BillSure LLC v. Flexera Software LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: BillSure LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Flexera Software LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09317, N.D. Ill., 08/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's software products infringe a patent related to methods for verifying network resource usage records for billing purposes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of potential billing fraud in environments where a network user's billing provider is separate from the operator of the network access point (e.g., a public Wi-Fi hotspot).
• 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

Date	Event
2005-08-02	Earliest Priority Date for ’457 Patent (as alleged in complaint)
2011-08-23	’457 Patent Issued
2025-08-06	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,005,457, "Method and system for verifying network resource usage records," issued August 23, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In distributed network environments like Wi-Fi "hotspots," a user's billing provider often relies on usage data reported by a third-party hotspot operator. The patent identifies a risk that this third-party operator could manipulate its system to exaggerate usage statistics (e.g., inflated data transfer amounts or connection times) to fraudulently increase payments from the billing provider. (’457 Patent, col. 2:10-21). This fraud is described as "almost impossible for the Billing Service Provider to detect" using then-current technologies. (’457 Patent, col. 2:18-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a verification system where trust is established through mutual agreement on usage data during a network session. The network user's device periodically generates its own billing data (e.g., based on its own measure of connection time or data volume) and sends it to the network's access gateway. (’457 Patent, col. 6:1-10). The access gateway compares this received data with its own independently generated usage statistics. If the two data sets "correlate," the gateway stores the user's cryptographically-secured data and continues the session. If they do not correlate, the gateway can terminate the connection, preventing further disputed usage. (’457 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:49-54). This creates an auditable record of agreed-upon usage that cannot be easily repudiated by either the user or the gateway operator.
• Technical Importance: The described method aims to provide a mechanism for independent, real-time verification of billing data at its source, reducing reliance on costly and potentially ineffective "audit-style spot-checks" after the fact. (’457 Patent, col. 4:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit but does not specify any claim numbers in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A system for enabling verification of billing data received from an operator of a network resource access gateway by a billing service provider comprising:
  • an access gateway device for coupling to a network user device and to a billing service provider's system,
  • said network user device generating billing data based on actual network resource usage of said network user device, wherein said actual network resource usage...corresponds to at least one of an amount of time of connection...and a volume of data...,
  • said access gateway device configured to compare received billing data from said network user device with corresponding billing data generated by said access gateway device during network resource usage,
  • and if said received billing data correlates to said billing data...said access gateway device stores predetermined portions of said received billing data.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context, as these details are presumably contained within the un-provided Exhibit 2.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made entirely by incorporating an external document, Exhibit 2, which contains claim charts. (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory based on the complaint is not possible. The complaint contains no narrative description of how the accused products meet the claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "correlates" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core function of comparing user-generated billing data with gateway-generated data. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether "correlates" requires a near-exact match or allows for a degree of variance. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent itself suggests that perfect correlation is not expected due to system latencies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the correlation analysis must account for system realities. It states the gateway "may take into account the latency involved in generating and transmitting the billing data" and would determine if a received parameter is "within the specific range of values that would be expected." (’457 Patent, col. 6:17-22). This language may support a construction that allows for a tolerance or range rather than an exact match.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that in certain contexts, such as comparing a session time counter, the expected value could be a "single value," suggesting a more precise correlation is contemplated. (’457 Patent, col. 6:26-31). The term's plain meaning may also be argued to imply a close, direct relationship.

The Term: "access gateway device" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The claims recite an "access gateway device" that performs several functions, including comparing data and storing results. A defendant whose system architecture distributes these functions across multiple servers or components might argue that no single "device" performs the claimed steps.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s own definition section explicitly defines "Network Resource Access Gateway" as "the device (or collection of devices) that controls access to Network Resources." (’457 Patent, col. 1:11-13). This language directly supports an interpretation where the claimed "device" can be a system composed of multiple, distinct components.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument for a narrower construction could focus on the specific embodiments and figures, which may depict a more unitary device, to argue that the "collection of devices" language should not be read to cover a highly distributed or disaggregated system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement." (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement," which forms the basis for potential post-suit willful infringement or enhancement of damages. (Compl. ¶15).

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

• A primary question is evidentiary and factual: given that the complaint provides no specific product names or infringement theory, the case will depend entirely on the evidence presented in the un-provided Exhibit 2. The initial focus will be on identifying the accused products and understanding the specific factual basis for the allegation that they perform the claimed comparison and verification functions.
• The central legal question will be one of claim construction, revolving around the term "correlates". The dispute will likely focus on how much deviation is permissible between the user-generated and gateway-generated billing data for the two to be considered correlated under the patent, an issue the specification itself raises by acknowledging network latencies.
• A further issue concerns the scope of "access gateway device": whether the functions of comparing, correlating, and storing must be performed by a single, integrated component, or if they can be distributed across a networked system, as the patent’s definitional section appears to permit.