DCT
1:12-cv-06637
Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Multiply Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Multiply, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perlman, Bajandas, Yevoli & Albright, PL; DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
- Case Identification: 1:12-cv-06637, S.D. Fla., 06/22/2012
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, is deemed to reside there, and has engaged in continuous and systematic activities in the State of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social shopping website and its associated web-based messaging services infringe five patents related to systems and methods for storing, managing, and delivering messages over a network.
- Technical Context: The patents address unified messaging technology, which integrates various communication formats (e.g., facsimile, voice mail) into a single, remotely accessible, web-based platform.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patents, possessing all substantial rights including the right to sue for infringement. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges, is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-04-28 | Earliest 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 Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,857,074 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,857,074, "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages," issued February 15, 2005.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the inefficiencies and lack of confidentiality associated with physical facsimile machines in an office environment, as well as the difficulty of accessing faxes, voice messages, and data messages when traveling (ʼ074) Patent, col. 1:22–2:43, 3:19–4:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "Message Storage and Delivery System" that receives various message types (facsimile, voice, data) from the telephone network, stores them, and makes them accessible to users over the Internet via a web browser interface (ʼ074 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:16-32). Messages can be converted into a "hyper-text mark-up language (HTML)" for display, unifying disparate communication formats into a single, remotely accessible mailbox (ʼ074 Patent, col. 8:12-14; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach represented an early architecture for unified communications, centralizing message storage and using the then-emerging World Wide Web as the universal access point (ʼ074 Patent, col. 8:16-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Claim 1 of the ’074 Patent includes these essential elements:
- A computerized server system implementing a messaging function to receive messages (audio, image, or data) and place them in storage areas associated with recipient mailboxes.
- A notification function to alert recipients of new messages.
- The messaging function is configured to interface with recipients through a browser interface.
- Recipients are capable of accessing their mailboxes and messages through the browser interface.
- The messaging function couples information associated with the messages to recipients via the Internet.
U.S. Patent No. 7,836,141 - "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,836,141, "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages," issued November 16, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same set of problems as the ’074 Patent, focusing on the costs, unreliability, and lack of remote access for traditional office messaging systems like fax machines (ʼ141) Patent, col. 1:26–2:55).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a network-based method where a message is stored in a user-specific, access-restricted area on a server. A user's browser sends an HTTP access request to the server, which, after granting the request, transmits a mark-up language file. This file enables the browser to generate a user interface containing a link that, when selected by the user, causes the server to transmit the stored message to the browser (ʼ141 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:4-54).
- Technical Importance: This method details the specific client-server interaction protocol using HTTP for securely accessing and retrieving individual messages from a centralized repository (ʼ141 Patent, col. 3:15–4:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- Claim 1 of the ’141 Patent includes these essential elements:
- Receiving and storing a message for a user in a restricted-access storage area on a network server.
- Receiving an HTTP access request from the user's hyper-text browser to gain access to the storage area.
- Making a determination to grant or deny the access request.
- In response to a grant, transmitting a mark-up language file to the browser, which generates 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 hyper-text browser in response to the indication.
U.S. Patent No. 7,895,306 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,895,306, "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages," issued February 22, 2011.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’306 Patent is directed to a method of receiving a particular message for a user, writing a link to that message into a mark-up language file that already contains links to other messages, and transmitting that file to a client device. The client application uses the file to generate a mailbox user interface enabling the user to browse the plurality of stored messages (Compl. ¶12).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- Accused Features: The storing, delivering, and managing of messages via Defendant's web-based communication services (Compl. ¶17).
U.S. Patent No. 7,895,313 - "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,895,313, "Systems and Methods for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages," issued February 22, 2011.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’313 Patent describes storing a message in a restricted-access area on a network server and, in response to an access request from a user's browser, transmitting a mark-up language file. The browser then produces a mailbox user interface containing a hyper-text link that the recipient can activate to download the message from the server to the recipient's device (Compl. ¶14).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
- Accused Features: The storing, delivering, and managing of messages via Defendant's web-based communication services (Compl. ¶17).
U.S. Patent No. 7,934,148 - "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,934,148, "Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and Managing Messages," issued April 26, 2011.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’148 Patent is directed to a method of storing a mark-up language file containing personal information on a network server, transmitting a notification to a user's computer about the file's availability, and then transmitting the mark-up language file to the user's computer in response to a user request (Compl. ¶16).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
- Accused Features: The storing, delivering, and managing of messages via Defendant's web-based communication services (Compl. ¶17).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "social shopping website, Multiply.com," and its associated "web-based communications service(s), including web-message services, accessible via their respective website(s) and/or their respective messaging/mail/web server(s)" (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused services perform the functions of "storing, delivering, and managing messages" for users (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides URLs to the general website and an exemplary mail service (http://multiply.com/mail/) but offers no specific technical details about how these services operate (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's market positioning or commercial importance.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner without mapping specific product features to claim elements. The following charts summarize the infringement theory as can be inferred from the general allegations.
