Wireless Discovery LLC v. Hily Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wireless Discovery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hily Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00482, D. Del., 04/13/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, conducts substantial business in the state, and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hily mobile application infringes a patent related to systems and methods for location-based discovery of social network members.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns server-based systems that use a mobile device's location to identify and present profiles of other nearby users, a foundational feature of modern social discovery and online dating applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not detail any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. It explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint to add claims for indirect and willful infringement based on knowledge acquired during discovery or post-filing.

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 landscape where mobile users lacked an effective way to discover and socially connect with others in their immediate vicinity. Existing methods were either anonymous (Vcards), limited by hardware compatibility and cumbersome pairing processes (Bluetooth), or did not leverage real-time proximity for discovering new people (early social networks). (Compl. ¶9; ’875 Patent, col. 1:24-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a server-centric system that links a user’s physical location with their social profile. A central computing device receives location data from users' mobile devices, calculates proximity to other members of the network, and returns a list of nearby members, identified by personal attributes like pictures and names. The server then facilitates connection requests and establishes communication between users over an alternate channel (e.g., SMS, chat), effectively associating a "human face" with the technical process of location-based device discovery. (’875 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-66; FIG. 6).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to humanize device location services by integrating them with social profiles, enabling users to discover and interact with people nearby, not just detect anonymous hardware signals. (’875 Patent, col. 2:16-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’875 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
  • A system comprising a computing device, a first mobile device, and a second mobile device.
  • The computing device provides access to stored user profiles, stores static and receives dynamic locations of members, and is configured to calculate the proximity of users.
  • Based on an inquiry from the first user, the computing device sends the first user personal attributes (including picture, name, location) of other members based on the proximity calculation.
  • The computing device sends an invitation on behalf of the first user to the second user to accept a connection.
  • The computing device is configured to locate information about the second user from a "social network storage file" and transmit it to the first user.
  • The system permits discovery of members even if their devices are turned off or disconnected from the internet, based on their "latest static and dynamic location."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Hily mobile application and associated products and services (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Hily app is a service that "facilitate[s] location-based discovery of network members" (Compl. ¶12). It is marketed and distributed by Defendant Hily Corp., including on the Apple App Store (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the app's operation or its market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶13). The infringement theory, based on the complaint's narrative, is that the Hily app, in conjunction with its backend servers and user devices, forms a system that practices the methods claimed in the ’875 Patent. This includes storing user profiles, using device locations to identify nearby users, and presenting those users' profiles to facilitate social connections (Compl. ¶¶9, 12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary. Given the lack of specific allegations, the case will depend on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the Hily system's architecture and operation map to each element of the asserted claims. For instance, what proof shows that the Hily system is configured to locate information from what the patent defines as a "social network storage file"?
  • Scope Questions: The claim language recites a system that "permits discoverable members to have their respective devices turned on or turned off" and "unconnected to an internet connection service," with discovery based on a "latest static and dynamic location" (’875 Patent, col. 16:47-64). This raises the question of whether the Hily app, which may primarily show active and online users, performs this specific function for discovering offline users as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "discoverable... based on a latest static and dynamic location"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claim limitation requiring the system to find users even if their devices are offline. Its construction will be critical in determining whether a standard location-based app that stores a user's last-known coordinates infringes, or if the claim requires a more specialized architecture for handling offline users. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of many real-world apps may differ from this specific claimed capability.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that if a device is off, "the last location reported to the server... would be considered the current location," suggesting that using any stored last-known location could satisfy this element (’875 Patent, col. 7:20-25).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description distinguishes between static, dynamic, turned-on, and turned-off states, which could support an argument that the claim requires a specific, affirmatively designed system for handling these different states, not just the incidental use of the last-known GPS data (’875 Patent, col. 3:18-33).

The Term: "social network storage file"

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether Defendant's own user database qualifies as a "social network storage file." The definition will determine if this element requires sourcing data from an external social network or if it can be read on the accused system's internal data store.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses "social network" broadly, and the claims refer to members of "a same social network," which could be interpreted as the network created by the service itself (’875 Patent, col. 16:36-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using APIs to connect to and import data from other social networks, which may support a narrower construction limited to external, third-party data sources (’875 Patent, col. 5:44-53).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint reserves the right to assert indirect infringement claims pending discovery (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1). The allegations that Defendant "put the inventions... into service" and "caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" lay a foundation for a potential future claim of induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff requests a finding of willful infringement and treble damages, and reserves the right to formally assert the claim based on pre-suit knowledge that may be revealed in discovery or based on post-filing knowledge of the patent and suit (Compl. ¶V.e; p. 4, fn. 1).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations or claim charts, a central issue is whether Plaintiff can produce discovery evidence sufficient to show that the Hily application’s architecture and real-world operation perform every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the more granular functions related to handling offline users.
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the claim term "discoverable... based on a latest static and dynamic location" be construed broadly to read on a system that simply uses the last reported coordinates of a now-offline user, or does the patent’s context require a more specialized system designed to purposefully track and surface users known to be offline? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.