Wireless Discovery LLC v. Coffee Meets Bagel Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wireless Discovery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00478, D. Del., 04/13/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Coffee Meets Bagel mobile application and associated services infringe a patent related to methods for location-based discovery of network members and server-mediated exchange of their personal attributes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile social networking, where users are able to discover and communicate with other nearby users by leveraging both short-range device discovery and server-based profile information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-10	'875 Patent Priority Date
2016-02-16	'875 Patent Issue Date
2022-04-13	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875 - Location-Based Discovery of Network Members by Personal Attributes For Alternate Channel Communication

• Issued: February 16, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical challenge in the era of early smartphones: mobile device users wished to discover and exchange rich, customized information (like photos and social profiles) with other nearby users, but existing technologies were limited. Direct device-to-device protocols like Bluetooth had compatibility and security issues, while other methods required users to be on the same carrier network or were limited to line-of-sight communication. ( '875 Patent, col. 1:47-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that uses two different communication channels. First, devices use a short-range, ad hoc network (like Bluetooth) to perform an initial discovery of other devices, obtaining a unique hardware identifier. This identifier is then sent over a second network (e.g., a cellular data network) to a central server. The server uses this identifier to retrieve richer personal information (such as a name and photo) associated with that device's user and then facilitates a consent-based exchange of that information between the users over the cellular network, bypassing the limitations of the initial ad hoc connection. ('875 Patent, col. 3:12-34; FIG. 6).
• Technical Importance: This architecture enabled more robust and feature-rich proximity-based social interactions than were possible using only direct ad hoc communication between devices. ('875 Patent, col. 2:50-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶12). Independent claims 1 and 10 appear to be central.
• Independent Claim 1 (a system claim) includes elements such as:
  • A computing device configured to allow communication between members of a social network.
  • The computing device configured to provide access to stored user profile information (picture, name, location).
  • The computing device configured to receive an inquiry from a first user about nearby members.
  • The computing device configured to return user profile information of members who are "close by in proximity to a current location of said first user".
  • The computing device configured to receive a "unique device hardware identifier" from each member's mobile device to "associate and link to a respective member profile to authenticate said respective member".
• Independent Claim 10 (a method claim) includes steps such as:
  • Providing access to stored user profile information via a computing device.
  • Receiving, via the computing device, indications of the locations of first and second mobile devices.
  • Receiving, via the computing device, a "unique device hardware identifier from all communications devices from all users linked in a social network".
  • Sending an invitation to the second mobile device to connect or share personal information with the first user.
  • Connecting the first and second users for personal communication.
• The complaint’s assertion of claims 1-20 indicates that dependent claims are also at issue. (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Coffee Meets Bagel (CMB)" mobile application and its associated products and services. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the CMB service "facilitate[s] location-based discovery of network members." (Compl. ¶12). It is described as a social network where users may be members and can "exchange social network attributes." (Compl. ¶10). The functionality at issue involves using a mobile device to discover other users based on location and then communicating with them through the service. (Compl. ¶9, ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A." (Compl. ¶13). However, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents. The infringement theory, based on the complaint's narrative, is that the CMB system, including its servers and the mobile application, constitutes the "computing device" of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff alleges this system performs the claimed methods of enabling location-based discovery and connecting users, thereby infringing claims 1-20 of the '875 patent. (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the user or device identification method used by the modern CMB application falls within the scope of the claimed "unique device hardware identifier." The patent specification heavily references specific examples like Bluetooth addresses and IMEI numbers ('875 Patent, col. 10:30-49), raising the question of whether the claim term is limited to such low-level identifiers or can be read more broadly.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the CMB application technically performs "location-based discovery." An issue for the court may be whether the accused system operates by receiving a hardware identifier from an ad hoc network scan to authenticate a user, as recited in Claim 1, or if it uses other means, such as comparing GPS coordinates reported from user devices, which may or may not align with the patent's claimed sequence of operations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "unique device hardware identifier" (Claim 1, Claim 10)

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of this term. The patent links this identifier to authenticating a member and associating them with a profile. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to specific hardware-level IDs discovered via short-range radio or if it can encompass other unique identifiers associated with a device or user account in a modern app ecosystem. (Compl. ¶12; '875 Patent, col. 16:5-12).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not restrict the "identifier" to a specific technology (e.g., Bluetooth), potentially allowing for an interpretation that covers any unique identifier linked to a device's hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and specifically exemplifies this term with "a Bluetooth device ID address (BD_ADDR)" and "IMEI which is the international Mobile Station Equipment identify." ('875 Patent, col. 10:30-49). A defendant could argue these examples limit the claim scope to such low-level identifiers obtained through specific discovery processes described in the patent, rather than, for example, an advertising ID or an account ID.

Term: "close by in proximity" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the scope of the "location-based discovery" feature. The patent's infringement theory depends on the CMB app discovering users who are "close by." The meaning of this term—whether it implies a short, radio-defined range or a broader, geographically-defined area—will be significant.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses using GPS coordinates to determine proximity, which could support a broader definition of "close by" (e.g., within the same city or neighborhood). ('875 Patent, col. 8:26-30).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently discusses discovery in the context of short-range networks like a "Personal Area Network (PAN)," which is typically associated with technologies like Bluetooth that have a very limited physical range. ('875 Patent, col. 3:5-11, col. 10:40-44). This context could support a narrower construction tied to the range of an ad hoc wireless signal.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a footnote reserving the right to "assert indirect and willful infringement claims based on post-filing knowledge...as well as based on pre-suit knowledge if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge." (Compl. p. 4, fn 1). The body of the complaint does not currently plead specific facts to support indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: While reserving the right to formally amend, the prayer for relief asks the court to "declare Defendant's infringement to be willful" and award treble damages. (Compl. ¶V.e). The complaint does not, however, allege a factual basis for willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the '875 patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "unique device hardware identifier," which the patent specification exemplifies with specific, low-level radio IDs like a Bluetooth address, be construed to cover the user and device identification methods employed by the contemporary Coffee Meets Bagel software application?
• A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused CMB system performs the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims, particularly the sequence of discovering a hardware ID, sending it to a server for authentication, and then facilitating a connection, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct methods of connecting users based on location.