Data Fence LLC v. Hiya Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data Fence LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Hiya, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01501, D. Del., 12/12/2025
• 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 products and services for inbound call control infringe a patent related to methods for identifying and acting upon unwanted telephone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the widespread problem of unsolicited "spam" or "robocalls" by using external data to screen incoming calls before they reach the end user.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-10-17	’286 Patent Priority Date
2016-11-08	’286 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control,"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "unwelcome intrusion into privacy" caused by the dramatic increase in unsolicited telemarketing, spam, and "robocalls" placed to individuals' residences and workplaces (’286 Patent, col. 1:21-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "call control unit" that intercepts an incoming call. Before the user's phone rings, the unit queries a remote server to determine if "additional information" exists for the caller, such as a "spam score" or inclusion on a community-sourced blacklist (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-54). Based on this information, the unit performs an operation, such as blocking the call, forwarding it to voicemail, or allowing it to connect to the user's telephone (’286 Patent, Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for intelligently screening calls using dynamic, external data sources, rather than relying solely on a user's static, locally-stored contact list (’286 Patent, col. 3:6-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '286 Patent Claims" in an exhibit that was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Independent claim 1, a representative method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving an incoming call at a call control unit that is positioned between a telecommunication service provider and a telephone.
  • Querying, by the call control unit, a server to determine if additional information associated with the caller exists.
  • If additional information exists, determining if it indicates a "negative characteristic" associated with the caller or telephone number.
  • If a negative characteristic is indicated, performing a "first operation" on the call (e.g., blocking it).
  • Otherwise, performing a "second operation" on the call if no additional information exists.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts referenced in the complaint but not provided in the filed document (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific features or functionality. It makes only a conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '286 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative allegations state only that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '286 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping any feature of an accused product to any element of an asserted patent claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any analysis is preliminary. However, based on the technology and claim language, disputes may arise over several key questions:
  • Architectural Questions: Does the accused system include a "call control unit" that is "positioned between" the service provider and the telephone, as required by claim 1? This may raise questions about whether software running on a user's smartphone or a network-level service meets this architectural limitation as described in the patent (’286 Patent, col. 11:7-10).
  • Technical Questions: What is the mechanism by which the accused products "query a server" to obtain information about an incoming call? What evidence does the complaint provide that this query is for "additional information" that indicates a "negative characteristic," as distinct from standard caller ID or contact list lookups? The complaint provides no facts on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "negative characteristic" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement trigger. The definition will determine what kind of information (e.g., a specific spam score, inclusion on any blacklist, a crowd-sourced label) is sufficient to meet this limitation. Its construction will be critical to defining the scope of infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem broadly as "unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls" and "spam," suggesting the term could encompass any information that indicates a call is unwanted by the user (’286 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of what this information could be, such as a "spam score" calculated via a proprietary algorithm or inclusion on a "community blacklist" (’286 Patent, col. 3:32-56). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these more structured forms of data.

• The Term: "call control unit... positioned between a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the required architecture of the infringing system. Whether this limitation is met will depend on if it can read on modern software-based applications or network-level services, as opposed to only a physical hardware device connected between the phone line and the telephone.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses multiple embodiments, including a "stand-alone hardware device" (Fig. 1A), a unit that may "reside in telephone 130" (Fig. 1B), or a unit that may be a "component of PSTN 105" (Fig. 2) (’286 Patent, col. 4:39-49). This may support a construction that is not limited to a physical intermediary box.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language "positioned between" and figures like 1A, which show a distinct physical unit (135) between the network (105) and the phone (130), could be argued to imply a logical or physical interception role that certain software architectures may not perform in the same manner.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arises from the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13). This allegation would support a claim for enhanced damages based only on post-filing conduct.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of factual allegations identifying the accused products or explaining how they operate. The case may face early challenges regarding whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, particularly concerning how any accused product meets the core claim limitations of querying a server and identifying a "negative characteristic."
• A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms. Can the architectural limitation of a "call control unit... positioned between" the network and the phone encompass modern software applications, and can the functional requirement of identifying a "negative characteristic" be met by the type of general call data used by contemporary call-screening services?