DCT

1:25-cv-01378

BillSure LLC v. Axiom Consulting Group Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01378, D. Del., 11/13/2025
  • 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’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods and systems for verifying network resource usage records to prevent billing fraud.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the verification of data usage and connection time in network environments, such as public Wi-Fi hotspots, where the network operator is a separate entity from the user's billing provider.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-09-02 ’457 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2011-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,457 Issues
2025-11-13 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,457 - "Method and system for verifying network resource usage records"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In network environments with independent operators (e.g., Wi-Fi hotspots), a billing service provider has no way to independently verify the resource usage statistics (e.g., data transferred, time connected) sent by the hotspot operator for billing purposes. This creates a potential for the hotspot operator to fraudulently inflate usage statistics to receive higher payments (’457 Patent, col. 2:6-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the end-user's device periodically generates its own "billing data" based on its own measurement of network usage. This user-generated data is sent to the network's access gateway during the active session. The access gateway then compares, or "correlates," the billing data received from the user device with its own independently generated usage statistics. If the data correlates, the gateway stores the user-provided data and later forwards it to the AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) system for trusted billing (’457 Patent, col. 6:1-34; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach introduces a real-time, two-sided verification mechanism at the point of network access, aiming to create a trusted billing record based on mutual agreement between the user device and the gateway, rather than relying solely on the potentially untrustworthy gateway operator (’457 Patent, col. 4:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11) and refers to "Exemplary '457 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • An access gateway device for coupling to a network user device and a billing service provider's system.
    • The network user device generates billing data based on its actual network resource usage (e.g., connection time, data volume).
    • The access gateway device is configured to compare received billing data from the user device with corresponding billing data generated by the access gateway itself during network usage.
    • If the received billing data "correlates" to the gateway's billing data, the access gateway stores predetermined portions of the received billing data.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout the pleading (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges, without factual support in the body of the complaint, that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '457 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are asserted entirely through incorporation of an external document, "Exhibit 2," which contains claim charts that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint alleges that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '457 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without access to Exhibit 2 or identification of the accused products and asserted claims, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent and the general nature of the technology, several points of contention are likely to arise.
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be what level of similarity is required for the user-generated and gateway-generated data to "correlate" as required by the claims (’457 Patent, col. 9:34). The patent suggests this comparison may account for network latency and other minor discrepancies, raising the question of how much deviation is permissible before the data fails to correlate (’457 Patent, col. 6:18-30).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no information on how any accused product performs the core claimed functions. Key technical questions for discovery will include: Do the accused products receive billing-related data directly from an end-user device during an active session? Do the accused products perform a comparison between such user-provided data and their own internally generated usage data? If a comparison occurs, what is the technical purpose and outcome of that comparison?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "correlates"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the linchpin of the invention, defining the required relationship between the billing data from the user device and the data from the gateway. The scope of "correlates" will determine whether a simple check for general consistency is sufficient, or if a more rigorous, mathematically defined comparison is required for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes correlation as determining if a received parameter is "within the specific range of values that would be expected," allowing for "time delays (typically from a few milliseconds up to 1-2 seconds) that would have occurred due to data processing" and "network latency" (’457 Patent, col. 6:18-26). This language may support a construction that does not require exact identity but rather functional correspondence within a reasonable margin of error.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes its active, during-session correlation from prior art "audit-style spot-checks" that occur after a session ends (’457 Patent, col. 4:16-18; col. 6:42-49). This distinction could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of real-time, programmatic comparison that is integral to the session management itself, not just a later batch-process verification.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on "information and belief" that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The prayer for relief also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

Given the limited factual detail in the pleading, the initial phase of this case will likely focus on fundamental pleading standards and discovery. The central questions that emerge are:

  1. Specificity and Viability: A primary procedural question will be whether the complaint, which identifies no specific accused products, asserted claims, or infringing functionality beyond incorporating an unfiled exhibit, meets the plausibility pleading standards required by federal court.
  2. The "Correlation" Requirement: A core technical issue will be whether the accused products perform the specific comparison claimed by the ’457 Patent. The case will likely turn on whether any data comparison performed by the accused systems is technically equivalent to the claimed function of receiving billing data from the user device and "correlating" it with the gateway's own data during a network session for the purpose of verifying usage.
  3. Evidentiary Foundation: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused systems actually receive and process usage data generated by the end-user device itself, as this two-sided data exchange is the central feature of the patented solution.