DCT

2:16-cv-00991

Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Electronics USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00991, E.D. Tex., 09/06/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is deemed to reside in the district and has committed acts of infringement there, including sales of accused devices to customers in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android smartphones with instant voice messaging capabilities infringe four patents related to instant Voice over IP (VoIP) messaging systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that combine the immediacy of text-based instant messaging with the expressiveness of voice communication over packet-switched networks like the Internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. as the owner of the patents-in-suit and Uniloc USA, Inc. as the exclusive licensee with substantial rights, including the right to enforce the patents. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-18 Priority Date for ’890, ’747, ’622, and ’433 Patents
2009-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 Issued
2012-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 Issued
2014-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 Issued
2015-03-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 Issued
2016-09-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622 - “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,724,622, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING,” issued May 13, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section, which mirrors that of its parent patent, describes conventional voice messaging as a cumbersome process involving dialing, waiting for a connection, and navigating menus, while instant text messaging, though immediate, lacks vocal nuance (’622 Patent, col. 2:11-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a client-server system for instant voice messaging over a packet-switched network. A user on a client device selects one or more recipients from a list, generates an instant voice message, and transmits it to a server, which then delivers the message to the selected recipients for immediate audible playback (’622 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60). The system is designed to provide the immediacy of text messaging for voice communications.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline voice communication by removing the multi-step, delayed process of traditional voicemail and making it a near real-time, push-based interaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts numerous dependent claims, which rely on independent claims 1, 9, 22, and 36 (Compl. ¶33). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Receiving from a server, by a client device, a list of one or more recipients and displaying the list on a user interface of the client device.
    • Receiving a selection of at least one recipient from the list of the one or more recipients.
    • Generating an instant voice message for the at least one recipient.
    • Transmitting the instant voice message from the client device to the server for delivery to the at least one recipient.
  • The complaint asserts a broad range of claims but does not explicitly reserve the right to assert others.

U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 - “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING,” issued March 31, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent patents, the ’433 Patent addresses the inefficiency and lack of immediacy in traditional telephony and voicemail systems (’433 Patent, col. 2:12-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server instant voice messaging system with specific features for message management. It discloses a method where messages are temporarily stored using a "unique identifier" and a "file manager" is provided to the user for storing, retrieving, or deleting messages upon request, enhancing user control over the voice messages (’433 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This patent adds a layer of explicit message management functionality to the underlying instant voice messaging system, akin to features found in email or text messaging applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 25 and 26 (Compl. ¶44). Independent claims 1 and 25 are asserted.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Receiving from a server a list of one or more potential recipients and displaying the list on a user interface of a client device.
    • Receiving a selection of at least one recipient from the list.
    • Generating an instant voice message for the at least one recipient.
    • Transmitting the instant voice message from the client device to the server for delivery, wherein the instant message is temporarily stored using a unique identifier.
    • Providing a file manager for at least one of storing, retrieving, or deleting the instant voice message in response to a user request.

U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 - “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING,” issued May 19, 2009 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Technology Synopsis: As the parent patent in the asserted family, the ’890 Patent discloses the foundational client-server architecture for instant VoIP messaging. The technology is designed to overcome the delays of traditional voicemail by enabling users to select recipients from a list, record a voice message, and have it delivered immediately over an IP network, with the server temporarily storing the message if a recipient is offline (Compl. ¶55; ’890 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: 1-3, 5-6, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 40, 42, 43, 51, 53, 54, and 57 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the performance of instant voice messaging over Wi-Fi and the Internet, wherein messages for unavailable recipients are temporarily stored and delivered once the recipient becomes available (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 - “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING,” issued June 12, 2012 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’747 Patent describes an instant voice messaging system where an audio file is generated and one or more other files can be attached to it before transmission. The system also includes the capability to temporarily store the message and its attachments for an intended recipient who is unavailable and deliver it once they become available (Compl. ¶66).
  • Asserted Claims: 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets the functionality of generating an instant message audio file, attaching other files to it, transmitting the files to recipients, and temporarily storing the message for later delivery to unavailable recipients (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • "numerous versions of the LG Android IVM smartphones" and their associated servers (Compl. ¶33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused devices are capable of instant voice messaging over Wi-Fi and the Internet, allowing for the transmission of digitized audio files between users on a packet-switched network (Compl. ¶33). The complaint provides visual evidence illustrating the accused functionality, such as a screenshot of an interface showing options to attach content, including "Record voice" (Compl. ¶17, p. 6). Another screenshot shows a list of saved "Recorded files," suggesting a file management system for voice messages (Compl. ¶21, p. 8). The complaint asserts that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these smartphones in the United States (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’622 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving from a server...a list of one or more recipients...and displaying the list...on a user interface of a client device The accused smartphones display a contact list from which a user can select a recipient for a message. A screenshot shows a "Contacts" screen listing multiple potential recipients (Compl. ¶30, p. 12). ¶33 col. 7:46-54
receiving a selection of at least one recipient from the list A user selects a contact from the list to initiate a messaging session. A screenshot depicts a messaging thread with a specific, selected contact named "Joan" (Compl. ¶22, p. 8). ¶33 col. 8:1-3
generating an instant voice message for the at least one recipient The smartphones provide a "Record voice" feature within the messaging application and a "Voice Recorder" interface to create an audio message (Compl. ¶17, p. 6; Compl. ¶20, p. 7). ¶33 col. 8:4-10
transmitting the instant voice message from the client device to the server for delivery to the at least one recipient The complaint alleges transmission of digitized audio files over a packet-switched network. A screenshot illustrates a sent voice message appearing as a playable file within a conversation (Compl. ¶24, p. 9). ¶33 col. 8:11-15
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the generic functionality of a standard Android contact list and messaging application falls within the scope of the claimed method. The defense may argue that displaying a general-purpose contact list is not equivalent to the claimed step of receiving and displaying a list of "recipients" from a server for the specific purpose of instant voice messaging.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the steps are performed in a client/server environment. The court may need to consider what evidence supports the claim that the displayed contact list is actively "received from a server" in the manner claimed, as opposed to being stored locally on the device and synced periodically.

