ContactWave LLC v. Yelp Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ContactWave LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Yelp Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01186, D. Del., 09/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to a system for sending information from a web page to a mobile device and managing subsequent messaging.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for transferring contact information from websites to mobile devices, a common function in online directories and consumer-facing service platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,665, “Information messaging system,” issued December 27, 2016 (’665 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of manually transferring business contact information from a website to a mobile device as "cumbersome and time consuming," requiring users to print, write down, or manually type the information into their device (’665 Patent, col. 2:12-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a server-based method that automates this transfer. As described in the specification, a user on a webpage can click a link associated with contact information, which prompts for a mobile number; a server then sends the information to the specified device (’665 Patent, col. 4:54-65; FIG. 3). The claims extend this concept to a system where a server sends an initial message from a first vendor to a mobile user and, upon receiving "acceptance information" from that user, is then authorized to send a message from a second vendor to that same user (’665 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to streamline the user experience of capturing online information for mobile use and created a mechanism for vendors to engage with users who showed interest in their information (’665 Patent, col. 2:21-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers in the body, but incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶11, 16-17). Assuming the charts would focus on the independent claims, Claim 1 is the lead independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method performed by a server running a software application for sending messages from vendors to mobile users.
  • The server has access to mobile user accounts and vendor accounts.
  • Sending, by the server, a first vendor message to a first mobile user.
  • Receiving, by the server from the mobile user, acceptance information indicating acceptance of the first vendor message.
  • Verifying, by the server, that the mobile user has accepted the first message.
  • Sending, by the server, a message from a second vendor to the first mobile user only after the verification step.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, services, or features. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality of the accused products or services (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products, but offers no details on their operation or features (Compl. ¶11). Further, the complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference in an exhibit that was not provided, and the body of the complaint contains only conclusory allegations of infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’665 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’665 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the claim charts or more detailed factual allegations, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

The bare-bones nature of the complaint suggests several foundational questions that will likely be central to early disputes in the case.

• Factual Sufficiency Question: Does the complaint provide sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege that any specific feature of a Yelp product performs the positive limitations of the asserted claims, particularly the sequential messaging steps of Claim 1?
• Technical Question: What specific user action on the Yelp platform is alleged to constitute "acceptance information" for a "first vendor message," and how is this information "received" and "verified" by a server as required by the claim (’665 Patent, col. 14:40-48)?
• Scope Question: Does the interaction between users and business listings on the Yelp platform constitute the claimed method of sending a message from a second vendor "only after" verifying acceptance of a message from a first vendor (’665 Patent, col. 14:49-54)? This "only after" limitation may be a focal point for non-infringement arguments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "acceptance information indicating the first mobile user's acceptance"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the trigger for the claimed method's sequential logic. The infringement analysis will depend on whether a common user action (e.g., clicking a link, saving a business to a list) can be properly characterized as generating and sending this specific type of "acceptance information" back to the server.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to narrowly define "acceptance information." A party might argue that any user interaction signifying interest, which is then recorded by the server, meets this definition. The claim language itself is functional, focusing on what the information indicates rather than its specific format.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses processes like downloading an application or accepting a push notification, which involve explicit user consent (’665 Patent, col. 7:35-40). A party could argue that "acceptance" requires an explicit, affirmative act by the user in response to a specific prompt, rather than an implicit action like navigating a website.

• The Term: "sending... a first vendor message of the plurality of vendor messages of the second vendor"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase contains an apparent scrivener's error, referring to a "first vendor message" of the "second vendor." Assuming it is meant to read "a vendor message of the second vendor," its construction is central to the conditional step of the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether displaying a second business listing after a user interacts with a first one qualifies as "sending" a "message" in the context of the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses "message" in various contexts, including SMS, push notifications, and potentially broader communications (’665 Patent, col. 6:42-47). A party could argue that presenting any information from a second vendor to the user's device qualifies as "sending" a "message."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context often implies a discrete communication sent to the user, like an SMS, rather than simply displaying information within a continuously rendered web or application interface (’665 Patent, col. 6:42-47). The specification's frequent reference to distinct communication acts may support a narrower definition that excludes the passive display of related search results.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint references Exhibit 2, which is not provided, to support this allegation (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported knowledge of the ’665 Patent acquired upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶13-15). The allegations are directed at post-suit conduct.

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

The resolution of this dispute, based on the initial complaint, appears to hinge on two fundamental questions for the court:

1. A threshold issue will be one of factual particularity: Can the plaintiff's conclusory infringement allegations, which lack any specific facts in the complaint itself, survive a motion to dismiss, or will the court require a more detailed explanation of which specific Yelp features are accused of performing the claimed steps?
2. A core substantive issue will be one of technical and logical mapping: Does the ordinary operation of Yelp's platform—where users interact with various business listings—implement the specific, conditional logic of Claim 1, particularly the requirement that a message from a second vendor is sent only after a server verifies a user's "acceptance" of a message from a first vendor?