Multimodal Media LLC v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal Media LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00436, E.D. Tex., 09/02/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s OnePlus brand smartphones infringe five patents related to interactive messaging, voice message integration, incomplete call completion, multi-gesture media recording, and cross-network data file communication.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover fundamental features of modern smartphone messaging and communication, including the integration of different media types (text, voice, location data) and user interface interactions for creating and managing communications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history events related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,929,949 - “Interactive Multimodal Messaging”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes limitations in early mobile communications, where voice calls required simultaneous connection, text messages were limited in content and interactivity, and multimedia messages were static and could not be altered when forwarded (Compl. ¶16; ’949 Patent, col. 1:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a sender creates an "interactive multimodal message" (e.g., combining text, images, and scripted interfaces) that is stored on a server. The recipient receives a notification containing a pointer (e.g., a text link) to this stored message. Accessing the pointer triggers the interactive content on the recipient's device, allowing for dynamic interactions like selecting options that could affect content or billing (’949 Patent, col. 4:7-21, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach decoupled the message content from the initial notification, enabling richer, server-driven interactive experiences on mobile devices beyond the capabilities of standard SMS or MMS at the time (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
• Claim 1 outlines a method with the following essential elements:
  • Creating an interactive multimodal message by a sender using a client application.
  • Storing the created message at a server.
  • Sending a notification from the server to a recipient's mobile device, where the notification comprises a pointer to the stored message.
  • Triggering the stored message on the recipient's device by accessing the pointer.
  • Transmitting service information to the recipient's device through the triggered message.
  • Enabling recipient interaction via the triggered message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶63).

U.S. Patent No. 8,107,978 - “Addressing Voice SMS Messages”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art voice SMS messaging required senders to use the recipient's phone number (MSISDN) directly, which prevented the practical use of contacts stored in a local address book (’978 Patent, col. 1:51-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a client application on a mobile device intercepts a standard text message. It then prompts the user whether to add a voice component. If the user agrees, the device connects to a server, records the voice message, and the server stores it. A text message is then sent to the recipient containing a notification and information (e.g., a number to dial) to access the stored voice message, thereby combining standard text addressing with server-stored voice content (’978 Patent, col. 3:42-57, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This method integrated voice messaging into the familiar text messaging workflow, allowing users to leverage their existing contact lists to send voice messages without needing a dedicated voice messaging application with its own addressing system (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶74).
• Claim 10 outlines a system with the following essential elements:
  • A client application on a mobile device that integrates voice content to a text message created by a user using recipient addressing from text SMS.
  • A memory storage for a list of recipient addresses.
  • A user interface for the user to input voice and text messages.
  • A server for remotely recording and storing the user's voice messages.
  • The server is configured to provide the recipient with access to the recorded voice message.
  • The client application transmits a voice message notification with an addressed text message to recipients.
• The complaint refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 9,185,227 - “Sender Driven Call Completion System”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses prior art call completion services (like voicemail) that were controlled by the called party's network. The invention provides a call completion application on the calling party's device that detects an incomplete call and allows the calling party to trigger actions like setting a reminder or sending a message, independent of the called party’s network services (Compl. ¶¶34-35).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Google Duo application on the Accused Products provides a call completion application that detects an incomplete call and allows the user to perform an action, such as sending a voice message or receiving a reminder to call back (Compl. ¶85, pp. 32-34).

U.S. Patent No. 10,552,030 - “Multi-gesture Media Recording System”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes drawbacks of prior art media recording methods, such as push-to-talk, which were limited to a single mode and did not allow for actions like canceling a recording mid-gesture. The invention proposes a system with multiple interface regions on a GUI where different gestures (e.g., press-and-hold, swipe) can trigger different actions, such as starting a recording, switching recording modes, or canceling the recording (Compl. ¶¶48-49).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
• Accused Features: The gesture-based audio recording feature in applications like Google Messages on the Accused Products is alleged to infringe. Specifically, the complaint points to a user interface where a "press and hold" gesture starts recording and a "slide" gesture can cancel it (Compl. ¶94, p. 37).

