DCT

2:24-cv-00091

RightQuestion LLC v. Cellco Verizon Business Network Services LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00091, E.D. Tex., 02/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district, including retail stores, cellular towers, and other operational facilities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN call-authentication protocol on its telecommunications networks infringes three patents related to validating caller identification data.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for verifying the authenticity of a caller's displayed phone number to combat fraudulent "spoofing" and unwanted robocalls.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated that major voice-service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework by a deadline of June 30, 2021.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-11-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’009, ’989, and ’132 Patents
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,674,009 Issues
2020-12-03 Alleged Date Verizon Implemented STIR/SHAKEN
2021-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,005,989 Issues
2021-06-30 FCC Deadline for STIR/SHAKEN Implementation
2023-12-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,856,132 Issues
2024-02-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,674,009 - "Validating Automatic Number Identification Data"

  • Issued: June 2, 2020 (the "’009 Patent")

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the challenge of determining the trustworthiness of information used to identify entities in communications, noting that Automated Number Identification (ANI) can be "spoofed by unscrupulous entities, making it difficult for caller identity information to be trusted" (’009 Patent, col. 1:20-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a verification service provider receives a query to verify a call associated with an observed caller ID. The provider then transmits a message to the device associated with that caller ID using a second, or "backchannel," communication path. Based on the response received from the device, the provider performs a security determination to validate the call's authenticity (’009 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-58). Figure 1 illustrates this architecture, showing a "Verification Service Provider" (120) communicating with a "Phone" (102) and a "Callee" (118) over a network (’009 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This out-of-band verification method provides a technical framework for detecting and preventing caller ID spoofing, a significant vector for fraud and nuisance calls (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37). The prayer for relief seeks judgment on "one or more claims" of the patents-in-suit (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’009 Patent recites a system comprising a verification service provider configured to:
    • Enroll a first device by associating it with a "device fingerprint" generated from the device's configuration information;
    • Store the device fingerprint;
    • Obtain information transmitted by a second device associated with a communications connection;
    • Perform a security determination by determining if the obtained information matches a portion of the stored device fingerprint; and
    • Select an action, such as blocking or permitting the communication, based on the determination.

U.S. Patent No. 11,005,989 - "Validating Automatic Number Identification Data"

  • Issued: May 11, 2021 (the "’989 Patent")

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’989 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’009 Patent: the unreliability of caller ID information due to spoofing (’989 Patent, col. 1:24-32).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention describes a system that receives information about a call, where that information includes both a "value" generated by the calling device and a "score" indicating the validity of the phone number. The system performs a security determination based on this score and by verifying the value, and then conveys an "assurance" or a "failure to confirm" to the called party (’989 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This shifts the focus to using a generated score as a key input for the verification process (’989 Patent, col. 9:39-53).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a scoring system allows for a more nuanced, risk-based assessment of a call's authenticity rather than a simple binary (valid/invalid) determination (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’989 Patent recites a system with processors configured to:
    • Receive information pertaining to a call initiated by a calling device, where the information includes (1) a value generated based on information associated with the device and (2) a score indicating a phone number's validity;
    • Perform a security determination based on the score and by verifying the value; and
    • Perform an action based on the determination, such as conveying an assurance or a failure to confirm to the callee.

U.S. Patent No. 11,856,132 - "Validating Automatic Number Identification Data"

  • Issued: December 26, 2023 (the "’132 Patent")

Technology Synopsis

As part of the same patent family, the ’132 Patent also addresses the problem of spoofed caller ID (’132 Patent, col. 1:21-31). The solution described in its asserted claim involves a method of receiving call information that includes a phone number, device information, and a "cryptographic element." A security determination is then performed based "at least in part on the cryptographic element" to validate the call (’132 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Verizon's implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN protocol and/or its Call Protect services infringe the ’132 Patent (Compl. ¶59-60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Verizon Networks" and their components that support security services, specifically naming the "STIR/SHAKEN protocol and/or Call Protect" (Compl. ¶35, 47, 59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that STIR/SHAKEN is a call-authentication technology designed to combat caller ID spoofing (Compl. ¶2). It further alleges that Verizon, in compliance with an FCC mandate, implemented STIR/SHAKEN on its networks by at least December 3, 2020, and has worked with other carriers to ensure its functionality across different networks (Compl. ¶5, 36).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which it describes as exemplary claim charts. In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement allegations are summarized based on the narrative text of the complaint.

