Data Resonance LLC v. Ipvanish Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data Resonance LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: IPVanish, Inc. (Florida, with an established place of business in New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01769, S.D.N.Y., 03/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services from Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for identifying and managing related "families" of data records to eliminate duplicates.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the common problem of duplicate or fragmented records in large databases, particularly those containing contact or business information, by identifying non-obvious, indirect relationships between data entries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-03-04	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 (based on application filing date)
2005-08-23	U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 Issues
2025-03-03	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 - Method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records, issued August 23, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of duplicate data records in large databases, which are costly for businesses (e.g., sending duplicate marketing materials) and can make data retrieval difficult (e.g., tracking customer billing) (’714 Patent, col. 1:12-38). Existing de-duplication systems are described as being limited to simple field matching, which is often defeated by minor variations in data entry (’714 Patent, col. 1:39-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Data Family Record Management System" that groups related data records into "families" (’714 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by identifying not only direct relationships (e.g., two records sharing the same phone number) but also indirect, "embedded" relationships (’714 Patent, col. 2:11-16). For example, Record A may be linked to Record B by a common address, and Record B may be linked to Record C by a common company name, thereby establishing an indirect "family" relationship between A, B, and C, as illustrated in Figure 1 (’714 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:14-52). The system then uses these family associations to manage the data, such as by preventing the addition of a new record that is a duplicate of an existing family member (’714 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a more sophisticated approach to data cleansing and management than simple record-to-record comparison, enabling the identification of complex, multi-level relationships within large, non-uniform datasets (’714 Patent, col. 4:24-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified "method claims" of the '714 patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Determining a set of records that are "directly-related" to a designated record based on a common value in at least one data field.
  • Using that set of directly-related records to automatically determine a "potential family of records" which includes records that are "indirectly related to each other."
  • Adding the designated record to the potential family only after determining it is not a duplicate of a record already in the family.
  • Automatically setting an indicator in each record of the potential family to signify the family relationship.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general reference to "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no description of the technical functionality, features, or market context of the accused products or services (Compl. ¶¶11-14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but does not provide claim charts or a narrative explanation of its infringement theory, instead incorporating by reference "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products, and also by "having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Due to the absence of Exhibit 2, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory rests entirely on the conclusory allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '714 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '714 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, which lacks any specific factual allegations tying the accused products to the claim elements and relies entirely on an unfiled exhibit, meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleadings established by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification heavily focuses on de-duplicating customer and business contact records for applications like marketing mailings (’714 Patent, col. 1:18-24). Given that the defendant is IPVanish, Inc., which suggests a business in network services, a central question may be whether the patent's claims, when interpreted in light of the specification, can be construed to cover systems that manage different types of data, such as user accounts, network logs, or other data not related to physical contact information.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused systems perform the specific multi-step process recited in the claims. This includes not only identifying direct data links but also using those links to recursively or iteratively find "indirectly related" records and then using that "potential family" to perform de-duplication and set a "family relationship" indicator, as claimed (’714 Patent, col. 18:7-27). The complaint provides no evidence or even a specific allegation on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "potential family of records" / "family relationship"

  • Context and Importance: These terms are the conceptual core of the invention. Their construction will determine the breadth of the claims and is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether "family" is a general term for any linked data or is implicitly limited by the patent's disclosure to the specific context of business/contact information.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use general terms like "data records" and "data fields" without express limitation to a specific type of data (’714 Patent, col. 18:8-14). This could support an argument that the concept applies to any database where records can be linked by common field values.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's background, summary, and detailed examples are consistently focused on managing contact information for individuals and businesses to solve problems like duplicate mailings (’714 Patent, col. 1:12-24; col. 5:14-52). A defendant may argue that these consistent examples limit the scope of "family" to this disclosed context.

• The Term: "indirectly related"

  • Context and Importance: This term captures the invention's key departure from simple, direct-match de-duplication. The definition of how records are "indirectly" linked is critical to determining the scope of the method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this concept as a transitive relationship through "multiple levels of embedding," where one record is related to a second, which is in turn related to a third (’714 Patent, col. 2:25-28; col. 4:18-23). This supports a broad, abstract definition of indirectness not tied to any single mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts disclose specific recursive algorithms for finding these relationships by searching for common phone numbers and addresses (’714 Patent, Figs. 13-14). A party could argue that these disclosed algorithms inform, and potentially limit, the meaning of "indirectly related" to relationships discoverable through such processes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (induced or contributory). Its sole count is for direct infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It does, however, request that the case be "declared exceptional" and seeks an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶E(i)).

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

This case, in its current posture, will likely turn on foundational pleading issues before reaching technical merits. The central questions for the court will be:

1. Pleading Sufficiency: Does a complaint that provides no factual detail about the accused technology and relies entirely on an unfiled exhibit state a plausible claim for patent infringement, or does it represent the type of conclusory pleading that Twombly/Iqbal was intended to prevent?
2. Definitional Scope: Will the core claim term "family of records," which is heavily contextualized in the patent's specification as relating to business and marketing contact lists, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused systems, which likely manage a different type of data (e.g., network user accounts)?
3. Evidentiary Proof: Assuming the case proceeds, a key question will be one of functional operation: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-step method of identifying direct relationships, using them to find indirect relationships, and setting a "family" identifier, as required by the asserted method claims?