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 LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00480, D. Del., 07/18/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has committed acts of infringement in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business, and conducts substantial business in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online dating services infringe four patents related to the location-based discovery of social network members using mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a mobile device's location to identify and connect with other nearby users of a common network, a foundational feature of modern social networking and dating applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a single family claiming priority back to a 2008 provisional application. The complaint is a First Amended Complaint and explicitly reserves the right to later assert claims for indirect and willful infringement pending discovery.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-10	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2016-02-16	U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875 Issues
2016-05-31	U.S. Patent No. 9,357,352 Issues
2019-06-11	U.S. Patent No. 10,321,267 Issues
2019-06-25	U.S. Patent No. 10,334,397 Issues
2022-07-18	First Amended Complaint Filed

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 the limitations of prior art methods for exchanging contact information, such as those based on Bluetooth®, which often require cumbersome pairing procedures, are restricted to same-brand devices, and do not allow for discovering unknown users based on personal attributes in a social setting (Compl. ¶10; ’875 Patent, col. 1:44-2:59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-stage process where users first discover each other based on location and proximity using a short-range "ad hoc network." Following this initial discovery and mutual consent, they connect and exchange richer information (e.g., social network attributes) using a separate, alternate communication channel like SMS, email, or a cellular data network, thus bypassing the limitations of the discovery network for substantive communication ('875 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-5:17).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to make device discovery more "human" by focusing on personal attributes rather than just hardware identifiers, presaging a key feature of modern location-aware social applications (Compl. ¶9; ’875 Patent, col. 1:21-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a system with a computing device that allows members of a social network to:
  • Discover each other through an ad hoc network based on location and proximity or mobile network reporting.
  • Connect to one another via a means "other than the ad hoc network" after discovery and consent.
  • Utilize functions provided by services like SMS, E-mail, or chat/instant messaging.
  • Exchange social network attributes.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,357,352 - “Location-Based Discovery of Network Members by Personal Attributes Using Dynamic and Static Location Data,” issued May 31, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a system that can effectively use both static location data (e.g., a user's home city stored in a profile) and dynamic location data (e.g., a device's real-time GPS coordinates) to facilitate the discovery of nearby social network members (’352 Patent, col. 1:20-2:61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-centric system. The server stores user profiles that associate a "unique hardware identification" of a member's mobile device with their personal information. The server determines proximity between users by processing both static and dynamic location information to provide search results that include members' pictures, names, and locations (’352 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-5:55).
• Technical Importance: The technology focuses on the server-side logic required to combine different types of location data, aiming to provide more relevant and flexible discovery results in a mobile social networking context (Compl. ¶15; ’352 Patent, col. 4:38-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-32 (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a system with a computing device that:
  • Allows members of a social network to discover others in the vicinity by personal attributes, picture, and name.
  • Uses a "unique hardware identification" of each member's mobile device and their login information, stored on a network server.
  • Associates the unique hardware ID with the member's personal profile.
  • Returns search results containing profile pictures, name, location, and other information.
  • Determines proximity using "static or dynamic location" data.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,321,267

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,321,267, “Location-Based Discovery of Network Members,” issued June 11, 2019.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a server-based system for social network members to find others nearby using mobile devices. The system associates a user’s profile (including pictures and name) with a unique hardware identifier for their device and uses static or dynamic location data to determine proximity and return search results (Compl. ¶21-22; ’267 Patent, Abstract). The technology is substantially similar to that of the ’352 patent.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-18, with independent claim 1 being central (Compl. ¶23).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services facilitating location-based discovery infringe the patent (Compl. ¶23).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,334,397