  • ’009 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Verizon’s implementation of STIR/SHAKEN infringes claim 1 of the ’009 Patent (Compl. ¶37). The narrative suggests that the Verizon Networks function as the claimed "verification service provider." This system allegedly "enrolls" devices on its network, which have unique characteristics that constitute a "device fingerprint." When a call is placed, the network allegedly obtains call information and performs a security check that "matches" this information against stored data to determine whether to permit or block the call, thereby mapping to the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶35-37).
  • ’989 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Verizon’s STIR/SHAKEN implementation infringes claim 1 of the ’989 Patent (Compl. ¶49). The theory appears to be that the STIR/SHAKEN protocol involves receiving call information containing a "value" (the cryptographic signature in the identity header) and a "score" (the attestation level assigned to the call). The network allegedly performs a security determination based on this score and value and then conveys an assurance of validity to the callee, mapping to the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶47-49).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’009 Patent may be whether the standard network identifiers and configuration data associated with a phone in the STIR/SHAKEN framework fall within the patent’s definition of a "device fingerprint." For the ’989 Patent, a key dispute may arise over whether the categorical attestation level used in STIR/SHAKEN (e.g., 'A', 'B', or 'C') constitutes a "score indicating a validity of a phone number" as that term is used in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused STIR/SHAKEN protocol performs the step of "determining whether the obtained information...matches at least a portion of the stored device fingerprint" as required by claim 1 of the ’009 Patent. For the ’989 Patent, the complaint does not detail the specific technical features of the accused system that allegedly constitute the claimed "value" and "score."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "device fingerprint" (’009 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’009 Patent appears to depend on construing this term to cover the type of device and network information used in the STIR/SHAKEN protocol. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will be critical in determining whether the accused system practices the claimed "enrolling" and "matching" steps.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, functional definition, stating a "device 'fingerprint'" can be "created from a combination of device settings, installed applications, system or application software versions, or contact list stored on the phone" (’009 Patent, col. 9:36-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same passage lists specific examples of software-level details. A party may argue that the term is limited to these specific types of on-device configuration data and does not extend to network-level identifiers or parameters inherent in a standardized protocol like STIR/SHAKEN.
  • The Term: "score generated for the calling device, the score indicating a validity of a phone number" (’989 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement case for the ’989 Patent may turn on whether the STIR/SHAKEN attestation level qualifies as the claimed "score." A narrow construction limiting the term to a numerically calculated value could present an obstacle to this theory.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes creating a "single validity score that is available to the relying party" for use in a "risk-based decision system," which could support interpreting "score" functionally to include any indicator of validity, such as an attestation level (’989 Patent, col. 9:39-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes generating a score using more complex methods, such as "applying relative weighting to each of the available factors," or using "combinatorial logic, a neural net or fuzzy logic" (’989 Patent, col. 9:41-47). A party could argue that a simple categorical attestation level is not a "score" generated in the manner contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It alleges inducement by asserting that Verizon provides its networks and supports the STIR/SHAKEN protocol, thereby causing its customers and other providers to directly infringe (Compl. ¶39, 51, 63). It alleges contributory infringement on the grounds that the accused components are material to the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶42, 54, 66).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Verizon's infringement has been willful, but bases this allegation on Verizon having knowledge of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶40, 52, 64). This framing suggests an allegation of post-suit willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "device fingerprint," which the patent defines using examples of on-device software and settings, be construed to cover the more standardized, network-level identifiers used in the accused STIR/SHAKEN protocol?
  • A second key question will be one of functional interpretation: does the categorical attestation level assigned in the STIR/SHAKEN framework (e.g., 'A', 'B', 'C') function as the "score indicating a validity of a phone number" as claimed in the ’989 Patent, especially when the patent specification also describes generating scores through more complex, weighted calculations?
  • An evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: what specific evidence will be offered to demonstrate that the standardized operations of the STIR/SHAKEN protocol perform the particular, multi-step verification processes recited in the asserted claims, such as the '’009 Patent's requirement to "match" call information against a "stored device fingerprint"?