6,857,074 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a messaging function configured to receive messages...and place the messages in storage areas associated with respective mailboxes... | Defendant’s operation of web-message services and messaging/mail/web server(s) which receive and store messages for users. | ¶17 | col. 27:31-38 |
| a notification function configured to send notification messages to respective ones of the intended recipients... | Defendant’s operation of web-based communication services, which allegedly notify users of new messages. | ¶17 | col. 27:39-45 |
| the messaging function is configured to interface with the intended recipients through a browser interface... | Defendant’s services are accessible via its website, Multiply.com, implying a browser-based interface for users. | ¶17 | col. 27:48-50 |
| the messaging function couples information associated with the messages to the respective intended recipients via the Internet. | Defendant’s website and messaging services are accessible over the Internet, through which message information is delivered to users. | ¶17 | col. 27:54-57 |
7,836,141 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing the message in a user-specific message storage area associated with the network server, wherein access...is restricted... | Defendant’s services store user messages in what is alleged to be a restricted, user-specific server-side storage area. | ¶17 | col. 26:63-67 |
| receiving an access request from a hyper-text browser...via the network, in accordance with the hyper-text transfer protocol... | Defendant’s messaging servers allegedly receive HTTP requests from users' web browsers to access their messages. | ¶17 | col. 27:1-9 |
| transmitting a mark-up language file from the network server to the hyper-text browser...wherein the mark-up language file enables the...browser to generate a user interface... | Defendant’s servers allegedly transmit files (e.g., HTML) to a user’s browser, which then renders a user interface for managing messages. | ¶17 | col. 27:13-22 |
| transmitting the message to the hyper-text browser...in response to the indication [that the user has selected the link]. | Defendant’s servers allegedly transmit the content of a specific message to the user's browser after the user selects a link for that message in the interface. | ¶17 | col. 27:26-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides no factual support describing how the accused services operate. A central question will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused Multiply.com services actually perform the specific, ordered steps required by the asserted claims (e.g., generating and transmitting a "mark-up language file" that itself contains a "link" which, when selected, triggers a separate transmission of the message content).
- Scope Questions: The infringement allegations are directed at a "social shopping website" (Compl. ¶17). A potential point of contention may be whether the patents, which describe dedicated message storage and delivery systems, can be read to cover the messaging features of a platform whose primary alleged purpose is social shopping.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deep analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, practitioners may focus on the following terms:
The Term: "browser interface" (from ’074 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining the scope of systems covered by the patent. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to traditional desktop web browsers as they existed in the 1990s, or if it can extend to other modern client applications, mobile apps, or APIs that render information for a user.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "interface" is broad, and the claim language does not explicitly limit the "browser" to a specific type of software. The patent’s objective is remote access to messages, a principle applicable to various client technologies (ʼ074 Patent, col. 3:19-29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "hyper-text browser" and gives "Netscape" as a specific example, suggesting the inventor contemplated a conventional web browser (ʼ074 Patent, col. 8:30-31).
The Term: "mark-up language file" (from ’141 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term's construction will be central to whether the claim reads on modern web technologies. The dispute may focus on whether this term is limited to HTML, which is the primary example in the specification, or if it can encompass other data-interchange formats (like XML or JSON) that are now commonly used to dynamically generate user interfaces.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions converting messages into a "standard generalized mark-up language" (ʼ074 Patent, col. 6:7-8), suggesting that the invention is not limited to any single dialect like HTML.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and preferred embodiments consistently refer to converting messages into "hyper-text mark-up language (HTML)" (ʼ074 Patent, col. 8:12-14, 10:45-47). An argument could be made that HTML is not just an example but is integral to the invention as disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation that "Defendant further encourages and instructs its customers to use its infringing technology," which may form the basis for a claim of induced infringement (Compl. ¶18). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or any facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case, as pleaded, presents several fundamental questions for the court. The two most central are:
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the accused Multiply.com messaging service operates in the specific manner required by the claims. Given the complaint's lack of technical detail, a key question is one of functional operation: does the accused system, for example, first transmit a "mark-up language file" that generates an interface and then, in response to a separate user action, transmit the underlying message content, as recited in claims of patents like the ’141 patent?
- Definitional Scope and Technologic Drift: A core legal question will be one of claim construction in the face of evolving technology. Can terms rooted in the web of the mid-1990s, such as "browser interface" and "mark-up language file", be construed to cover the architecture and protocols of a 2012-era social media website? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court adopts a broader, functional definition or a narrower one tied to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patents.