Coretek Licensing LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coretek Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Bumble Trading Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01594, D. Del., 11/24/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in that state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bumble communications application infringes four patents related to methods for initiating network communications that bypass traditional carrier infrastructure and for dynamically determining a device's location on a VoIP network.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern "over-the-top" (OTT) communication systems, where applications use internet protocols to establish connections, rather than relying on a mobile network operator's conventional call routing architecture.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,861,512, 9,173,154, and 9,591,551 are part of the same patent family and share a common specification, while U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575 has a later priority date and addresses a distinct but related technology.

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 Oct. 14, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how mobile device users are typically restricted to the network of their subscribed carrier, whose Home Location Register (HLR) controls call routing and available services, thereby limiting user choice and preventing access to potentially cheaper communication options (e.g., when roaming) ('512 Patent, col. 1:43-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that bypasses the carrier's HLR. A software module on a wireless device sends a call request, using protocols like SMS or HTTP, directly to a third-party application server. This server, rather than the carrier's HLR, then decides the most appropriate and cost-effective routing for the call across any available network ('512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provided a technical framework for "over-the-top" (OTT) communication services, which could operate independently of traditional carrier call-control infrastructure and introduce new competition in call pricing and features ('512 Patent, col. 2:41-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method) and 23 (system) (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A wireless device uses a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
  • The device, using the module, sends data defining a call request to the server.
  • In response, a software application on the server decides on the routing to a third-party end-user over available networks without using the network operator's home or visitor location register.
• Independent Claim 23 (System):
  • A system comprising a wireless device and a server.
  • The wireless device has a downloadable software module for contacting the server.
  • The wireless device is operable to send a call request to the server.
  • The server includes a "calls manager" software application operable to decide routing to a third party without using the network operator's home or visitor location register.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 12 and reserves the right to assert others (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 Oct. 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '512 Patent, the '154 Patent addresses the same technical problem of user restriction and high costs associated with HLR-based call routing by mobile network operators ('154 Patent, col. 2:45-54).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is functionally identical to that of the '512 Patent, describing a system where a software module on a device communicates with a server to establish a call, bypassing the carrier's HLR. The claims of the '154 Patent are more specific, expressly reciting a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" as the client device ('154 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:1-4).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the '512 Patent, providing a foundation for OTT services that can compete with incumbent mobile carriers.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 22 (system), 23 (server), and 24 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶35).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A "wireless handheld cellular phone device" uses a downloadable software module to contact a server.
  • The device sends a call request to the server.
  • The server decides on routing to a third party without using the network operator's home or visitor location register.
• Independent Claim 22 (System):
  • A system comprising a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" and a server.
  • The device has a downloadable module to contact the server.
  • The device sends a call request.
  • The server's "calls manager software" decides routing without using the network operator's home or visitor location register.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 11 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶35).

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 and power-efficiently determining the current IP address ("VoIP location" or "return path") of a mobile device to enable VoIP communications, especially when the device moves between different networks (e.g., from a cellular network to a Wi-Fi hotspot). The invention describes a system where a software module on the device periodically connects and reports its network address to a central server, which maintains a dynamic database of device locations for use by applications ('575 Patent, col. 2:6-14, 30-44; Compl. ¶39).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bumble application and server system infringes by detecting and collecting a user device's IP address, storing it in "Bumble databases," and using that address to route voice calls. The Bumble app is also alleged to periodically poll the Bumble server at regular intervals to authenticate and maintain the connection, thereby updating its location information ('Compl. ¶¶ 101, 104, 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,” Issued Mar. 7, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the '512 and '154 patents, this patent claims the HLR-bypass invention as a computer program product. It describes a non-transitory storage medium containing instructions that, when executed on a wireless device, cause the device to contact a server to initiate a call, wherein the server's software makes the routing decision without using the carrier's HLR ('551 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶ 46-48).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (computer program product), 22 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) (Compl. ¶62).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the downloadable Bumble application itself, as a computer program product residing on a smartphone's memory, of embodying the claimed invention. The app is alleged to perform the claimed steps of contacting the Bumble server to initiate calls that are subsequently routed by the server without using an HLR (Compl. ¶¶ 111, 122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Bumble" communications software, which is variously referred to in the complaint as the "Accused Product" or the "Bumble App" (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 79, 99).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint describes the Accused Product as a smartphone application that enables users to make voice calls over an IP network (such as Wi-Fi or a cellular data connection) to other users of the application (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 102). The system architecture allegedly involves the Bumble app on a user's smartphone sending a call initiation signal (e.g., a "SIP Invite") to a central "Bumble Server" (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 70). This server is then alleged to manage and route the call to the recipient's device without using a traditional mobile network operator's Home Location Register (HLR) (Compl. ¶68). The system also allegedly determines and collects the IP addresses of user devices to establish and maintain these communications (Compl. ¶101). The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the product's market positioning beyond identifying it as "communications software" (Compl. ¶63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart Exhibits E, F, G, and H, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint body.

