Coretek Licensing LLC v. Bluejeans Network Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coretek Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BlueJeans Network, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01016, D. Del., 07/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "BlueJeans Video Conferencing" software and associated systems infringe four patents related to methods for initiating network communications by bypassing a traditional mobile network operator's infrastructure.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for enabling wireless devices to initiate calls over internet protocol (VoIP) or other networks by communicating directly with a third-party server, thereby avoiding the use of a cellular operator's Home Location Register (HLR) for call routing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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 describes a technical environment where mobile network operators exert significant control over subscribers, restricting their choice of call routing and tariffs by requiring all communications to pass through the operator's Home Location Register (HLR) (’512 Patent, col. 1:28-42, col. 2:40-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a wireless device, equipped with a downloadable software "module," bypasses the operator's HLR. The module sends a call request directly to a separate server using protocols like SMS or HTTP. This server then determines the most appropriate, and potentially lowest cost, routing for the call across any available network, such as a VoIP network (’512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-61).
• Technical Importance: This method aimed to decouple call initiation and routing from the incumbent cellular network's control infrastructure, enabling greater flexibility, competition, and cost savings for end-users by leveraging alternative networks. (’512 Patent, col. 2:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 23, and 24, as well as dependent claim 12 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Method Claim 1 includes the key steps of:
  • A wireless device using a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
  • The module sending data to the server that defines a call request.
  • A software application on the server deciding on the 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. ¶144).

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 problem of network operator control via the HLR, which limits user choice and routing options (’154 Patent, col. 1:44-50).
• The Patented Solution: The ’154 Patent describes a nearly identical solution, but the claims are more specific, reciting a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" as the client device. The device uses a downloadable software module to send a call request to a server, which then handles call routing without using the operator's HLR, enabling connections over various networks (’154 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent provides more focused claims on the application of the HLR-bypass technology specifically to cellular phones, a key market for VoIP-over-the-top services. (’154 Patent, col. 17:31-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 22, 23, and 24, as well as dependent claim 11 (Compl. ¶35).
• Independent Method Claim 1 includes the key steps of:
  • A "wireless handheld cellular phone device" using a downloadable software module to contact a server.
  • The module sending data defining a call request to the server.
  • An application on the server deciding the call routing "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶144).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of reliably determining the current network location (i.e., the "VoIP address or return path") of a device, particularly a mobile one, to enable VoIP communications (’575 Patent, col. 2:6-14). The invention is a system where a device’s software module periodically authenticates with a server to report its current network path, which is stored in a database, allowing other services to reliably locate and connect to the device for calls (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-44).

Asserted Claims

Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The "BlueJeans Video Conferencing App" system is accused of infringing. It allegedly comprises a server and a downloadable application that determines and collects the IP address of a user's device, stores it in a database, and uses this information to establish VoIP calls between users (Compl. ¶¶99, 101-105).

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, from the same family as the ’512 and ’154 patents, claims the HLR-bypass technology in the form of a computer program product. It describes a non-transitory storage medium containing instructions that, when executed, configure a wireless device to contact a server to initiate a call, with the server then deciding on routing without using the operator's HLR (’551 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1, 22, 23, and 24, and multiple dependent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶62).

Accused Features

The accused feature is the "BlueJeans Video Conferencing" software, which is alleged to be a computer program product on a non-transitory medium (e.g., a smartphone's memory) that enables a device to contact a BlueJeans Server to initiate calls over an IP network, bypassing the cellular operator's HLR (Compl. ¶¶109, 111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant’s “BlueJeans Video Conferencing” communications software, also referred to as the “BlueJeans application” or "BlueJeans Video Conferencing App" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶¶63, 82, 99).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Product is a software application that enables users to make voice and video calls over an Internet or IP network (Compl. ¶65). The complaint alleges that a user device, such as a smartphone, running the BlueJeans application contacts a BlueJeans Server to initiate a call (e.g., via a SIP Invite signal) (Compl. ¶¶65, 67). The BlueJeans Server, running software such as a SIP proxy, then manages and routes the call to the intended recipient, another BlueJeans user, without using the cellular network operator's home location register (HLR) (Compl. ¶68). The complaint also alleges the system determines and stores the IP addresses of user devices in databases to facilitate these connections (Compl. ¶101). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references non-limiting exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits E and F, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶64, 80). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

