DCT

1:20-cv-00876

Coretek Licensing LLC v. Zoom Video Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00876, D. Del., 06/28/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district for patent venue purposes under TC Heartland.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Zoom communications software infringes four patents related to methods for initiating network connections and providing VoIP location services that bypass a traditional mobile network operator's infrastructure.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses routing communications for mobile devices over IP networks by using a downloadable client application and a third-party server, avoiding reliance on the cellular operator's Home Location Register (HLR).
  • 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

Date Event
2006-03-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’512, ’154, and ’551 Patents
2011-04-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’575 Patent
2014-10-14 ’512 Patent Issued
2015-10-27 ’154 Patent Issued
2016-06-14 ’575 Patent Issued
2017-03-07 ’551 Patent Issued
2020-06-28 Complaint Filed

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 problem where users of wireless devices are restricted by their home network operator, which controls call routing and tariffs through its Home Location Register (HLR). This limits user choice and can lead to higher costs, particularly when roaming. (’512 Patent, col. 1:26-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a downloadable software module on a wireless device communicates directly with an independent server, bypassing the network operator's HLR. The device sends a "call request" to the server (e.g., via SMS or HTTP), and the server determines the most appropriate, and potentially cheapest, way to route the call over any available network. (’512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to decouple call initiation from the home network operator’s control, creating a pathway for third-party service providers to offer competitive, flexible routing for voice and data calls on mobile devices. (’512 Patent, col. 1:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) (Compl. ¶¶15, 18, 20).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method of enabling a wireless device to initiate a network connection without using a network operator's home location register.
    • The wireless device uses a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
    • The wireless device uses the module to send data to the server defining a call request.
    • In response, a software application on the server decides on the appropriate routing to a third-party end-user over available networks, without using the network operator's home or visitor location register.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 12 (Compl. ¶16).

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 application leading to the ’512 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the limitations and lack of choice imposed on users by a mobile network operator's control over its HLR. (’154 Patent, col. 1:22-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’512 Patent, describing a method where a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" uses a software module to communicate with a server to manage call routing independent of the HLR. The primary distinction from the ’512 Patent appears in the slightly more specific claim language. (’154 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-63).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for over-the-top (OTT) communication services to operate on mobile devices without being constrained by the routing and tariff structures of the underlying cellular carrier. (’154 Patent, col. 1:52-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 22 (system), 23 (server), and 24 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶¶27, 30, 32, 34).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are nearly identical to claim 1 of the ’512 Patent, but specifically recite a "wireless handheld cellular phone device."
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 11 (Compl. ¶28).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575 - “DYNAMIC VOIP LOCATION SYSTEM”, Issued June 14, 2016.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of reliably determining and tracking the current network location (i.e., the "VoIP address or return path") of a wireless device as it moves between different networks (e.g., 3G, Wi-Fi). The invention describes a system where a software module on the device authenticates and connects with a server at certain time intervals to report its current network address, which the server stores in a database to enable reliable communication routing. (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-44).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (system) (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "ZOOM Cloud Meetings App" and its associated server system infringe by determining and collecting a device's IP address, storing it in databases, and using this dynamically updated location information to route calls, particularly when a device switches networks. (Compl. ¶¶99, 101, 104, 107).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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: Belonging to the same family as the ’512 and ’154 patents, this patent claims a computer program product (e.g., software on a device) that, when executed, enables a wireless device to initiate a network connection by contacting a server to manage call routing. This process is designed to occur without using the traditional network operator's HLR, thereby bypassing the operator's direct control over the connection. (’551 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (computer program product), 22 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) (Compl. ¶¶48, 57, 59, 61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Zoom Cloud Meetings" software of being an infringing computer program product that, when running on a smartphone, contacts Zoom servers to initiate and route calls over IP networks, bypassing the cellular operator's HLR. (Compl. ¶¶109, 111, 122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Zoom" communications software, also identified as "Zoom Cloud Meetings" and the "ZOOM Cloud Meetings App," along with the associated server infrastructure (Compl. ¶¶63, 79, 99, 109).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product is a communications software solution that enables users to make calls over IP networks (Compl. ¶¶63, 65). Functionally, the Zoom application on a user's device (e.g., a smartphone) is alleged to act as the claimed "module" that contacts a Zoom server over a wireless link (e.g., Wi-Fi or cellular data) to initiate a call, for example via a SIP Invite signal (Compl. ¶¶66, 67, 82).
  • The complaint further alleges that software on the Zoom server functions as a "calls manager," deciding how to route the call to the recipient over available networks without using the cellular network operator's Home Location Register (HLR) (Compl. ¶¶68, 84). The system is also accused of dynamically tracking the IP addresses of user devices to facilitate this routing (Compl. ¶¶101, 104). The complaint does not provide detail on the product's specific market positioning.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits E, F, G, and H, which are incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶64, 80, 100, 110). The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