’433 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...transmitting the instant voice message...wherein the instant message is temporarily stored using a unique identifier The complaint alleges messages are temporarily stored with a unique identifier. A screenshot shows a sent voice message with a filename, "Voice00003.amr," which could serve as such an identifier (Compl. ¶24, p. 9). ¶44 Abstract
providing a file manager for at least one of storing, retrieving, or deleting the instant voice message in response to a user request The complaint alleges the accused devices provide a file manager. Visual evidence includes a messaging interface that stores and lists past messages, and a separate screen showing a list of "Recorded files" with timestamps (Compl. ¶21, p. 8). ¶44 Abstract
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "unique identifier" will be critical. The analysis may focus on whether a sequentially generated filename (e.g., "Voice00004.amr") meets the claim's requirement, or if a more specific type of identifier, such as a GUID, is implicitly required by the specification.
    • Technical Questions: It raises the question of whether the standard user interface for a messaging application, which allows viewing and deleting messages, constitutes the claimed "file manager," or if the claim requires a more distinct software component with specific functionalities for storing, retrieving, and deleting.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "recipient" (’622 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central because the patent family's specification often describes the invention in the context of instant messaging systems that display lists of "online" users. The accused smartphones display a general contact list without necessarily indicating online status. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether displaying a standard address book meets this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 does not explicitly require the "recipient" to be online or for their status to be displayed. It only requires displaying a "list of one or more recipients."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section of the parent '890 Patent repeatedly analogizes the invention to "instant text messaging," which at the time of invention typically involved presenting "a list of persons who are currently 'online'" ('890 Patent, col. 2:31-33). This context could be used to argue for a narrower definition that requires some form of presence information.
  • The Term: "unique identifier" (’433 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: Infringement of the '433 patent's key claims hinges on whether the accused smartphones use a "unique identifier" to temporarily store messages. The dispute will likely center on whether a simple filename generated by the operating system satisfies this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the ’433 Patent. A party could argue that in the context of a file system, any name that distinguishes one file from another (e.g., "Voice00001.amr") is, by definition, a unique identifier within that system.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might point to the specification of the parent '890 Patent, which explicitly discusses the use of a "globally unique identifier ('GUID')" (col. 14:12-14). While this term appears in a different context within the '890 specification, it could be argued that the patent family contemplates a more robust, formally unique identifier than a simple filename.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly instructing customers on how to use the infringing features through user guides, training videos, and other materials (Compl. ¶¶35, 46, 57, 68). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the claim that the accused smartphones are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶36, 47, 58, 69).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful." However, it lays the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement by asserting that Defendant will be on notice of the patents upon service of the complaint and that any continued infringement will be knowing and intentional (Compl. ¶¶38, 49, 60, 71).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely depend heavily on claim construction. Can terms like "unique identifier" and "file manager," as used in the '433 patent, be construed to cover the generic filename and user interface conventions of the Android operating system, or does the patent specification support a narrower, more technically specific meaning?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: The infringement theory rests on mapping the claims onto general-purpose smartphone functions. This raises the question of whether the accused products perform the specific, ordered steps required by the claims. For example, does displaying a locally-stored contact list that periodically syncs with a server meet the limitation of "receiving from a server...a list of one or more recipients" for the express purpose of initiating a voice message, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the alleged and actual technical operation?