’512 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the negative limitation "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register." The analysis may explore whether this phrase forbids only the use of the HLR for application-level call routing decisions, or if it requires complete independence from the HLR, including for establishing the underlying data link over which the application communicates.
• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused BlueJeans Server makes routing decisions entirely independent of any HLR/VLR data? The complaint's allegations are based on the product using an "Internet or IP network for calling" (Compl. ¶65), which may raise the question of how the underlying network connection is established and maintained by the wireless device.

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The points of contention are largely identical to those for the ’512 Patent, focusing on the interpretation of "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register."
• Technical Questions: The use of the more specific term "wireless handheld cellular phone device" in the claims of the ’154 Patent appears to be directly addressed by the complaint's allegation that the infringing device is a "Smartphone" (Compl. ¶81). The technical questions surrounding the function of the HLR in the overall system remain central.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register"

(from claim 1 of the ’512 and ’154 patents)

Context and Importance

This negative limitation is the core of the asserted invention, distinguishing it from conventional cellular communication methods. The entire infringement case rests on the allegation that the Accused Product operates in this manner. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it means complete isolation from the HLR or only independence for the final call-routing decision—is dispositive.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's likely view): The specification contrasts the invention with systems where operators "control their own HLR," which acts as the "gateway into the mobile communications system" (’512 Patent, col. 2:40-42). This may support an interpretation that any system where the routing decision is made by a non-operator server, bypassing that gateway function, meets the limitation, regardless of how the underlying data link is established.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's likely view): The background provides a detailed explanation of the HLR/VLR architecture, including its role in authenticating subscribers and updating location information for roaming (’512 Patent, col. 2:3-39). A party could argue that if the accused system relies on a cellular data connection that is itself established or maintained via HLR/VLR functions, the system cannot be said to operate "without using" the HLR.

The Term: "module"

(from claim 1 of the ’512 and ’154 patents)

Context and Importance

This term defines the client-side software component responsible for initiating the HLR-bypass process. The complaint identifies the "BlueJeans application" as this module (Compl. ¶66). The dispute may turn on whether the accused application performs the specific functions attributed to the "module" in the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only that the module is "responsible for contacting a server," is "implemented as software," and is "downloadable" (’512 Patent, col. 17:25-29). This supports reading the term on any downloadable software application that performs the claimed contact function.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show the "Proprietary Application Module(s)" (PAM) as comprising several distinct sub-modules with specific functions, such as "Location Update" (LU), "International Call Set-Up" (ICSUO1), and "Media Server Connection Set-Up" (MSCSU) (’512 Patent, FIGS. 4-10). A party could argue that the term "module" should be construed to require the performance of these more specific, disclosed functions, potentially narrowing its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged infringement (Compl. ¶139). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the required element of intent, such as identifying instructions in user manuals or marketing materials that direct users to perform the infringing steps.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶137). This allegation, if proven, would only support a finding of post-filing willfulness. The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the negative limitation "without using the network operator's home or visitor location register" be met if the accused system's underlying data transport layer (e.g., a 4G/5G connection) relies on the HLR for network access, even if the application-layer call routing is handled independently by Defendant's server?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate the precise interaction, or lack thereof, between the BlueJeans servers and cellular network HLRs? The case may depend on detailed evidence of network traffic and server-side processing to establish whether the accused system truly operates "without using" the HLR as claimed.
• Regarding the ’575 patent, a central question will be one of temporal functionality: does the accused system’s practice of updating a user's IP address meet the specific timing requirement of claim 1(f), which requires the interval between server authentications to be less than the time the device allows for a server response? The complaint's allegation on this point will require factual support concerning the operational time constraints of the BlueJeans application and servers.