Multimodal Media LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Multimodal Media LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00462, E.D. Tex., 11/29/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is not a U.S. resident and may be sued in any district. It is also alleged to be proper for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. based on its corporate offices in Plano, Texas, and the presence of authorized sellers conducting business within the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s smartphone and tablet products infringe four patents related to interactive messaging, voice message integration, incomplete call completion, and gesture-based media recording.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue govern fundamental features of modern mobile communication, including how users interact with rich media in messages, handle unanswered calls, and record content using touch-screen gestures.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative challenges (e.g., IPRs) involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-25	’978 Patent Priority Date
2009-02-03	’949 Patent Priority Date
2009-06-01	Earliest Accused Product Launch (GT-I7500 Galaxy)
2011-04-19	’949 Patent Issue Date
2012-01-31	’978 Patent Issue Date
2012-10-15	’030 Patent Priority Date
2012-12-14	’227 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-10	’227 Patent Issue Date
2020-02-04	’030 Patent Issue Date
2022-11-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,929,949 - "Interactive Multimodal Messaging," issued April 19, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to move beyond static text and multimedia messages, which have limited interactivity, and voicemail systems where interactivity is controlled by the server rather than being an intrinsic part of the message itself (’949 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a sender uses a client application to create an "interactive multimodal message," which is then stored on a server. The server sends a notification to the recipient containing a "pointer" (e.g., a hyperlink) to the stored message. When the recipient accesses the pointer, the interactive content is triggered on their device, enabling dynamic, scripted interactions without having to first download a large, static file (’949 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-27).
• Technical Importance: This server-side storage and pointer-based triggering system allowed for more complex, application-like messaging experiences while conserving device resources and network bandwidth compared to traditional MMS.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • Creating an "interactive multimodal message" using a client application, where the message is stored at a server.
  • The server sending a notification with a "pointer" to the stored message to the recipient's mobile device.
  • "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.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,107,978 - "Addressing Voice SMS Messages," issued January 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a disconnect between voice messaging and the familiar workflow of text messaging (SMS). Existing voice SMS systems often required users to learn new methods for addressing recipients, rather than leveraging their existing, populated address books used for standard texting (’978 Patent, col. 1:36-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a client application on a mobile device that intercepts a standard text message after it has been addressed but before it is sent. The application prompts the user to add a voice component. If the user agrees, the system records the voice message on a server and then sends the original text message to the recipient, now including a notification (like a link or dial-in number) to access the remotely stored voice content (’978 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to seamlessly integrate voice into the ubiquitous SMS framework by using the same addressing and composition workflow that users were already accustomed to.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of system claim 10 are:
  • A client application on a mobile device that integrates voice content with a text message.
  • A memory means on the device for storing 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 voice messages and providing the recipient with access for listening.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,185,227 - "Sender Driven Call Completion System," issued November 10, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of "incomplete calls" (e.g., unanswered, busy signal). The invention is a "call completion application" that resides on the sender's device. It detects when a call fails to connect and then provides the sender—not the recipient—with a set of options to complete the communication, such as sending a pre-recorded message, setting a reminder to call back, or sending a text alert (’227 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-27). This process is driven by the sender's device, independent of whether the recipient's network has a service like voicemail configured (Compl. ¶18).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Samsung products running the Google Android OS and Google Duo provide a call completion application that detects an incomplete call and allows the caller to perform a subsequent completion action (Compl. ¶46). A screenshot shows a user interface presented after a call is "unavailable," offering options to make a "Video call" or "Voice call" (Compl. p. 17).

U.S. Patent No. 10,552,030 - "Multi-Gesture Media Recording System," issued February 4, 2020

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for recording media (e.g., audio) on a device using a sequence of distinct gestures. A user initiates recording with a first gesture (e.g., press and hold). While maintaining the first gesture, the user can perform a second gesture (e.g., sliding a finger to a different interface region) to trigger a different function, such as canceling the recording or switching modes, thereby creating a more fluid and less error-prone user interaction (’030 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:7-14).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶55).
• Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to use a gesture-based media recording application, such as Google Messages or Samsung Messages, to record audio. The complaint alleges these applications support a user interface that detects a first and second gesture from the user to record media (Compl. ¶55). A screenshot depicts a user pressing and holding a microphone icon to record an audio message (Compl. p. 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names an extensive list of Samsung mobile phones and tablets, including the Galaxy S, Galaxy Note, Galaxy A, Galaxy J, and Galaxy Tab product families, collectively referred to as the "exemplary Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The infringement allegations focus on the functionality of these devices when running the Google Android operating system in conjunction with specific applications like Google Messages, Samsung Messages, and Google Duo (Compl. ¶¶20, 24, 35). The complaint alleges these software combinations enable the devices to perform interactive messaging, integrate voice with text, handle incomplete calls, and use gestures for media recording (Compl. ¶¶16-19). The complaint provides a screenshot of a Google Duo interface indicating a recipient is "unavailable," which is alleged to be part of an infringing call completion system (Compl. p. 17). The breadth of the accused product list suggests an allegation of infringement across a significant portion of Defendant's mobile device portfolio.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'949 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
creating said interactive multimodal message by a sender using a client application available to said sender, wherein said created interactive multimodal message is stored at a server	Defendants' products running the Google Android operating system use a client application to create interactive multimodal messages, such as a Google Pay request within a chat, which are stored at a server. A visual shows a user creating a payment request in a message thread (Compl. p. 9).	¶24	col. 2:11-14
sending a notification comprising a pointer to said stored interactive multimodal message to said mobile device of the recipient by said server	The accused products send notifications containing pointers to the stored messages, such as a message containing a hyperlink to a location on Google Maps. A visual shows a message containing a map link and an automatically generated preview (Compl. p. 10).	¶25	col. 2:14-16
triggering the stored interactive multimodal message on the mobile device of the recipient by accessing said pointer in said notification	Accessing the pointer allegedly triggers the stored multimodal message on the recipient's device. A visual shows that sending a location pin in a message results in the transmission of an interactive map preview (Compl. p. 11).	¶25	col. 2:16-19
transmitting service information to the mobile device of the recipient through said triggered interactive multimodal message	The accused system is alleged to automatically transmit information, such as map data or payment details, through the triggered message.	¶25	col. 2:27-35