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,334,397, “Interaction Tracking and Organizing System,” issued June 25, 2019.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent details a server system that manages the interaction flow after a location-based discovery. The server cross-references a user's location to find nearby members, returns their profiles, and then facilitates an invitation process, allowing the first user to invite a discovered user to connect and the second user to accept, ignore, or decline the invitation (Compl. ¶27-28; ’397 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-15, with independent claim 1 being central (Compl. ¶29).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services facilitating location-based discovery and subsequent user interaction infringe the patent (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "products and services that facilitate location-based discovery of network members" maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Eharmony, Inc. (Compl. ¶11, ¶17, ¶23, ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused services in its main body. Instead, it repeatedly references an "Exhibit A" for "support for the allegations of infringement" (Compl. ¶12, ¶18, ¶24, ¶30). This exhibit was not attached to the filed complaint.
• The complaint alleges that Defendant puts the patented inventions "into service (i.e., used them)" and derives "monetary and commercial benefit from it" (Compl. ¶11, ¶17, ¶23, ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exhibit A" containing claim charts to support its infringement allegations for all four patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶12, ¶18, ¶24, ¶30). As this exhibit is not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The narrative infringement theory is that Eharmony's services, which allow users to find each other based on location, practice the methods claimed in the patents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's reliance on a missing exhibit raises the primary question of what specific evidence Plaintiff will offer to show that the accused Eharmony services practice each limitation of the asserted claims. The plausibility of the infringement allegations under the Twombly/Iqbal standard may become a focus of dispute.
• Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’875 Patent is whether Eharmony's client-server system, which operates over the internet (e.g., cellular data or Wi-Fi), can be considered an "ad hoc network" as required by claim 1. The patent specification heavily ties the term to direct device-to-device protocols like Bluetooth®, which may support a narrower construction than what is alleged ('875 Patent, col. 1:47-51, col. 2:44-48).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "ad hoc network" ('875 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of the '875 Patent hinges on whether the accused Eharmony service, which is a centralized client-server system, performs discovery "through an ad hoc network." Practitioners may focus on this term because there is a potential technical mismatch between the common definition of an ad hoc network (decentralized, peer-to-peer) and the architecture of the accused service.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broad interpretation. A party might argue the term should be understood functionally as any temporary network for discovery, but the specification provides little support for this.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "ad hoc mode" in the context of Bluetooth® technology, suggesting the term was intended to mean a direct, peer-to-peer wireless connection between devices without a central access point ('875 Patent, col. 2:44-48, col. 18:10-20). The patent also explicitly contrasts the "ad hoc network" used for discovery with the alternate channel (e.g., cellular network) used for subsequent communication ('875 Patent, Abstract).

Term: "unique hardware identification" ('352 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to infringement of the '352 and '267 patents. The dispute will likely concern whether this term is limited to a permanent, unchangeable identifier burned into the device hardware (e.g., an IMEI or MAC address) or if it can also cover software-based identifiers that are unique to the device-application instance (e.g., an advertising ID or a proprietary app token).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "identification" could be argued to encompass any unique identifier, whether implemented in hardware or software. The patent does not appear to explicitly disclaim software-based identifiers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent patent, U.S. Pat. No. 8,914,024, explicitly references "IMEI (international Mobile Station Equipment identity)" as an example of a characteristic collected from the mobile device, which supports an interpretation tied to a physical hardware identifier (’267 Patent, col. 7:50-54). The use of the word "hardware" itself points toward an identifier tied to the physical device rather than the software running on it.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not currently allege indirect infringement. Plaintiff explicitly "reserves the right to amend to assert indirect...infringement claims based on post-filing knowledge...as well as based on pre-suit knowledge if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge" (Compl. fn. 1-4).

Willful Infringement

While the prayer for relief asks the court to "declare Defendant's infringement to be willful" (Compl. ¶V.e), the body of the complaint contains no factual allegations to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge. As with indirect infringement, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint to assert willfulness based on facts learned in discovery (Compl. fn. 1-4).

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

Evidentiary Sufficiency

A threshold issue for the court will be whether the Plaintiff, whose complaint relies entirely on a missing exhibit for factual support, can produce sufficient evidence to plausibly demonstrate that Eharmony’s services practice every element of the asserted claims.

Technological Congruence

A central dispute will likely be one of claim scope versus accused technology. Specifically, can claim terms rooted in the technological context of the mid-to-late 2000s, such as "ad hoc network" and "unique hardware identification," be construed to cover the architecture and operation of a modern, sophisticated, server-managed mobile application? The resolution of these construction issues may be determinative of infringement.