Coretek Licensing LLC v. Inteliquent Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Coretek Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Inteliquent, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01158, N.D. Ohio, 06/29/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including a physical office in Cleveland, Ohio.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Voyant - OfficeXtend" communications software infringes four patents related to methods for enabling wireless devices to initiate network connections by bypassing a traditional network operator's home location register (HLR) and a related patent on dynamic VoIP location systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves Voice over IP (VoIP) systems that operate "over-the-top" of traditional cellular networks, a foundational technology for many modern mobile communication applications that compete with carrier-provided services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,861,512, "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued October 14, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment where wireless device users are restricted by their home network operator, which controls call routing, tariffs, and service access through a central database called a Home Location Register (HLR). This control limits user choice and competition, particularly for users roaming outside their home network (’512 Patent, col. 1:26-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that bypasses the HLR for call routing. A wireless device uses a downloadable software module (Proprietary Application Module, or PAM) to send a call request, via protocols like SMS or HTTP, directly to an independent application server. This server, not the HLR, then determines the optimal routing for the connection across any available network, effectively decoupling the call-setup process from the mobile network operator's control (’512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-61). The overall system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing the application server (AS) with its calls manager (PASCM) acting as the intermediary between wireless devices and various networks (’512 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture enables so-called 'virtual mobile network operators' (VMNOs) and other service providers to offer competitive routing and pricing without needing to access or depend on the incumbent network operators' HLR infrastructure (’512 Patent, col. 2:41-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method), 23 (a system), and 24 (a server) (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method of enabling a wireless device to initiate a network connection without using a network operator's home location register (HLR).
  • The wireless device uses a downloadable software module to contact a server over a wireless link.
  • The module is used to send data defining a call request to the server.
  • In response, a software application on the server decides the appropriate routing to an end-user over available networks, without using the HLR.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4, 5, 8, and 12 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶25, ¶99).

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,154, "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued October 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’512 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of HLR dependency for wireless call routing (’154 Patent, col. 1:26-51).
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is functionally identical to that of the ’512 Patent, utilizing a software module on a device and an independent server to bypass the HLR for call routing decisions. The key distinction lies in the claims, which are directed more specifically to a "wireless handheld cellular phone device" (’154 Patent, Claim 1). The system architecture is based on the same disclosure and figures as the parent patent (’154 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:51-61).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the ’512 Patent, relating to the enablement of competitive services independent of traditional mobile network operator infrastructure (’154 Patent, col. 2:41-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method), 22 (a system), 23 (a server), and 24 (a computer program product) (Compl. ¶42).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are substantively identical to claim 1 of the ’512 Patent, but specify the device as a "wireless handheld cellular phone device."
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 4, 7, and 11 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶42, ¶131).

U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575, "DYNAMIC VOIP LOCATION SYSTEM," Issued June 14, 2016

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,369,575, "DYNAMIC VOIP LOCATION SYSTEM," Issued June 14, 2016 (Compl. ¶43).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of reliably determining the current network location (i.e., the "VoIP address or return path") of a wireless device to enable dependable VoIP communications. The invention describes a system where a software module on a device periodically authenticates with a server, dynamically reporting its current VoIP location into a database that other applications can then query to establish contact, while also managing power consumption (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-30).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (a system) is asserted (Compl. ¶49).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Voyant - OfficeXtend" application and its associated server create a system that detects, determines, and stores the VoIP location of user devices in a database for call routing, thereby infringing the ’575 Patent (Compl. ¶134-138).