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "interactive multimodal message", which the patent describes in the context of scripted VXML and DTMF dialogs, can be construed to cover modern embedded content like a map link preview or a payment request button. The defense may argue that these are simple hyperlinks or embedded objects, not the dynamically "triggered" and "scripted" messages contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that accessing a link "triggers" a stored message in the manner claimed, as opposed to simply navigating a web browser to a URL? The court may need to determine if there is an architectural match between the accused function and the patent's description of a server-side, pointer-based messaging system.

'978 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a client application on a mobile device, wherein said client application integrates voice content to a text message created by a user...	The accused products run applications like Google Messages and Samsung Messages, which are alleged to "integrate and transmit voice content in a text message." A screenshot shows an audio message sent within a chat interface (Compl. p. 14).	¶35	col. 3:1-2
a memory storage means on said mobile device for storing a list of addresses of recipients	The accused products are alleged to include memory for storing phone numbers and addresses, such as a contacts list.	¶36	col. 4:26-30
a user interface on the mobile device for said user to input voice messages and text messages	The accused products include a touch screen and microphone, which serve as the user interface for inputting text and recording voice.	¶36	col. 4:31-33
a server for remotely recording and storing said voice messages of the user, wherein said server is configured to provide access to said recipient for listening to said recorded voice message	The complaint alleges the accused products use a network server to automatically store recorded audio messages and make them accessible for playback by the recipient. A visual shows a playable audio message delivered in a chat thread (Compl. p. 15).	¶37	col. 3:3-6

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Does an IP-based chat application that natively handles various media types (text, audio, video) meet the definition of a system that "integrates voice content to a text message"? The defense may argue that the patent is directed to a specific architecture for adding voice to traditional SMS by intercepting a text message, a process that may not occur in the accused products.
  • Technical Questions: The court will likely examine whether the accused applications function by "intercepting" a text message to add voice, as described in the patent's specification (’978 Patent, col. 3:1-2), or if they operate as a unified messaging platform where text and voice are simply different types of data objects sent in a stream.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’949 Patent:

• The Term: "interactive multimodal message"
• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of claim 1. Its scope will determine whether modern rich messaging features, like sending a payment or location, infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely be the primary non-infringement argument, contrasting the patent's VXML-based examples with the accused functionality.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly as a "seamless combination of graphics, text, and audio output" and a combination of "voice data and other modalities" (’949 Patent, col. 3:10-16). This language could support including a wide range of rich media.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly uses specific and complex technologies like VoiceXML (VXML) scripts, DTMF dialogs, and automated speech recognition as examples of the "interaction," suggesting a more sophisticated, application-like functionality than a simple hyperlink or embedded button (’949 Patent, col. 2:20-24; col. 4:30-38).

For the ’978 Patent:

• The Term: "integrates voice content to the text message"
• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core technical action of the invention. Whether the accused chat applications perform this "integration" in the claimed manner is a critical infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and could be argued to cover any system where voice and text are combined in a single communication to a recipient.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific sequence where a "client application intercepts the addressed text SMS message" and then prompts the user to add voice (’978 Patent, col. 3:1-2; Abstract). This suggests a specific architectural process of modifying a discrete text message, which may differ from how modern, native IP-based chat applications handle media.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by selling the accused products, Samsung knowingly and intentionally induces infringement by its customers and end-users. The inducement is based on providing products with functionality that, when used as intended (e.g., sending messages), allegedly performs the steps of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶27, 38, 47, 56).
• Willful Infringement: For all four patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges that Samsung has knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date of this Complaint" and has acted with willful blindness to the alleged infringement. This allegation appears to primarily target post-suit conduct, but the "willful blindness" language seeks to establish a basis for pre-suit willfulness, though no specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are provided (Compl. ¶¶29, 40, 49, 58).

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

1. A central issue will be one of architectural scope: Can claim terms rooted in the technological context of the late 2000s—such as an "interactive multimodal message" described with VXML scripting or a system that "integrates" voice by "intercepting" an SMS—be construed to cover the functionally different architecture of modern, IP-based messaging applications that natively handle diverse media types?
2. A key evidentiary question for the ’227 patent will be one of locus of control: Does the accused "call completion" feature in Google Duo operate as a sender-driven application on the user's device that is independent of the network, as the patent claims, or is it an integrated feature of the network platform itself, whose operation depends on information not exclusively available to the sender's device?
3. The dispute over the ’030 patent will likely focus on functional sequence: Does the "press-and-hold to record" feature in the accused messaging apps perform the specific, multi-stage gesture sequence required by the claims—which involves a first gesture to initiate an action, followed by a second, different gesture (e.g., a slide) to trigger a separate function—or does the accused feature represent a simpler, single-action gesture that does not map to the claimed process?