DCT

2:17-cv-00328

Mantis Communications LLC v. Baskin Robbins Franchising LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00328, E.D. Tex., 04/18/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, have transacted business there, and have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, including through the operation of numerous retail stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ products and services for targeted content delivery to mobile devices infringe seven patents related to initiating mobile data communication utilizing a trigger system.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for enabling users to initiate communication with an organization via a mobile device by using an external "trigger system" rather than the device's native messaging functions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that all patents-in-suit share a common specification and claim priority to a 2002 provisional application. The complaint also contains extensive pre-emptive arguments that the patent claims are directed to a specific technological solution and not an abstract idea, suggesting that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be a central issue in the litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-19 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2008-07-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,403,788 Issues
2010-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,792,518 Issues
2012-03-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,131,262 Issues
2013-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,437,784 Issues
2014-06-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,761,732 Issues
2015-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,938,215 Issues
2015-07-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,092,803 Issues
2017-04-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,403,788 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,403,788, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued July 22, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty for organizations to obtain a user's mobile device address to initiate communication, particularly in a "mobile setting" like a public place (Compl. ¶7; ’788 Patent, col. 2:41-52). It notes that prior methods using a mobile device's native messaging capabilities were often cumbersome due to a lack of standardized service access codes and the difficulty of entering text (e.g., an email address) on a numeric keypad (’788 Patent, col. 3:32-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user interacts with an external "trigger system" (such as an IVR system, kiosk, or card reader) instead of their phone's messaging application (’788 Patent, col. 5:1-7). This trigger system captures a "unique identifier" (like a phone number or account number), which is then forwarded to a central message application server. The server uses the identifier to retrieve the user's mobile device address and sends a message (e.g., a coupon or offer) to the user's device (’788 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:8-14).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to provide a faster, easier, and more familiar method for users to opt-in to mobile marketing campaigns, thereby improving user response rates over methods that required manual message composition on the mobile device itself (’788 Patent, col. 4:42-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted against the Defendant, instead incorporating by reference a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,792,518 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,792,518, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued September 7, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’788 Patent, the ’518 Patent arises from the same specification and addresses the same technical problems of initiating mobile communications in a convenient manner (Compl. ¶4; ’518 Patent, col. 1:7-14). The background highlights the lack of a standardized, practical way for a user's interactions with non-mobile systems to trigger timely communication with their mobile devices (Compl. ¶7).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’518 Patent describes the same core architecture as the ’788 Patent, involving a trigger system, a message application server, and a mobile network to deliver content (’518 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The claims of this patent build upon the core system, with some embodiments focusing on aspects such as generating a specific offer for the user and validating that offer at a point of redemption (’518 Patent, col. 15:8-21).
  • Technical Importance: This system aimed to create a complete, end-to-end mobile promotion and redemption framework, which was not practically available at the time of the invention due to a lack of standardization and user familiarity with mobile data services (Compl. ¶¶7, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted against the Defendant, instead incorporating by reference a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 8,131,262 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,131,262, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued March 6, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, sharing the common specification, also describes a system for enabling targeted content delivery to a mobile device. It utilizes a trigger system with a client component (e.g., a card reader or IVR) and a server component that communicates with a message application server to derive a mobile device address and send content (’262 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:39-61).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "targeted content delivery products or services" (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 8,437,784 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,437,784, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued May 7, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to build on the core invention of using an external trigger to initiate mobile messaging. It describes the system architecture where a trigger signal containing a unique identifier is generated and processed by a message application server to derive a mobile device address and send content in response (’784 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "targeted content delivery products or services" (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,761,732 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,761,732, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued June 24, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes the core system for initiating mobile communication via a trigger. The claims appear to focus on variations of the system, including those where the generated content comprises customer relationship management information or graphical images (’732 Patent, col. 16:63-65, 17:11-13).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "targeted content delivery products or services" (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 8,938,215 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,938,215, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued January 20, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing from the common specification, this patent describes the trigger system architecture for delivering mobile content. The claims appear to include limitations related to generating content that includes verification data, which can be used in a redemption process (’215 Patent, col. 15:63-65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶74).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "targeted content delivery products or services" (Compl. ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 9,092,803 - System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,092,803, System and Method to Initiate a Mobile Data Communication Utilizing a Trigger System, issued July 28, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to the core system of initiating mobile communications via an external trigger. The claims appear to focus on system configurations where the trigger server component is a web server that receives the trigger signal from a client (’803 Patent, col. 15:57-60).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "targeted content delivery products or services" (Compl. ¶79).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendants’ "products or services for targeted content delivery on a mobile device" (Compl. ¶¶37, 44, 51, 58, 65, 72, 79).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not specify the name, features, or technical operation of any particular Baskin-Robbins product, service, or marketing program. It alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendants "make, use, sell, or offer for sale" services that "provide or support enabling targeted content delivery to a mobile device as described and claimed in the" patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶37). No further technical details regarding the accused instrumentalities are provided.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations on a claim-by-claim basis, as it refers to non-proffered claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent and does not identify any asserted claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶40, 46, 54, 61, 68, 74, 81).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying key claim terms for construction, as no specific claims are identified for any of the patents-in-suit.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief requests that the infringement be adjudged willful and that damages be trebled pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶G, H). The body of the complaint does not, however, plead a factual basis for this allegation, such as Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

  • A primary procedural question will be one of sufficiency of the pleadings: given that the complaint identifies neither a specific accused product nor any specific asserted patent claims, a key issue may be whether the allegations meet the plausibility pleading standards required for patent infringement under Federal Circuit precedent.
  • A central substantive issue, foreshadowed by the complaint's extensive arguments, will be patent eligibility: are the patents-in-suit, which claim systems for initiating and managing marketing communications, directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and if so, do they contain a sufficient inventive concept to be patentable under the framework of 35 U.S.C. § 101?
  • A core evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: assuming the case proceeds, discovery will need to establish the precise technical operation of the accused Baskin-Robbins "targeted content delivery products or services" to determine if they practice the methods and systems described in the patents-in-suit.