Data Fence LLC v. Malwarebytes Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data Fence LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Malwarebytes Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01502, D. Del., 12/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods and systems for controlling inbound telephone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the widespread problem of unsolicited telemarketing and "robocalls" by providing a system to intelligently screen and block unwanted incoming calls based on supplemental data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notice, prior litigation, or administrative challenges involving the patent-in-suit. The allegation of knowledge for indirect infringement is based solely on the filing of the complaint itself.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-10-17	’843 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-23	’843 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "unwelcome intrusion into privacy" caused by the increasing volume of unsolicited "telemarketing" or "spam" calls, particularly automated "robocalls" (’843 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "call control unit" that intercepts an incoming call and its identification information. Before the user's phone rings, the unit queries a server for "additional information" about the caller, such as its presence on a community-sourced blacklist or a calculated "spam score." Based on this external data, the unit performs an operation, such as blocking the call, forwarding it to voicemail, or allowing it to be transmitted to the telephone (’843 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-57). The process flow is illustrated in Figure 10, showing the call control unit mediating between the network (PSTN), a server, and the telephone (’843 Patent, Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The technology moves beyond static, user-managed block lists by creating a dynamic system that can leverage crowd-sourced data from a "plurality of users" to identify and react to unwanted callers in near real-time (’843 Patent, col. 3:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’843 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '843 Patent Claims" identified in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). For the purpose of analysis, independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.

• Independent Claim 1: A method performed by a call control unit, comprising the essential elements of:
  • Receiving an indication of an incoming call at a call control unit "positioned between a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone."
  • Querying an external server to determine if "additional information" regarding the caller exists in a database.
  • The database stores information on "unwanted callers," including a "user-configurable list of... desired and undesired callers."
  • Performing a "first operation" if additional information exists, and a "second operation" if it does not.
  • Receiving an indication from the user that a call is "undesired."
  • Automatically adding that undesired caller's information to the user-configurable list.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an unattached document, Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It makes only a conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '843 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). It alleges that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this conclusion. The complaint does not contain any screenshots or diagrams of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement allegations, analysis must focus on potential disputes arising from the patent's language when applied to typical modern call-screening software.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a software application on a smartphone can be considered a "call control unit... positioned between a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone," as recited in claim 1. The defense may argue this language requires a physical or logical interception point external to the phone itself, whereas modern apps often act on a call only after it has been delivered to the phone's operating system.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may concern the decision logic. Claim 1 requires performing one operation based on the presence of "additional information" and a different operation based on its absence. The infringement theory would need to show that an accused product's logic strictly follows this binary path, rather than applying a more complex ruleset or a default action that is independent of a server query's success or failure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "call control unit"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims are limited to the hardware embodiments emphasized in the specification or can be read broadly to cover software-only products, such as mobile applications.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the unit may be "communicatively coupled to or resident within a telephone," which may support a software interpretation where the unit is an application residing on a smartphone (’843 Patent, col. 10:53-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the unit as a "stand-alone hardware device" and multiple figures (e.g., Figs. 3, 4, and 5) depict it as a distinct physical box with ports for a phone line and a telephone, separate from the telephone itself (’843 Patent, col. 4:30-32; Figs. 3, 5).

• The Term: "positioned between a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone"

• Context and Importance: This phrase, appearing in the preamble of independent claim 1, may be construed as a structural or locational limitation on the "call control unit." Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates a potential non-infringement argument for software that operates on a call after it is fully delivered to the end-user device by the provider.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue "positioned between" should be interpreted logically in the call-flow path, not necessarily physically. A software app that intercepts a call notification before the user is alerted could be argued to be logically "between" the provider's delivery and the user's reception.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's diagrams, particularly Figure 1A and Figure 5 which show a physical "Call Control Unit" (135) intercepting the line from the "PSTN" (105) before it reaches the "Telephone" (130), suggest a literal physical or network-level position (’843 Patent, Figs. 1A, 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arises from the service of the complaint itself, which would only support a claim for post-filing enhancement of damages (Compl. ¶13). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint, which identifies neither the accused products nor the asserted claims and bases its entire infringement theory on an unattached exhibit, meets the plausibility pleading standards required by federal court.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "call control unit," heavily described and depicted in the patent as a physical hardware device, be construed to cover modern software-based call-screening applications?
3. Structural Limitation: A key infringement question will be one of structural location: does an accused software application operating on an end-user device satisfy the claim limitation of being "positioned between" the service provider and the telephone, or is this language limited to a device that intercepts the call at a network or hardware level before delivery to the telephone?