Wave Linx LLC v. Avoxi Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wave Linx LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Avoxi, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-05758, N.D. Ga., 12/23/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Georgia corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, thereby residing in the district for patent venue purposes under TC Heartland.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Avoxi Genius" telecommunications system infringes a patent related to methods for delivering real-time notifications from a telephone system to a user's web browser.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of traditional telephone networks with internet-based applications, enabling web browsers to display real-time call status information without requiring specialized client-side software.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,843,549, "Streaming Method for Transmitting Telephone System Notifications to Internet Terminal Devices in Real Time," issued September 23, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of integrating traditional public switched telephone networks (PSTN) with internet services, noting that such combined services often rely on proprietary solutions that lack interoperability and scalability, creating complexity for the user (’549 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a client (e.g., a web browser) establishes a persistent connection with a server using a standard protocol like HTTP. The server receives notifications from a telephone system, transforms these notifications into a "programming language code" (such as JavaScript or HTML) that the client's browser can execute, and then sends this code over the open connection. This "HTTP streaming" technique allows the client to receive and display real-time updates without needing to repeatedly request new data or install special plugins (’549 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:42-65).
• Technical Importance: The method provided a way to leverage standardized web protocols to create more dynamic, real-time user experiences for telephony applications, moving away from the static "request-and-response" model of early web pages (’549 Patent, col. 5:10-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 (’549 Patent, col. 5:1-29, col. 6:28-30; Compl. ¶¶15, 17).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • opening a connection between the client and a server;
  • transmitting notification messages from the telephone switching system to the server using a networking protocol;
  • transforming the notification messages at the server into a programming language code executable by the client's browser;
  • using an HTTP streaming mechanism to transmit the notification from the server to the browser through the open connection, which remains open between transmissions; and
  • executing the programming language codes by the browser to display or output the notification messages.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the future (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Avoxi Genius" system (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Avoxi Genius system is a solution for providing real-time notification of telephone events to a client (Compl. ¶18). The accused functionality involves a user logging into an Avoxi account via a web browser, which opens a connection to Avoxi's server. When a call for the user arrives from a telephone network, a notification message is transmitted to the server, transformed into code, and sent to the user's browser for display as an "in-app notification" (Compl. ¶¶19-24). The system is alleged to use a "call queue" and a "Web Widget" to manage and display these notifications (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Claim Chart Summary: The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory, which is summarized in the table below. The complaint also references an "Exhibit B" claim chart, which was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18).

'549 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "call queue which supports transmission and storage of notifications" (Compl. ¶23) constitutes an "HTTP streaming mechanism" as described in the patent. The patent specification describes a persistent connection where the server can push data, potentially through "keep alive" messages (’549 Patent, col. 5:47-51), raising the question of whether the accused system's architecture meets this specific technical requirement.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges transformation into "markup language code such as HTML code" (Compl. ¶22). A potential issue is whether this meets the claim limitation of "transforming...into a programming language code." While the patent specification includes HTML as an example (’549 Patent, col. 6:13), a dispute could arise over whether the specific transformation performed by the accused product is sufficient to meet the claim element, or whether the term "programming language" implies a requirement for more complex executable logic than simple markup.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "HTTP streaming mechanism"

• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the invention's contribution, defining the method for maintaining a persistent link to deliver real-time data. Its construction will likely determine whether modern web communication techniques, such as the accused "call queue" system, fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not specify a particular implementation of streaming. A party might argue that any mechanism using HTTP to keep a connection open for subsequent server-initiated messages falls within the plain meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the mechanism as a contrast to traditional HTTP page fetches and mentions sending "keep alive" responses from the server to the client to keep the connection open (’549 Patent, col. 5:47-63). This could support an argument that the term requires a specific "push" or "long-polling" architecture rather than any generic method that avoids closing a connection.

• The Term: "transforming the notification messages... into a programming language code"

• Context and Importance: This term defines what happens on the server before data is sent to the client. The dispute will likely focus on what qualifies as a "programming language code" and how substantial the "transformation" must be.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists "JavaScript, XML, HTML or Java-serialised objects" as examples of computer code that can be executed by the client's browser (’549 Patent, col. 6:11-14). The inclusion of HTML, a markup language, suggests a broad definition that does not require complex logic.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that in the context of the patent's goal of creating a dynamic application, the term "programming language" implies a code with executable instructions (like JavaScript) rather than a purely declarative markup language (like HTML). The focus could shift to whether the alleged "HTML code" in the accused system contains executable elements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains a single count for direct infringement and does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶28-34).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶30). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages but does not assert pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "HTTP streaming mechanism," described in a 2002-priority patent in the context of "keep-alive" messages, be construed to cover the "call queue" architecture allegedly used in the modern Avoxi Genius system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical sufficiency: does the accused system's alleged conversion of a telephone notification into "HTML code" constitute the "transforming" of a message into a "programming language code" as required by the claim, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the nature of the code or the transformation process?