Coretek Licensing LLC v. LogMeIn Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coretek Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LogMeIn, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01014, D. Del., 07/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GoToMeeting communications software infringes four patents related to enabling wireless network connections without using a network operator's home location register (HLR) and to dynamic VoIP location systems.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for routing communications over internet protocol (IP) networks, bypassing traditional cellular infrastructure like the HLR, which is a foundational concept for many modern over-the-top (OTT) voice and video applications.
• 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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes how mobile network operators exert significant control over subscribers through their ownership of the Home Location Register (HLR), a central database for subscriber information and location. This control restricts user choice in call routing and tariffs, creating a barrier for competitors seeking to offer lower-cost services (’512 Patent, col. 1:43-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a software module on a wireless device sends a call request directly to a dedicated server using protocols like SMS or HTTP over the internet. This server, which maintains its own location database, then decides on the appropriate routing for the call over any available network, thereby bypassing the traditional operator's HLR for the call routing function (’512 Patent, col. 2:50-63, col. 3:4-8). Figure 17 illustrates this server, the Proprietary Application Server Calls Manager (PASCM), receiving call setup requests and choosing a route based on its own databases (’512 Patent, Fig. 17).
• Technical Importance: This approach decouples call control from the incumbent cellular operator's core infrastructure, enabling the development of over-the-top (OTT) communication services that offer greater flexibility and cost competition (’512 Patent, col. 2:41-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) (Compl. ¶21).
• Claim 1 recites a method comprising the steps of:
  • A wireless device using a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
  • The wireless device using the module to send data to the server that defines a call request.
  • In response to the request, a software application on the server deciding 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’512 Patent, the ’154 Patent addresses the same technical problem of operator control via the HLR (’154 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively the same as that described in the ’512 Patent, involving a software module on a device that communicates with a server to establish call routing independent of the cellular operator's HLR. The claims of the ’154 Patent are more specific, reciting a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" rather than the broader "wireless device" found in the parent patent (’154 Patent, col. 17:31-32).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance mirrors that of the ’512 Patent, focusing on enabling competitive OTT communication services.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 22 (system), 23 (server), and 24 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶35).
• Claim 1 recites a method nearly identical to claim 1 of the ’512 Patent but is directed specifically to a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" (Compl. ¶27).
• Claim 24 recites a computer program product on a non-transitory storage medium, which, when executed, configures a wireless handheld cellular phone device to contact a server and send a call request, wherein the server decides the routing without using the HLR (Compl. ¶34).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575 - DYNAMIC VOIP LOCATION SYSTEM

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the technical challenge of reliably determining a mobile VoIP device's current IP address (termed "VoIP location" or "return path") for routing communications as the device moves between different networks (’575 Patent, col. 2:26-38). The invention is a system where a software module on the device periodically authenticates with a server, which extracts the device's current "VoIP address or return path" and stores it in a dynamic database, enabling reliable call routing (’575 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶39, 41).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the "GoToMeeting App by LogMeIn" is a system that determines and collects a user device's IP address, stores this information in databases, and incorporates a software module that polls a server at regular intervals to authenticate and maintain an updated connection for VoIP calling (Compl. ¶¶101, 106).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent is part of the same family as the ’512 and ’154 patents and addresses the same core problem of bypassing the operator-controlled HLR for call routing (’551 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:2). The claims are directed to a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory storage medium that, when executed, configures a wireless device to perform the HLR-bypass method (’551 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶46-48).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1 and 22 are asserted (Compl. ¶62).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the GoToMeeting software of being a computer program product that, when executing on a smartphone, contacts a GoToMeeting server and sends a call request, which results in the server routing the call over an IP network without using a cellular network's HLR (Compl. ¶¶111, 122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "GoToMeeting" communications software, also identified as the "GoToMeeting App by LogMeIn" (Compl. ¶¶63, 99).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that GoToMeeting is a software application that can be downloaded to a wireless device, such as a smartphone (Compl. ¶66). The application is alleged to communicate with a "GoToMeeting Server" over a wireless link (e.g., Wi-Fi or cellular) to initiate a network connection, such as a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Invite (Compl. ¶¶65-67). The complaint asserts that the GoToMeeting server then routes calls to other users over an IP network, bypassing the traditional mobile network operator's Home Location Register (HLR) (Compl. ¶68). The system is also alleged to determine and collect the user's IP address to facilitate VoIP communications (Compl. ¶101). The complaint identifies GoToMeeting as a communications "solution" but provides no further details regarding its market position or commercial significance (Compl. ¶¶63, 79).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. 8,861,512 Infringement Allegations

U.S. 9,173,154 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the scope of the phrase "without using a network operator's home location register." Defendant may argue that because the accused application runs over a cellular data connection, the device must first authenticate with the network using the HLR to establish data connectivity, meaning the HLR is used in the overall communication path. Plaintiff may counter that the claim limitation applies specifically to the call routing decision, which it alleges is performed by the GoToMeeting server, thereby bypassing the HLR for that specific function.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a "software application running on the server [is] deciding on the appropriate routing" (Compl. ¶68). A technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the GoToMeeting server performs a specific, claimed "deciding" function beyond the standard operations of a SIP proxy server in connecting two IP endpoints.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "without using a network operator's home location register" (from '512, '154, '551 Patents)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted HLR-bypass patents. Its construction will likely be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on whether this limitation requires complete independence from the HLR for the entire communication, or only for the specific function of call routing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly frames the invention as an alternative to the HLR for the call set-up and routing function. Language such as "the server decides on the appropriate routing over all available networks for that call request" suggests the key inventive step is the server's assumption of the HLR's decision-making role, not the elimination of the HLR for underlying network access (’512 Patent, col. 2:54-56). This may support a construction where the limitation is met if the HLR is not used for call control, even if used for data session authentication.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is stated in absolute terms. The background section criticizes the "ownership and control that a network operator has over its HLR" as a "major entry barrier" (’512 Patent, col. 1:65-67). This framing could support a narrower construction requiring that the entire end-to-end connection be established with no reliance on the HLR, including for establishing the underlying data bearer channel.

• The Term: "VoIP address or return path" (from '575 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the information that is dynamically extracted and stored by the accused system. The complaint equates it directly with an "IP address" (Compl. ¶101). The case may turn on whether this term simply means a network-layer IP address or implies a more specific application-layer identifier.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term in the context of establishing a communication link over the internet, where an IP address is the fundamental "return path." The specification does not provide an explicit, more limiting definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in network communications.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is used in the specific context of "VoIP (Voice over internet protocol) location" (’575 Patent, claim 1). This could support a narrower reading that requires the "address" to be a VoIP-specific identifier, such as a SIP URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), rather than just a generic IP address that could be used for any type of data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by "encouraging infringement" and knowing its actions would result in infringement (Compl. ¶139). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, that would form the basis for a claim of inducement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not pleaded as a standalone count. The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶137). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willfulness but does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.

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

This case will likely focus on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical operation in the context of modern internet-based communication systems. The central issues for the court can be framed as:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "without using a network operator's home location register" be construed to read on an over-the-top application that functions on a cellular data connection, where that underlying data connection itself relies on the HLR for network authentication and session management?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causality: does the accused GoToMeeting server perform an independent, intelligent function of "deciding on the appropriate routing" as claimed in the patents, or does it simply facilitate a connection between two IP endpoints in a manner standard to SIP-based VoIP systems?
• A final question will be one of functional distinction: does the GoToMeeting system's practice of tracking a user's IP address for connectivity meet the specific requirements of the '575 patent's system for dynamically extracting and reporting a "VoIP address or return path" to maintain a location database for call routing?