’512 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Plaintiff alleges that the accused Zoom product meets the limitations of method claim 1, system claim 23, and server claim 24 (Compl. ¶¶65-78). The theory is that the downloadable "Zoom Cloud Meetings application" on a smartphone is the claimed "module" (Compl. ¶66). This application allegedly sends a "call request," such as a SIP Invite, to a Zoom server over a wireless link (Compl. ¶67). A "calls manager" software on the Zoom server then routes the call to the intended recipient over an IP network, which the complaint alleges is done "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register" (Compl. ¶68).

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The infringement allegations for the ’154 Patent are substantively identical to those for the ’512 Patent, but are mapped to the claims of the ’154 Patent, which recite a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" (Compl. ¶¶81-98). The core theory remains that the Zoom application on a smartphone initiates and routes calls via Zoom's servers over IP networks, thereby bypassing the cellular operator's HLR and infringing method claim 1, system claim 22, server claim 23, and computer program product claim 24 (Compl. ¶¶81, 86, 90, 94).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the phrase "without using a network operator's home location register" is met simply by using an over-the-top (OTT) VoIP application that operates on a data channel. The defense might argue the patent envisions a more specific interaction with or modification of traditional cellular calling, not a completely separate data-based system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations that the accused product operates "without using" the HLR are conclusory (Compl. ¶¶65, 81). A technical question for the court will be what evidence supports this negative limitation, and whether the operation of a standard VoIP application inherently satisfies the claim language as understood in the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"without using a network operator's home location register"

  • Term: "without using a network operator's home location register" ('512 Patent, Claim 1; ’154 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the central feature of the asserted independent claims. The case's outcome may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any communication that does not involve the HLR (such as standard OTT VoIP calls), or more narrowly to mean a specific method of circumventing the HLR for what would otherwise be a traditional cellular call.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of giving users the "freedom to choose the cheapest option" and breaking free from restrictions imposed by a single network operator. This suggests an intent to cover any technical means of achieving that outcome. (’512 Patent, col. 1:50-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary of the invention explicitly mention using "SMS or HTTP over the internet to communicate with the server" as an exemplary embodiment. A defendant may argue that the claims should be limited to such methods, where one protocol is used to trigger a call on another, rather than a self-contained VoIP application. (’512 Patent, col. 2:59-61).

"a software application running on the server deciding on the appropriate routing"

  • Term: "a software application running on the server deciding on the appropriate routing" ('512 Patent, Claim 1; ’154 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what level of decision-making capability is required of the server. The dispute will likely center on whether a standard SIP proxy server that performs basic call routing based on an IP address meets this limitation, or if the patent requires a more complex "decision" process, such as least-cost routing analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not specify how the decision is made, only that the server software "decid[es] on the appropriate routing." This could be interpreted to cover any logic that selects a path for the call request. (’512 Patent, col. 4:36-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses deciding on the "lowest cost routing for the connection" and enabling bills to be sent to the user, suggesting a more sophisticated analysis than simply forwarding a data packet. This may support an interpretation that requires more than standard IP routing. (’512 Patent, col. 3:40-43).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint includes a claim for induced infringement, alleging Defendant encouraged acts that constitute patent infringement (Compl. ¶139). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other instructions that would encourage an infringing use.

Willful Infringement

  • While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it requests enhanced damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶f). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶137). This allegation, if proven, would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "without using a network operator's home location register," which was written in the context of creating alternatives to traditional cellular call flows, be construed to read on modern over-the-top (OTT) applications like Zoom that are architecturally separate from the HLR by design?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: does the Zoom application and server architecture perform the specific functions of the claimed "module" and "calls manager" as detailed in the patents' specifications, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented invention and the technical operation of the accused product?
  • A central question for damages will turn on knowledge and intent: can the Plaintiff provide evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant, or will any potential for enhanced damages be limited to conduct occurring after the complaint was filed?