Data Fence LLC v. Aura Sub LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data Fence LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Aura Sub, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dickinson Wright PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12554, D. Mass., 10/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the District of Massachusetts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe three patents related to methods and systems for controlling inbound telephone calls, such as by identifying and blocking spam or robocalls.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the widespread problem of unsolicited telephone calls by using network intelligence and user-defined rules to filter incoming communications before they reach the user.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a single family. U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286 is a continuation of the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843. U.S. Patent No. 9,819,797 is a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the '286 patent. This shared prosecution history may be relevant for claim construction and potential validity challenges.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control," Issued Dec. 23, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "unwelcome intrusion into privacy" caused by the dramatic increase in unsolicited "telemarketing" or "spam" calls, which are often placed by automated "robocalls" at minimal expense to the caller (’843 Patent, col. 1:20-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "call control unit" that intercepts an incoming call. Before the user's phone rings, the unit queries an external server to determine if "additional information" exists for the caller, such as a "spam score" or inclusion on a community-sourced blacklist (’843 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-65). Based on this information, the unit performs a first operation (e.g., blocking the call); if no information is found, it performs a second, default operation (e.g., allowing the call to connect) (’843 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: The system creates a dynamic, crowd-sourced defense against unwanted calls by using a "community blacklist" that can be updated in near real-time, moving beyond static, individual user block lists (’843 Patent, col. 3:23-4:24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '843 Patent Claims" by reference to an external exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶15). Representative independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • receiving an indication of an incoming call at a call control unit located at a user's premise;
  • the unit is positioned between the telecommunication service provider and the telephone;
  • querying, by the call control unit, a server external to the provider and the telephone to determine if additional information regarding the caller exists;
  • the additional information includes a user-configurable list of desired/undesired callers;
  • if the information exists, performing a first operation on the call;
  • otherwise, performing a second operation on the call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control," Issued Nov. 8, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem of unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls as its parent, the ’843 Patent (’286 Patent, col. 1:20-38).
• The Patented Solution: As a continuation, the ’286 Patent describes a similar system architecture involving a call control unit querying a server. However, its claims are framed more broadly around determining if "a negative characteristic is associated with at least one of the caller and the telephone number" (’286 Patent, Claim 1). This "negative characteristic" can be derived from various data points, including a spam score based on community reporting (’286 Patent, col. 3:42-4:14).
• Technical Importance: This patent appears to broaden the scope of the invention by abstracting the decision criteria from "additional information" to the more general concept of a "negative characteristic," potentially covering a wider range of analytical methods for identifying unwanted calls.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '286 Patent Claims" by reference to an external exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). Representative independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • receiving an incoming call at a call control unit;
  • querying a server to determine if additional information associated with the caller/number exists;
  • determining if the additional information indicates a "negative characteristic";
  • if a negative characteristic exists, performing a first operation;
  • otherwise, performing a second operation.
• The complaint refers generally to "one or more claims" of the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 9,819,797 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control," Issued Nov. 14, 2017

Technology Synopsis

This continuation-in-part patent adds a new feature to the call control system. It discloses a method of actively challenging a caller with an "inquiry" to distinguish a human from an automated system ('797 Patent, col. 12:5-36). If the caller provides a correct response to the challenge (e.g., a CAPTCHA-style prompt), the call is connected; otherwise, it is blocked ('797 Patent, Fig. 13).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '797 Patent Claims" by reference to an external exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶27). Representative independent claim 1 is directed to this inquiry-based method.

Accused Features

The complaint does not identify any specific features of the accused products that are alleged to infringe the ’797 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 25-27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services from Defendant AURA SUB, LLC. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in external exhibits not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed" in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 27).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6), which are incorporated by reference but were not provided with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 28). The complaint contains no narrative factual allegations describing how any accused product meets the limitations of the asserted claims. As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory, based on the boilerplate language, is that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of certain "Exemplary" patent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 27).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Basis: The immediate point of contention will likely be the sufficiency of the complaint itself. The lack of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements may raise questions under the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standards.
  • Architectural Questions: A central technical dispute may concern the architecture of the accused system. The analysis will question whether the accused products utilize a "call control unit" that "quer[ies]... a server" in the manner claimed, or if they operate on a different technical principle, such as using a pre-loaded, periodically updated local blocklist without a real-time external query for each call.
  • Functional Questions ('797 Patent): For the ’797 Patent, a key point of contention will be whether the accused products perform any function that could be characterized as providing an "inquiry to the caller" that operates as a challenge-response test to differentiate human from automated callers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "call control unit" (’843 Patent, Claim 1; ’286 Patent, Claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what type of system can infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether infringement is limited to on-premise hardware, or if it can also include software on a phone or components operating at the network level.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the unit may be a "stand-alone hardware device," may "reside in telephone 130," or may be a "component of PSTN 105," suggesting the term can cover hardware, resident software, or network-based systems (’843 Patent, col. 4:28-36).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent requires the unit to be "located at the user's premise and positioned between a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone." A party may argue this language limits the claim to a physical device at the user's location, as depicted in Figure 1A, and not to purely software-based or network-level solutions.

• The Term: "querying... a server external to a telecommunication service provider... and the telephone" (’843 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step embodies the core "network intelligence" feature of the invention. The dispute will likely center on what constitutes a "query" to an "external" server for the purposes of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean any data request to a logically separate system. The process flow diagram in Figure 10 shows this as a distinct request/response sequence (steps 1015, 1020, 1025) to a server/data store that is separate from the PSTN and telephone.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing party could argue that this requires a specific, real-time, per-call request-response action, and does not read on systems that, for instance, periodically download an updated blacklist to the local device for later use without a query on each individual call.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for or allege facts to support claims of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement and pleads no facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not specifically plead willfulness for enhanced damages under § 284 (Compl. ¶ I.i.).

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

• A primary issue for the court will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint, which lacks any specific factual allegations and relies entirely on un-provided external exhibits, satisfy the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading established by Iqbal/Twombly?
• A central technical question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused system's architecture align with the claimed "call control unit" that performs a real-time "query" to an external server for each call, or does it operate on a fundamentally different model, creating a potential mismatch with the patent claims?
• For the ’797 patent, the case will likely turn on a definitional scope question: can the functionality of the accused product be construed as providing an "inquiry to the caller" that functions as a challenge-response test, or is there a functional mismatch between the accused method and the specific screening process claimed?