’512 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Independent Claim 23)

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Independent Claim 22)

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement case for the '512, '154, and '551 patents appears to hinge on whether the accused system operates entirely "without using a network operator's home or visitor location register." The complaint asserts this is the case (Compl. ¶65), but this negative limitation may be a key point of dispute, as it requires proving the absence of any functional reliance on the HLR/VLR for call routing.
• Technical Questions: A technical question arises from the complaint's mapping of claim terms to the accused product. For instance, do the functions of a "SIP proxy" as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶68) correspond to the functions of the "calls manager software" as described in the patents? The court may need to determine if the specific protocols and functions of the accused IP-based system align with the broader system described in the patents.
• Scope Questions ('575 Patent): For the '575 patent, a primary question will be one of scope: does the routine collection and use of a device's IP address for basic call connectivity, as allegedly performed by Bumble (Compl. ¶101), meet the more specific claim requirements of a system that dynamically "extracts and reports" a "VoIP address or return path" into a user-account-specific database for the purpose of location tracking (Compl. ¶104)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the core inventive concept of the '512 family of patents. The entire infringement theory rests on the allegation that the Bumble system bypasses the HLR. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any tangential or indirect interaction with an HLR takes the accused system outside the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frames the invention as a solution to the control and restrictions imposed by operators through their HLRs ('512 Patent, col. 1:43-52, col. 2:41-49). A party might argue that "without using" means the primary routing decision is made independently of the HLR, even if some ancillary network function has a remote connection to it.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention enables a connection "without using a network operator's home location register" ('512 Patent, Abstract). A party could argue this requires a complete and total bypass, and that any use of or reliance on data derived from an HLR for any part of the call setup or routing process would place an accused system outside the claim scope.

• The Term: "VoIP address or return path" (from claim 1 of the '575 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The complaint equates this term directly with a device's IP address (Compl. ¶101). The viability of the infringement allegation for the '575 patent depends on whether a standard, dynamically assigned IP address falls within the meaning of this term as used in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background discusses identifying a user's VoIP location via a "return path" from a URI/URL request, suggesting the term could broadly cover any network identifier that enables a reply, such as an IP address ('575 Patent, col. 1:33-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is consistently placed in quotation marks within the claim, which may suggest it is a term of art with a specific definition intended by the patentee. The claim recites "extracting" this path from "incoming data communication," which could be argued to require more than simply reading the source IP address from a network packet header ('575 Patent, claim 1(c)).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has induced infringement by "encouraging infringement" (Compl. ¶139). The specific facts alleged to support this are that Defendant provides the Bumble application and server infrastructure, which customers then use to perform the allegedly infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶ 65-68, 101-107).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶137). This allegation, coupled with the prayer for enhanced damages (Compl. p. 34, ¶f), forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused Bumble system, which allegedly uses IP-based protocols like SIP, operate entirely "without using a network operator's home location register" as required by the '512, '154, and '551 patents? The case will likely require a detailed construction of this central negative limitation.
• A second key question will be one of functional correspondence: for the '575 patent, does the accused system's alleged use of user IP addresses for call connectivity perform the specific, multi-step process of dynamically "extracting," "reporting," and "updating" a "VoIP address or return path" as recited in the asserted claim, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed and accused technical operations?
• An underlying evidentiary question will be one of proof: what evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused system definitively does, or does not, use or rely upon a network operator's HLR or VLR in any part of its call routing process, a determination critical to the primary infringement theory.