Random Chat LLC v. Freshworks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Freshworks, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00964, S.D.N.Y., 02/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of New York and has committed acts of infringement and conducts substantial business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for facilitating multimedia communication infringe a patent related to methods for carrying out such communications based on user-defined profiles.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to network-based communication platforms, such as video, audio, or text chat systems, that allow users to define and manage how they connect and interact with others in a manner akin to online social networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigation. It alleges these were not licenses to produce a patented article and thus do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 - "Method For Carrying Out A Multimedia Communication Based On A Network Protocol, Particularly TCP/IP And/Or UDP," Issued March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art video and chat systems were too constrictive and inadequately met the "higher, differentiated and more complex communication requirements" of emerging "social networks" and online "communities" (’099 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a process where a user generates a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network. This profile allows the user to freely define communication parameters, such as the mode of selecting other users (e.g., via a random process, a search, or a predefined list), the type of communication (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-many), and the number of connections (’099 Patent, col. 2:22-31). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical layer structure, including a database layer, a link layer, a subscriber layer, and a front-end layer for the user interface (’099 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide more flexible and advanced processes that could better replicate the complex, real-world social contacts between subscribers online, moving beyond simple chat and conference systems (’099 Patent, col. 1:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of:
  • A method for executing a multimedia communication (e.g., video, audio, text chat) between terminals on a network.
  • Wherein at least one subscriber generates a personalized user account as a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
  • Wherein setting up the profile establishes the multimedia communication at each terminal by freely defining: a mode of subscriber selection, a communication type or number of links, or the type of data transmission.
  • The subscriber selection mode includes a "random process" for setting up a communication link.
  • The subscriber selection mode also includes a "call procedure" for establishing a link with a subscriber profile stored in a "selection list."
  • These subscribers on the selection list form "a plurality of at least one of an open and a closed subscriber sub-pool."
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Freshworks, Inc. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not specify any particular Freshworks product (e.g., Freshchat, Freshdesk). It alleges that Defendant's products and services "perform infringing methods or processes" and that Defendant put the claimed inventions "into service" (Compl. ¶2, 8). The complaint asserts that without Defendant's actions, the claimed invention embodiments would not have been put into service, suggesting the accused instrumentalities are systems used by Defendant's customers (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations is contained in a chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). As Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative theory of infringement is that Defendant's systems, products, and services for multimedia communication practice one or more of claims 1-20 of the ’099 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s customers' use of these products constitutes direct infringement, for which Defendant is liable (Compl. ¶8, 11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Specificity: An initial question for the court may be whether the complaint, without its referenced Exhibit B, contains sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, given the lack of specific details about how any particular Freshworks product operates.
  • Scope Questions: The patent’s specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of "social networks," "communities," and "accidental meeting[s]" (’099 Patent, col. 1:49, col. 2:66). A central dispute may be whether the claims, when read in light of the specification, can be construed to cover Defendant's products, which are generally marketed for structured business-to-customer communications and support, rather than open-ended social networking.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused products perform specific functions required by the claims, such as using a "random process" for connecting users or forming "subscriber sub-pools" from selection lists as those terms are described in the patent (’099 Patent, Claim 1). The functionality of a business-oriented chat service may differ substantially from the flexible, user-driven connection models detailed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is the foundational element upon which the claimed method operates. Its construction will determine the type of user account and associated data that falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish between the highly detailed, customizable "self-portrayal" platform described in the patent and more conventional user accounts in business software.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the profile allows a user to define a "mode of a subscriber selection," "communication type," and "number of communication links," which could be argued to cover any user account with basic communication settings (’099 Patent, col. 2:27-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the profile as a "collection place for tags" for self-description ("WhoAmI tags," "like tags," "dislike tags"), slogans, and jingles, suggesting a rich, socially-oriented platform far more specific than a typical user account (’099 Patent, col. 11:17-33; Fig. 5c).

• The Term: "subscriber sub-pool"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that subscribers on a "selection list" form "a plurality of at least one of an open and a closed subscriber sub-pool." The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether standard features like a contact list or a private chat group in the accused product can be shown to meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims that these sub-pools are formed from subscribers stored in a "selection list," which could arguably encompass any group of users selected from a contact list (’099 Patent, col. 22:46-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes sub-pools as logical groupings based on complex criteria, such as shared "like/dislike tags," and as having distinct roles like a "stage" for "actors" and an "audience" for "viewers," implying a more structured and specialized arrangement than a generic contact list (’099 Patent, col. 8:9-15, col. 10:5-11).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" through its "website and product instruction manuals" to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10-11). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused products are not staple commercial products and their "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’099 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10 n.2).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, which relies on a non-proffered exhibit for its core infringement allegations, provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief or if it will face an early motion to dismiss for failure to meet federal pleading standards.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "virtual subscriber profile", described in the patent with features for rich self-portrayal in a social context, be construed to cover the user accounts within Defendant's business-oriented communication software? Similarly, does a feature like a "contact list" in a commercial chat application constitute the claimed "subscriber sub-pool"?
3. Mismatch in Technical Operation: A central evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused technology, designed primarily for structured customer support, actually perform the specific combination of user-driven, flexible connection methods required by Claim 1—including a "random process" for connection—or is there a fundamental difference in the technical problem being solved and the solution implemented?