Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Shawguides Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ShawGuides Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP; Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright, PL
• Case Identification: 1:12-cv-06636, S.D. Fla., 06/22/2012
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's principal place of business being in Miami, Florida, and on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s travel companion matching website and associated web-based messaging services infringe five patents related to systems and methods for storing, delivering, and managing electronic messages over a network.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of unified messaging, where various communication types are aggregated and made accessible to a user through a single, network-based interface, a technology that gained significance with the commercialization of the internet.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings. All five asserted patents claim priority from the same 1995 application, suggesting they are part of a single, protracted prosecution effort.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1995-04-28	Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2005-02-15	U.S. Patent No. 6,857,074 Issues
2010-11-16	U.S. Patent No. 7,836,141 Issues
2011-02-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,895,306 Issues
2011-02-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,895,313 Issues
2011-04-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,934,148 Issues
2012-06-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,857,074 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages" (Issued Feb. 15, 2005)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical and logistical problems of the mid-1990s associated with managing different types of messages, particularly the expense, lack of confidentiality, and difficulty in routing and retrieving facsimile messages, as well as the costs and challenges of accessing voice mail while traveling (’074 Patent, col. 1:24–4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "Message Storage and Delivery System" (MSDS) that connects to both the public switched telephone network and the internet (’074 Patent, Fig. 1). This system is designed to receive various message types (e.g., facsimile, voice, data), store them in a central database, and allow an intended recipient to access them remotely using a standard hyper-text browser over the internet, with the messages converted into a mark-up language for display (’074 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:16-56).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution addresses the need for a unified messaging platform, allowing disparate communication formats to be managed through a single, universally accessible web-based interface, a significant step away from siloed communication systems like standalone fax machines and voicemail services (’074 Patent, col. 1:15-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Claim 1 of the ’074 Patent requires, in essential part:
  • A messaging function configured to receive messages of audio, image, and data media types and place them in storage areas associated with mailboxes.
  • A notification function to send notification messages to recipients after a message is received.
  • The messaging function is configured to interface with recipients through a browser interface.
  • Recipients are capable of accessing their mailboxes and associated messages through the browser interface.
  • The messaging function couples information associated with the messages to the recipients via the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,836,141 - "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages" (Issued Nov. 16, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Stemming from the same specification as the ’074 patent, this patent addresses the same set of problems related to the inefficiencies and lack of security in managing traditional facsimile and voice messages (’141 Patent, col. 1:20–4:67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for securely delivering a message to a user over a network. The method involves storing a message in a restricted-access area, receiving an access request from a user's browser, authenticating the user, and in response, transmitting a mark-up language file that generates a user interface with a link. When the user selects the link, the system transmits the message itself to the browser (’141 Patent, Abstract). This method details the interactive and access-controlled process of message retrieval via the web.
• Technical Importance: The patented method provides a framework for secure, on-demand access to messages via the web, a foundational process for web-based applications that handle user-specific sensitive information (’141 Patent, col. 8:27-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
• Claim 1 of the ’141 Patent requires, in essential part, a method comprising the steps of:
  • Receiving and storing a message for a user in a restricted, user-specific storage area.
  • Receiving an HTTP access request from the user's hyper-text browser.
  • Making a determination to grant or deny the access request.
  • Transmitting a mark-up language file that enables the browser to generate a user interface with a selectable link to the stored message.
  • Receiving an indication that the user has selected the link.
  • Transmitting the message to the browser in response to the indication.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,895,306 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages" (Issued Feb. 22, 2011)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for delivering a message by receiving it, writing a link to it into a mark-up language file that already contains links to a plurality of other messages, and transmitting this file to a client device to generate a mailbox user interface (Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
• Accused Features: The operation of Defendant's web-based communications and messaging services (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 7,895,313 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages" (Issued Feb. 22, 2011)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for storing a message in a restricted access area and, upon receiving a request from a user's browser, granting access and transmitting a mark-up language file that allows the browser to produce a mailbox user interface containing a hyper-text link to download the message (Compl. ¶14).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
• Accused Features: The operation of Defendant's web-based communications and messaging services (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 7,934,148 - "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages" (Issued Apr. 26, 2011)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for storing a mark-up language file containing personal user information, transmitting a notification to the user about the file's availability, and subsequently transmitting the mark-up language file to the user in response to a request made following the notification (Compl. ¶16).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The operation of Defendant's web-based communications and messaging services (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "travel companion matching website, TravelChums.com," and its associated "web-based communications service(s), including web-message services" (Compl. ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant operates, makes, and uses the inventions by "storing, delivering, and managing messages" through its website and messaging servers (Compl. ¶17). The complaint identifies a specific URL, http://www.travelchums.com/Messages, as providing "[e]xemplary account services functionality" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the accused services operate or any information regarding their market context or commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim chart summary. It alleges direct infringement of at least claim 1 of each Asserted Patent but does not include a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping the features of the accused instrumentality to the discrete elements of any asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 28, 34, 40, 46). The infringement theory is described at a high level, alleging that Defendant's general operation of its website and messaging services practices the inventions (Compl. ¶17).

