ContactWave LLC v. Gobrands Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ContactWave LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: GoBrands, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01190, D. Del., 09/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has 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 marketing messages from vendors to mobile device users.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing the transmission of commercial messages to mobile devices, specifically involving a sequence of user acceptance and subsequent messaging from different commercial entities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,531,665, titled “Information messaging system,” issued on December 27, 2016 (the “’665 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "cumbersome and time consuming" process for a customer to transfer a business’s contact information from a webpage to their mobile device, which traditionally required manual entry, printing, or writing the information down (’665 Patent, col. 2:14-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server-based system that allows a user to send contact information from a website directly to a mobile communication device and save it automatically into the device's contact list (’665 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-37). A key aspect of the patented method involves a server managing communications between "vendors" and "mobile users," where a message from a second vendor is sent to a user only after that user has accepted a message from a first vendor (’665 Patent, col. 13:35-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to streamline the transfer of data from the web to mobile devices, a critical point of friction for users in the period the invention was conceived (’665 Patent, col. 2:14-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’665 Patent, referencing "Exemplary '665 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 (method) and 7 (server) are representative of the patent's scope.
• Independent Claim 7 (Server):
  • A server comprising one or more processors and system memories storing a software server application.
  • The server application has access to a plurality of mobile user accounts and a plurality of vendor accounts.
  • The server application is adapted to perform a set of steps, including:
    • Sending a first vendor message from a first vendor to a first mobile user.
    • Receiving acceptance information from the first mobile user indicating acceptance of the first vendor message.
    • Verifying that the first mobile user has accepted the first vendor message.
    • Sending a message from a second vendor to the first mobile user only after verifying 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 identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that allegedly "practice the technology claimed by the '665 Patent" but describes their functionality only by reference to an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an incorporated exhibit that was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶17). The body of the complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that Defendant's unidentified products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '665 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced claim chart exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative independent claim 7 of the ’665 Patent, several technical and legal questions are likely to arise.
  • Technical Questions: What specific functionality in the accused products, if any, performs the claimed sequence of (1) sending a first vendor's message, (2) receiving user acceptance, and (3) sending a second, different vendor's message conditioned on that acceptance? The complaint provides no facts to suggest such a system exists.
  • Scope Questions: Does an action such as a user clicking on an advertisement from one vendor constitute "acceptance information" sufficient to trigger the sending of a message from a distinct "second vendor" as required by the claim? The evidentiary basis for linking two separate vendors in this claimed sequence will be a central issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "acceptance information indicating the first mobile user's acceptance of the first vendor message" (Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed method. The definition of what constitutes "acceptance" determines when the server is permitted to send the subsequent message from the second vendor. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will dictate whether routine user interactions (e.g., clicking a link) meet this limitation or if a more explicit act of consent is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define "acceptance," which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing a wide range of user interactions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the information to be "received...from the first communication address of the first mobile user," which could be argued to require an affirmative communication sent from the user's device back to the server, rather than just the server logging a passive event like a click (’665 Patent, col. 14:40-44).

• The Term: "a first vendor message of the plurality of vendor messages of the second vendor" (Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires that the second message sent to the user originates from a different vendor than the first message. This is critical to the infringement analysis, as it excludes systems where a user's interaction with a vendor simply triggers follow-up messages from that same vendor. The dispute will center on whether Plaintiff can show the accused system facilitates this specific cross-vendor messaging scheme.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a specific definition of "vendor," suggesting its plain meaning of a distinct commercial entity.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly distinguishes between a "first vendor account" and a "second vendor account," reinforcing that two separate entities must be involved in the claimed sequence (’665 Patent, col. 13:26-34). An argument could be made that this requires formally distinct accounts within the server's system architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "distribut[ing] product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). No specific examples of such materials are provided in the complaint itself.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of infringement acquired upon service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶¶13, 15). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge on the part of the Defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary support: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendant's products practice the specific cross-vendor messaging sequence recited in the claims, where a user's "acceptance" of a message from a first vendor triggers the sending of a message from a distinct second vendor? The complaint's lack of factual allegations makes this the primary and most immediate question.
• A second key issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court define "acceptance information"? The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether this term can be construed to cover common user behaviors within a single application or website, or if it requires a more explicit, affirmative act of consent to receive communications from multiple, distinct vendors.