U.S. Patent No. 8,161,116 - “Method and System for Communicating a Data File Over a Network”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of sending data files (like voicemails) across incompatible carrier networks. The invention describes a system where a sender transmits a data file to a messaging server, which stores the file and sends a notification message with a "unique access address" to the recipient. The recipient then uses this address to retrieve the file, allowing communication regardless of the underlying network technologies (Compl. ¶¶54, 58).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Rich Communication Services (RCS) protocol, as implemented in the Messages/Chat app on the Accused Products, practices the claimed method by transmitting files to a content server and sending notifications (e.g., SIP INVITE) with a data URL to recipients across different carrier networks (Compl. ¶¶104, 106).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Various OnePlus brand smartphones, including the OnePlus 10 Pro 5G, OnePlus 9 Pro 5G, and OnePlus Nord N200 5G, among others (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶60).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products operate on OnePlus OxygenOS, which is based on the Google Android operating system (Compl. ¶64). The accused functionalities are primarily software-based features available through this OS.
• Specific accused applications and features include: Google Messages/Chat for interactive and RCS-based messaging (Compl. ¶¶65, 94, 104); Google Assistant for voice-activated messaging (Compl. ¶74, p. 24); and Google Duo for video calling and incomplete call completion (Compl. ¶85).
• A screenshot in the complaint shows that when using Google Messages, a user can send text, audio messages, location data, and other files, which are presented as a multimodal conversation (Compl. p. 19).
• Another visual from a user manual indicates that Google Duo is pre-installed on the Accused Products (Compl. p. 29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’949 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a modern URL link sent within a messaging app qualifies as a "pointer" as contemplated by the 2009-filed patent. The defense may argue the patent describes a more specific type of pointer, while the plaintiff may argue a URL is the modern equivalent.
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the initial message sent to the recipient is merely a "notification" containing a pointer, or if it contains the full message content itself. For example, if an audio file is embedded directly in an MMS message rather than being linked, it raises the question of whether the message is truly "stored at a server" and accessed via a separate "pointer" as required by the claim.

’978 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The claim requires a "client application" that "integrates" voice content. A potential dispute is whether the functionality provided by the Android OS and separate Google apps constitutes a single "client application" in the sense claimed by the patent.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be where the voice message is actually stored and how it is transmitted. If the audio file is sent directly peer-to-peer or as a standard MMS attachment, the defense may argue it is not "remotely" stored on a "server" for access in the manner described by the patent, which appears to contemplate a dial-in or separate access method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’949 Patent

• The Term: "pointer"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory. The plaintiff's case may depend on construing "pointer" broadly to include modern hyperlinks (URLs) within messages. A narrower construction could limit the claim to specific technologies mentioned in the patent, such as USSD codes, which may not be what the accused system uses.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the function of the pointer is to allow the recipient to "access" the stored message, a general description that could encompass various linking technologies (’949 Patent, col. 4:22-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of pointers, stating, "The pointer may, for example, be a text link to the stored interactive multimodal message, a USSD code, etc." (’949 Patent, col. 4:17-19). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these contemporaneous examples.

For the ’978 Patent

• The Term: "integrates voice content to a text message"
• Context and Importance: The meaning of "integrates" will be critical. The plaintiff will likely argue this covers any method of combining voice and text in a single user experience, such as sending an audio file within a text-based chat. The defendant may argue it requires a specific technical integration described in the patent, where a client application intercepts a standard SMS and attaches a notification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes a general method for "allowing voice short message service (SMS) messaging using methods of recipient addressing as used by text SMS messaging," suggesting the focus is on the user experience of addressing rather than a specific technical backend.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains a specific process where the "client application intercepts 104a the addressed text SMS message" and then "prompts 104b the user" (’978 Patent, col. 3:42-46). This suggests a specific, multi-step integration process that may differ from how modern messaging apps are architected.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five patents. The allegations are based on Defendant providing the Accused Products to end-users and instructing them on how to use the infringing features through the OnePlus Support website and user manuals (e.g., Compl. ¶¶68, 79, 88, 97, 116).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes "with knowledge" of the patents "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶67, 78). It further alleges inducement "with the belief that there was a high probability that others...infringe...but while remaining willfully blind to the infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶68, 79). This framing suggests a theory based on willful blindness and post-suit knowledge rather than pre-suit notice.

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

This dispute will likely center on the challenge of applying patent claims, drafted between 2003 and 2012, to the integrated and feature-rich smartphone ecosystem of today. The central questions for the court may be:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms from an earlier era of mobile technology, such as "pointer" (’949 Patent) and a "client application" that "intercepts" a text message (’978 Patent), be construed to cover modern technical implementations like embedded URLs and integrated operating system functionalities in Android?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused features, which are largely based on Google’s software ecosystem (Messages, Duo, RCS), operate in the specific client-server manner required by the claims? For instance, is message content truly "stored at a server" and accessed via a separate "notification" (’949 Patent), or are modern protocols fundamentally different?
• A third question will relate to infringement liability: Given that the accused functionality is largely provided by Google's Android OS and applications, what level of control and intent can be attributed to OPPO, the device manufacturer, to support the claims of direct and induced infringement?