• Identified Points of Contention (based on ’074 Patent):

  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "messaging function configured to receive messages" of "audio media type, an image media type, and a data media type." A central issue may be whether the accused web-messaging service is configured to receive this diversity of media types, particularly as the specification heavily emphasizes receiving facsimile and voice calls from the telephone network (’074 Patent, col. 1:24-41), or if it is a conventional web-based text messaging system.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires a "notification function." A potential point of contention is what action by the accused service meets this limitation. The question arises whether a simple indicator of a new message within a web interface constitutes a "notification message," or if the claim requires a more active, separate communication, such as an email or page as described in the patent’s detailed description (’074 Patent, col. 5:6-10).

• Identified Points of Contention (based on ’141 Patent):

  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites fundamental steps of a secure, web-based interaction: receiving an access request from a browser, determining whether to grant access, and transmitting a mark-up file with a link. A key question for the court may be how these claimed steps, given the 1995 priority date, are defined and distinguished from conventional, non-infringing web server operations that were known at the time or would have been obvious.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused service performs the specific sequence of transmitting a mark-up file to generate a link, and then transmitting the full message only after that link is selected? Modern web applications may use different techniques (e.g., loading message data asynchronously), raising the question of whether there is a functional or literal mismatch with the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 (from ’074 Patent, Claim 1): "messaging function configured to receive messages"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term may be pivotal. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to systems capable of receiving communications from the traditional telephone network (like faxes), as extensively described in the specification, or if it broadly covers any web server function that receives data from a user, such as through a web form.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the origin of the messages, only their media type ("audio media type, an image media type, and a data media type") (’074 Patent, col. 27:32-34).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed description are overwhelmingly focused on solving problems associated with receiving facsimile, voice, and data transmissions from the public switched telephone network (PSTN) (’074 Patent, col. 1:24–2:40, Fig. 1). An argument could be made that the invention is defined by this context.

Term 2 (from ’141 Patent, Claim 1): "transmitting a mark-up language file... wherein the mark-up language file enables the hyper-text browser to generate a user interface through which a link to the message...can be selected"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core mechanism for presenting an accessible message to the user. Its construction is critical because it details the intermediate step of providing a link before providing the message itself. The dispute may center on whether this requires a static HTML page with a simple hyperlink, as was common in 1995, or if it can read on more dynamic, modern web technologies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "mark-up language file" is technologically neutral and could be argued to cover any file (e.g., HTML, XML) that a browser can interpret to render an interface, regardless of how the content is subsequently loaded.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a selection of a link on an HTML page causes the entire message to be downloaded (’141 Patent, col. 10:9-31). This could support an interpretation that requires a full page load and a distinct, subsequent file transmission, potentially excluding modern single-page applications or asynchronous data loading techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant further encourages and instructs its customers to use its infringing technology" (Compl. ¶18). This language suggests a claim for induced infringement, but the complaint provides no specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other instructional materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or facts suggesting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the claims, which originate from a 1995 specification focused on integrating telephone-network messages (fax, voice) into a web interface, be construed to cover a modern, purely web-based messaging system as allegedly operated by the Defendant?
• A key question will be the validity and scope of claims that recite what may now be considered fundamental web interactions, such as user authentication and link-based content retrieval. The court's construction of these terms will need to account for the state of the art in the mid-1990s to determine whether the claims are novel and non-obvious.
• A central evidentiary question will be what specific functionality the accused TravelChums.com service actually possesses. As the complaint lacks technical specifics, discovery will be essential to determine if the service performs the discrete steps recited in the asserted claims, particularly regarding the handling of multiple media types and the specific sequence of user interaction and data transmission.