ContactWave LLC v. TripAdvisor Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ContactWave LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: TripAdvisor, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01187, D. Del., 09/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a system for sending information and messages from vendors to mobile device users.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for transferring contact information from a website to a mobile device and managing subsequent, conditional messaging between vendors and users.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application, which itself is part of a larger family of applications, indicating a sustained prosecution effort in this technology area. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,665 - “Information messaging system”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of transferring business contact information from a website to a mobile device as "cumbersome and time consuming," often requiring users to manually write down, print, or type the information into their devices. (’665 Patent, col. 2:18-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a server-based method to streamline communications between vendors and mobile users. As claimed, the system sends a message from a first vendor to a mobile user and, upon receiving and verifying the user’s "acceptance" of that message, the server is then permitted to send a message from a second vendor to that same user. (’665 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:35-54). This creates a conditional, sequential messaging flow managed by a central server. The process is illustrated in flowcharts such as Figure 9B, which depicts a vendor message being transmitted, accepted by a mobile device, and triggering further communications. (’665 Patent, Fig. 9B).
• Technical Importance: The described system provides a mechanism for targeted, consent-based advertising, where a user's engagement with one vendor can trigger communications from another, potentially related, vendor. (’665 Patent, col. 12:9-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "exemplary claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A server with access to mobile user accounts and vendor accounts performs a method comprising:
  • Sending a first vendor's message to a first mobile user's communication address.
  • Receiving "acceptance information" from the user indicating acceptance of the first vendor's message.
  • Verifying that the user has accepted the first vendor's message.
  • Sending a message from a second vendor to the first mobile user only after verifying the acceptance of the first vendor's message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, services, or methods. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts "incorporated into this Count" and in an external "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). These charts and exhibits were not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges generally that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed by the '665 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference external claim charts (Exhibit 2) that were not filed with the public complaint. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to the functionality of any accused TripAdvisor product or service. The infringement theory is therefore presented only at a high level of generality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A central factual question will be whether the accused instrumentality performs the specific, sequential logic required by the asserted claims. For instance, based on claim 1, does the accused system send a message from a second vendor only after verifying a user's explicit "acceptance" of a message from a first vendor? The complaint provides no facts to support this specific operational flow.
• Scope Questions: The interpretation of what user action constitutes "acceptance information" will be critical. Does navigating to a vendor's page or clicking a link suffice, or does the claim require a more formal, discrete act of acceptance, as the term might suggest?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "acceptance information indicating the first mobile user's acceptance of the first vendor message" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is the trigger for the core functionality of the claimed method. The definition of what constitutes legally sufficient "acceptance information" will be determinative of infringement, as it defines the prerequisite for the subsequent message from the second vendor.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not explicitly define the term, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing a range of user interactions such as clicking on a message or link.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowcharts depict "acceptance" as a distinct step in a sequence (e.g., "First Vendor Message Accepted by First Mobile Device"). (’665 Patent, Fig. 9B). This could support an interpretation requiring an explicit, affirmative user action, rather than an implicit one like a click-through.

The Term: "sending... a first vendor message of the plurality of vendor messages of the second vendor, to the first communication address of the first mobile user only after the verifying of the first mobile user having accepted the first vendor message of the first vendor" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

Practitioners may focus on this term because the "only after" limitation imposes a strict conditional and temporal requirement. Infringement requires not just that event B happens after event A, but that event B happens because event A was verified. This causality is central to the claim's scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term only requires chronological sequence—the second message is sent at some point in time after the first message is accepted and verified.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure strongly suggests a direct causal relationship. A party could argue that the verification of the first acceptance must be the direct trigger for the sending of the second message, precluding other intervening or independent causes. The phrasing "only after the verifying" places emphasis on the verification step as the sole prerequisite. (’665 Patent, col. 13:50-54).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement "at least since being served by this Complaint," tying the knowledge element of the claim to the date of service. (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users in an infringing manner, but references an unprovided exhibit for support. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the word "willful" but requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that the case is exceptional under § 285. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ D, E). The factual basis alleged for this relief appears to be post-suit conduct, based on knowledge of the ’665 patent gained from the service of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: can the plaintiff produce evidence that any accused TripAdvisor system implements the specific, conditional logic at the heart of the patent's claims? The case may depend on whether the defendant's platform sends a message from a second vendor only after and as a direct result of verifying a user's acceptance of a message from a first vendor.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: what specific user action constitutes "acceptance" under the patent? The dispute will likely focus on whether a common user behavior, such as clicking a link, is sufficient to meet the claim requirement of "acceptance information," or if a more discrete, affirmative confirmation is required.
• A foundational issue will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: given the complaint's reliance on external, unprovided exhibits to identify the accused products and articulate its infringement theory, an initial question for the court may be whether the complaint provides sufficient notice of the basis for its claims.