Unwired Asset Management LLC v. DialogTech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Unwired Asset Management LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: DialogTech Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law; Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-03991, N.D. Ill., 07/08/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant conducts substantial business in the forum, including committing at least a portion of the alleged infringements there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Conversation Intelligence Platform infringes a patent related to a system for delivering audio communications that dynamically selects a different delivery format depending on whether the call is answered by a live user or a voicemail system.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the automated delivery of ad-supported audio content over telephone networks, a field relevant to interactive voice response (IVR) systems, call-based marketing, and automated customer notifications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Plaintiff as the assignee and owner of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,768,756 - System and Method of Delivering Audio Communications, issued July 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that when delivering audio content via a phone call, "if a call is routed to voice mail, content and interactive options that are intended for a live call may never reach a subscriber" (’756 Patent, col. 2:36-40). This creates a need for a more adaptable communication method.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "interactive voice platform" that places a call containing an audio message, which includes both content and advertising (’756 Patent, col. 2:20-30). The core of the solution is the platform's ability to "detect whether the call is answered at the subscriber device or is routed to voice mail," and based on that detection, select one of two different delivery formats (’756 Patent, col. 2:57-60). A "live call" format may include interactive options, while a "voice mail" format delivers a different, non-interactive message, potentially with instructions for the user to "re-trigger" a live call later (’756 Patent, col. 5:35-38; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the automated delivery of audio content to be optimized based on the context of the call's reception, potentially increasing the effectiveness of ad-supported communication campaigns.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Selectively delivering an audio message with a content and advertising portion to a voice communication device.
  • The delivery is based on a determination of whether the call was routed to a voice mail system.
  • A "first available delivery format" is used if the call was not routed to voicemail.
  • A "second available delivery format" is used if the call was routed to voicemail.
  • The advertising portion in the first format is a "primary advertisement."
  • The advertising portion in the second format is a "non-interactive advertisement that is different from the primary advertisement."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "DialogTech Conversation Intelligence Platform" (Compl. ¶10).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is a system for "delivering an audio communication" and that Defendant utilized "IVR via its internal use and testing" in the United States (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint points to a URL for Defendant's "guides and reports" as an example of Defendant's use of the platform (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific operation of the accused platform's features. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary preliminary claim chart illustrating infringement of claim 1" as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13). In the absence of this chart or more detailed allegations in the complaint's body, a full element-by-element analysis is not possible.

The core narrative theory of infringement is that the "DialogTech Conversation Intelligence Platform" is a system that performs the method of claim 1 of the ’756 patent (Compl. ¶¶10, 13). The central, albeit unsupported, factual premise is that this platform can distinguish between a live call and a voicemail system and subsequently delivers a different audio message format in each scenario, consistent with the limitations of claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: A primary point of contention will be whether the accused platform actually performs the key function of detecting a voicemail system and, in response, delivering a different message format with a different type of advertisement compared to a live call. The complaint does not provide specific evidence to support this allegation.
  • Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused platform delivers a "non-interactive advertisement" that is "different from the primary advertisement" in the voicemail context, as specifically required by the final limitation of claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "determination of whether a call...has been routed to a voice mail system"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed method, as it triggers the selection between the two delivery formats. The case may depend on whether the accused system's method for handling unanswered calls meets this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "interactive voice platform" making this detection, which may suggest that any automated means of identifying a voicemail system (e.g., analyzing audio cues, call progress tones, or even a simple timeout) falls within the claim's scope (’756 Patent, col. 2:57-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow chart in Figure 6 depicts "Detect live call / voice mail" (608) as a discrete step preceding the "Select delivery format" step (610). A party could argue this implies an active, affirmative detection process rather than a passive failure to connect.

• The Term: "non-interactive advertisement"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the advertisement delivered to a voicemail system from the one delivered to a live user. Proving infringement requires showing the accused system delivers an advertisement that is both "different" and "non-interactive."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the live call format, which can include interactive controls for feedback or connecting to customer service, with the voicemail format, which does not (’756 Patent, col. 5:8-19, 3:3-11). This could support a broad definition where any advertisement lacking a direct call to action (e.g., "press 1") is "non-interactive."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the voicemail format as containing "re-trigger instructions" and "opt-out instructions" (’756 Patent, Fig. 3, 352, 354). A party could argue that "non-interactive" must be read in this context, meaning an advertisement completely devoid of any form of responsive instruction, which may be a narrower definition than simply lacking a "press 1" option.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It does, however, request a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). The complaint pleads no specific facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent, to support this request.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused DialogTech platform performs the specific two-track method of claim 1? The dispositive factual question is whether the platform (1) detects voicemail and (2) delivers a different and "non-interactive" advertisement in response, as the complaint currently lacks specific factual allegations on this point.
• The outcome may also depend on a question of claim scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "determination"? Will it cover any method of handling unanswered calls, or will it require a specific, active detection process as arguably suggested by the patent's embodiments?
• Given the lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, an initial question for the court may be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, as filed, state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the prevailing Twombly/Iqbal standard?