GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Gupshup Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Gupshup, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00835, D. Del., 07/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has an established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conversational messaging platform infringes a patent related to an "assistive agent" system that interprets user requests and interacts with external web services via an API to provide a response.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of conversational artificial intelligence and virtual assistants, which parse natural language user inputs to execute tasks by orchestrating various third-party digital services.
• 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. The allegations of knowledge and willfulness appear to be based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,130,900 - "Assistive agent"

• Issued: September 8, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a shortcoming in prior art Personal Information Managers (PIMs) and early virtual assistants, which failed to intelligently integrate and leverage all available user and contextual data to automate tasks effectively (e.g., automatically setting an appropriate reminder time for an appointment based on location and traffic) (’900 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method for an "assistive agent" that acts as an intelligent intermediary. It receives a user's request, determines the "semantics" of that request by identifying its domain, task, and parameters, and then accesses one or more "semantic web services" through an Application Program Interface (API) to formulate and deliver a responsive answer (’900 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). The system is designed to understand user intent from a request and orchestrate external services to fulfill it (’900 Patent, col. 3:1-9).
• Technical Importance: The technology outlines a modular architecture for virtual assistants capable of parsing natural language, discerning intent, and integrating multiple, disparate web services, a foundational concept for modern conversational AI platforms.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The lead independent method claim is Claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key steps:
  • Receiving a user request for assistance from a mobile device;
  • Determining the semantics of the request by parsing it to identify meaning, along with location and personal information (including telephone, texting, and user activity) captured by the mobile device;
  • Accessing one or more "semantic web services" via an API to retrieve matching data;
  • Identifying, generating, or providing personalized recommendations;
  • Presenting possible responses by interacting with the web services and confirming user responses by accessing a text messaging or phonebook API;
  • Determining a responsive answer; and
  • Responding to the user.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" but identifies them only in an attached exhibit that was not made publicly available with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Defendant Gupshup, Inc. operates in the conversational messaging and AI chatbot market.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality. It makes only conclusory allegations that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed on the public docket (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). In lieu of a chart, the complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe by containing functionality that satisfies all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not, however, contain factual allegations describing how any specific feature of the accused products maps to the limitations of the patent claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "semantic web services." The question for the court will be whether this term is limited to specific technologies from the "Semantic Web" era (such as RDF or OWL, which are mentioned in the patent), or if it can be read more broadly to cover any modern web service that provides structured data via a general-purpose API (’900 Patent, col. 4:32-34; col. 28:13-18).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the evidentiary question of whether the accused platform performs the specific multi-part data-parsing step recited in Claim 1. The claim requires parsing the user request "along with location and user personal information captured by the mobile device including telephone, texting, and user activity" (’900 Patent, col. 27:60-65). A key technical question will be what evidence shows the accused system uses data from all of these specified sources as part of its process for interpreting the meaning of a user's request.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "semantic web services"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the core "accessing" step of Claim 1. Its construction is critical because it will define whether the patent’s scope is broad enough to cover modern API-driven platforms or is confined to a narrower, and potentially dated, set of web technologies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples of third-party service providers that include "Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, and the like sources," which are not strictly formal "Semantic Web" services, suggesting the term was intended to have a more general meaning (’900 Patent, col. 4:32-34).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claims 2 and 3 add explicit limitations for "web ontology language" and "RDF" (Resource Description Framework), respectively (’900 Patent, col. 28:13-18). A party could argue that these dependent claims imply the base term in Claim 1 has a narrower meaning tied to these specific technologies, to avoid issues of claim differentiation.

• The Term: "confirming user responses by accessing a text messaging API or a phonebook API"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in Claim 1 requires a specific method for confirming user intent. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system performs this exact type of confirmation by interacting with a device's native texting or phonebook APIs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that this phrase covers any interaction that leverages contact or messaging data to validate a user's choice, even if not through a formal, separate confirmation step presented to the user.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example where, after composing a text message, the system presents it to the user for confirmation before sending (’900 Patent, col. 11:58–col. 12:5; Fig. 4A). This may support a narrower construction requiring an explicit confirmation step that directly involves the text messaging or phonebook APIs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. It asserts that the filing of the complaint provided Defendant with "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "semantic web services," which is associated with specific 2000s-era web technologies, be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose APIs used by modern conversational AI platforms?
2. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold question is procedural: does the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations and relies on a non-proffered exhibit for its infringement contentions, meet the plausibility standard for patent cases, or is it susceptible to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
3. Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused platform performs the specific, multi-source data analysis required by Claim 1, particularly the use of "telephone, texting, and user activity" to parse the meaning of a user's request?