single call" (’512 Patent, col. 2:62-63). This could be read to imply a distinct two-step process (request, then server-initiated callback) that differs from the peer-to-peer signaling model of many modern VoIP applications.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant induced infringement "by encouraging infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement" (Compl. ¶139). The complaint does not, however, plead specific underlying facts to support this conclusory allegation, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other instructions that allegedly encourage users to perform the claimed infringing steps.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant has had knowledge of its alleged infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶137). This allegation, if proven, would only support a claim for enhanced damages based on post-filing conduct, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of key claim language in the context of modern internet application architecture. The central questions are:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim limitation "without using a network operator's home location register" be construed to read on an Over-the-Top application that operates over a cellular data connection, where that data connection itself is established and maintained through HLR authentication?
• A second key issue will be one of technical and functional interpretation: Does an in-band "SIP Invite" signal, sent within an existing IP data session, constitute the "call request" described in the patents, which envision a module sending a request to a server that then initiates and conferences a call? This questions whether there is a fundamental match or mismatch between the patent's described architecture and the accused product's operation.
• A third question will be one of infringement under the ’575 patent: Can the routine collection and use of a user's dynamic IP address for routing VoIP calls be considered equivalent to the patented "Dynamic VoIP Location System," which claims, among other things, a specific client-server authentication timing and a system for dynamically reporting a "VoIP address or return path" into an accessible database?