Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wireless Discovery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: eHarmony Inc (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00480, D. Del., 04/13/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that has committed acts of infringement, maintains a regular and established place of business, and derives substantial revenue from services provided in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online dating services infringe a patent related to methods for location-based discovery of network members.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a mobile device's location to identify and facilitate connections between nearby users of a common social network.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-10	'875 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (Prov. App. 61/010,891)
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 need for improved methods of discovering and connecting with other people using mobile devices. It notes that prior technologies were limited by factors such as requiring a direct line-of-sight, being restricted to specific hardware brands, or providing discovery based only on device identifiers without a "human face" or link to social networks (U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875, col. 2:3-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a server-based system that allows users of a mobile device to discover other members of a "social network" based on proximity. The system uses both static profile information and dynamic location data from mobile devices (e.g., GPS) to calculate proximity and present potential connections to a user, complete with personal attributes like pictures and names. Following discovery and consent, the system facilitates communication between the users through various channels (U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875, Abstract; col. 2:55-68).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between simple device-location services and social networking by associating a user's physical location with their personal, humanizing profile attributes (U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the '875 patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is central to the system described.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with a computing device, a first mobile communications device, and a second mobile communications device.
  • The computing device provides access to stored user profile information (including a picture, name, and location) for a first and second user who are members of a "same social network."
  • The computing device is configured to store static locations and receive dynamic locations of members.
  • The computing device is configured to "calculate and determine a proximity of user locations."
  • The computing device sends the first user the "personal attributes" of other members based on these proximity calculations.
  • The computing device sends an invitation on behalf of the first user to the second user's mobile device.
  • The computing device communicatively connects the first and second users after acceptance.
• The complaint's assertion of claims 1-20 indicates that various dependent claims, which add further specific limitations, are also at issue.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Eharmony, Inc.’s "products and services that facilitate location-based discovery of network members" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Eharmony "maintains, operates, and administers" these products and services (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific details about how the accused Eharmony services technically operate. Instead, it quotes the abstract of the '875 patent to describe a generic location-based discovery system and alleges that Eharmony’s services infringe (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint alleges that Eharmony’s actions have caused the "claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" and have resulted in "monetary and commercial benefit" for the Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations but does not include this exhibit in the filing (Compl. ¶12). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Eharmony's online dating service constitutes a system for "location-based discovery of network members" that infringes one or more claims of the '875 patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not, however, map specific features of the Eharmony service to the elements of any asserted claim. It broadly states that Defendant’s services facilitate this discovery and that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the '875 patent into service" (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question for discovery will be whether the accused Eharmony services actually perform the functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that Eharmony's system is "configured to calculate and determine a proximity of user locations" using the "current dynamic locations" of its members, as recited in claim 1 of the '875 patent? The complaint does not specify whether Eharmony uses real-time GPS data for matching or relies solely on static, user-provided location information like a city or zip code.
• Scope Questions: Does Eharmony's user base qualify as a "social network" within the meaning of the patent? The interpretation of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused service falls within the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deep analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology and the nature of the accused services, certain terms are likely to be focal points.

The Term: "social network" (from claim 1)

Context and Importance

The applicability of the patent to Eharmony's dating service hinges on whether that service is considered a "social network." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the patent to platforms like Facebook or expand it to cover a wider range of online communities, including dating applications.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states, "The users may be members of a common social network, and can thereby exchange social network attributes," which could be read broadly to include any service where users have profiles and interact ('875 Patent, Abstract).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses allowing "social networks to connect to each other" and to "import data or pictures from one social network to another," which may suggest a more conventional definition of a social network that is distinct from a self-contained service ('875 Patent, col. 1:52-56).

The Term: "proximity of user locations" (from claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the technical operation of the claimed invention. Its construction will determine what type of location-based matching infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether infringement requires real-time, dynamic location tracking or if it can be satisfied by matching based on static, user-entered locations (e.g., city).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the computing device to be configured to "store static locations of members and receive information identifying current dynamic locations of all members," suggesting the proximity calculation could be based on either or both, potentially broadening the claim's reach ('875 Patent, col. 16:23-26).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus on "dynamic reporting of the mobile devices" and overcoming the limitations of prior art could be argued to require a system that actively uses real-time, "dynamic locations" for its proximity calculations, potentially narrowing the claim's scope to exclude systems that only use static data ('875 Patent, col. 2:23-24).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to amed [sic] to assert indirect...infringement claims based on post-filing knowledge" or pre-suit knowledge revealed in discovery (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1). No specific facts supporting inducement or contributory infringement are currently alleged.

Willful Infringement

The complaint requests a declaration that infringement is willful and seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶V.e). However, the complaint does not allege any facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. The same footnote reserves the right to assert willfulness based on post-filing knowledge or later-discovered pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What facts will discovery reveal about how Eharmony’s matching algorithm functions? The case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused service performs the specific proximity calculations using the types of location data (static and dynamic) recited in the asserted claims, a point on which the complaint is silent.
• A key definitional question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "social network," as defined and used within the '875 patent, be properly construed to read on an online dating platform? The outcome of this claim construction issue may be dispositive for the infringement analysis.