DCT

1:25-cv-01379

BillSure LLC v. Mobileum Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01379, D. Del., 11/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to methods for verifying network resource usage records to prevent billing fraud.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of accurately tracking and verifying data usage for billing purposes in environments with independent network operators, such as public Wi-Fi hotspots, where the network provider is a separate entity from the user's billing service provider.
  • 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

Date Event
2005-08-02 ’457 Patent Priority Date (as alleged in complaint)
2011-08-23 ’457 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,005,457, "Method and system for verifying network resource usage records," issued August 23, 2011 (’457 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In network environments where the access provider (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot operator) is independent from the user's billing provider, the access provider could manipulate usage data to overcharge the user ('457 Patent, col. 2:10-21). The billing provider has limited means to detect this type of fraud, as it must typically trust the usage statistics it receives from the access provider's gateway ('457 Patent, col. 1:50-54; col. 2:19-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the user's device and the network's access gateway engage in a real-time verification process during an active session. The user device generates its own record of network resource consumption (e.g., connection time, data volume) and periodically sends this "Billing Data" to the access gateway ('457 Patent, col. 6:1-10). The access gateway compares the received data with its own independently tracked usage statistics. If the records correlate, the session continues and the user-generated data is stored as a verified record; if they do not, the gateway can terminate the session to prevent potential fraud ('457 Patent, col. 7:1-9; Abstract). This process, illustrated in the data flow of Figure 3, creates a mutually agreed-upon record of usage that cannot be easily repudiated by either party ('457 Patent, col. 5:32-49).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution provides a mechanism to establish trust and enable accurate billing in decentralized "roaming" network architectures where the user, network operator, and billing provider are distinct commercial entities ('457 Patent, col. 4:41-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims of the ’457 Patent asserted against the Defendant. It refers to "the Exemplary '457 Patent Claims" which are allegedly detailed in an attached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). As Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint, the asserted independent and dependent claims cannot be identified for analysis.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Because this exhibit is not available, the accused instrumentalities cannot be identified.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the "Exemplary '457 Patent Claims" and incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2 to support these allegations (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As neither the specific claims, accused products, nor the claim chart exhibit are provided in the complaint document, a claim chart summary and analysis of infringement allegations cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as the asserted claims have not been identified.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’457 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint references Exhibit 2 for these materials (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it seeks to establish post-filing knowledge by asserting that "The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation may form the basis for a future claim of enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement.

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

Given the limited information provided in the complaint, the initial phase of this litigation will likely focus on establishing the fundamental parameters of the dispute. The central questions are:

  • Specificity of the Accusation: A primary procedural question is which specific products or services from Defendant are accused of infringement, and which specific claims of the ’457 Patent are asserted against them? The answers, presumably contained in the referenced but unprovided Exhibit 2, are essential for the case to proceed.
  • Core Technical Dispute: Once the accused products are identified, a key technical question will be whether they perform the central function claimed in the patent: a real-time, comparative verification where a user's device sends its own generated billing data to a network gateway for correlation during an active session. The presence or absence of this interactive, two-sided verification mechanism will be a focal point of the infringement analysis.