U.S. Patent No. 9,591,551, "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued March 7, 2017

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,591,551, "METHOD OF ENABLING A WIRELESS DEVICE TO MAKE A NETWORK CONNECTION WITHOUT USING A NETWORK OPERATOR'S HOME LOCATION REGISTER," Issued March 7, 2017 (Compl. ¶50).
• Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the ’512 and ’154 patents, this patent claims the HLR-bypass invention in the form of a computer program product. It describes software embodied on a non-transitory storage medium that, when executed on a wireless device, configures the device to contact a server and request a network connection, which the server then routes without using the HLR (’551 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 (computer program product), 22 (method), 23 (system), and 24 (server) are asserted (Compl. ¶71).
• Accused Features: The "Voyant - OfficeXtend" software is alleged to be a computer program product that, when installed and run on a smartphone, performs the claimed method of bypassing the HLR for call routing (Compl. ¶144).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is the "Voyant - OfficeXtend" communications software, which includes a client-side "OfficeXtend Mobile application" and a server-side "OfficeXtend Mobile Server" (Compl. ¶72, ¶75, ¶100).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the "Voyant - OfficeXtend" software as a system that provides VoIP communications. Functionally, a user installs the "OfficeXtend Mobile application" on a wireless device like a smartphone. This application communicates over an IP network (e.g., Wi-Fi) with the "OfficeXtend Mobile Server" to initiate and manage calls using protocols such as SIP/VoIP Invite (Compl. ¶74, ¶76). This architecture allegedly bypasses the traditional cellular network operator's Home Location Register for call routing decisions (Compl. ¶74, ¶102).
• The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the Accused Product's commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations provided in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’512 Patent Infringement Allegations

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for both the ’512 and ’154 patents will be the scope of the phrase "without using a network operator's home location register." The complaint alleges infringement because the accused product uses the internet for calling. A court may need to determine if this method constitutes a complete bypass as envisioned by the patents, or if underlying data transport still relies on HLR functions for network authentication or access in a way that falls outside the claim scope.
• Technical Questions: For the infringement theory to hold, the "OfficeXtend Mobile application" must be shown to perform the functions of the claimed "module," and the "OfficeXtend Mobile Server" must perform the functions of the claimed "server." A potential point of contention is whether the accused components are simple VoIP clients and servers, or if they perform the more complex, integrated functions (e.g., location updates, multi-protocol communication) described in the patent specifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"without using a network operator's home location register" (’512 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of the invention and the primary basis for the non-infringement defense. Its construction will determine whether using general-purpose IP networks for call routing, as alleged, is sufficient to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation dictates whether the invention covers all "over-the-top" VoIP applications or is limited to a more specific type of HLR bypass.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems limited to the cellular-specific MAP protocol, suggesting that using other protocols like HTTP or SMS to communicate with a server could be infringing activity (’512 Patent, col. 2:56-61). This may support a broader reading where avoiding HLR-based call routing is the key.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section describes the HLR's role as including subscriber identity, service subscription, and location information for routing calls (’512 Patent, col. 2:11-16). A defendant could argue the term requires bypassing all these functions, and that if the underlying data connection still relies on an HLR for network access, the method is not performed "without using" it.

"module" (’512 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The complaint equates this term with the "OfficeXtend Mobile application" (Compl. ¶75). The scope of "module" is critical to determining if the accused application meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "module can be implemented as software that is downloadable to the device," which could encompass any software application performing the recited function of contacting the server (’512 Patent, col. 3:9-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show the "module" (PAM) as a complex component with distinct sub-modules for location updates, call-setup, and media server connections (’512 Patent, Figs. 6-10). This may support a narrower construction where the "module" must be shown to possess this specific, multi-part functionality, not just be a generic VoIP client.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced infringement for all four patents, stating Defendant encouraged infringement with knowledge (e.g., Compl. ¶94, ¶126). However, the complaint does not allege specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or other instructions that would encourage users to perform the claimed infringing steps.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful" infringement. It alleges that Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶92, ¶124). This allegation, if proven, could only support a claim for enhanced damages for post-filing conduct, not pre-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "without using a network operator's home location register" be construed to cover any call routing over a general-purpose IP network, as Plaintiff alleges? Or will the court adopt a narrower definition requiring a more complete technical separation from all HLR-related functions, potentially including underlying data-layer authentication?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the accused "Voyant - OfficeXtend" application and server system perform the specific, multi-part functions of the "module" and "server" as detailed in the patent specifications, or is there a functional mismatch? The resolution may depend on whether the court views the claims as covering any basic over-the-top VoIP system or a more specific, integrated architecture.