Random Chat LLC v. Big LOTS Stores LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Big Lots Stores, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00582, E.D. Tex., 08/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s system for executing multimedia presentations infringes a patent related to methods for network-based multimedia communication.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to the architecture of online communication platforms, such as video chat services, that connect users based on user-defined profiles and preferences.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses but asserts that these licenses did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of a patented article, a position taken to preemptively address potential patent marking defenses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-28	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099
2013-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Issued
2024-08-01	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099, "Method for Carrying Out a Multimedia Communication Based on a Network Protocol, Particularly TCP/IP and/or UDP," Issued March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior video and chat systems were too constrictive and did not adequately support the complex, differentiated communication needs of emerging "social networks" and online "communities" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:43-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a process where a user generates a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network. This profile establishes the parameters for multimedia communication, allowing users to freely define how they connect with others—for example, through a random matching process or by selecting from a pre-defined list of contacts (ʼ099 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical layer model, encompassing a database layer for user data, a link layer for managing connections, a subscriber layer for profile operation, and a front-end layer for the graphical user interface (ʼ099 Patent, col. 6:20-50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create more flexible and realistic online social interactions by allowing users to extensively customize and control how they find, connect, and communicate with others in a network (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:56-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method for executing a multimedia communication, comprising the steps of:
  • At least one subscriber generating a personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile on a server or peer-to-peer network.
  • Establishing the multimedia communication at each of the terminals by setting up the virtual subscriber profile.
  • The subscriber profile defining a mode of subscriber selection, a communication type, a number of communication links, or a type of data transmission.
  • The subscriber selection mode including a random process for setting up a communication link between a first subscriber and a random subscriber.
  • The subscriber selection mode also including an activatable call procedure for establishing a communication link with a subscriber stored in a selection list.
• The complaint does not specify dependent claims but reserves the right to assert claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a "system and methods for executing a multimedia presentation" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not name a specific product or service (e.g., a customer service chat feature on a website). It alleges that Defendant puts the inventions into service and that these "products and services" would not have been put into service but for Defendant's actions (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit B" but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶9). Therefore, a detailed claim-by-claim analysis based on the plaintiff's initial theories is not possible. The infringement allegations are presented in general terms. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused system performs all the steps required by the asserted claims. For independent claim 1, this raises the question of whether the accused system utilizes both a "random process" for connecting users and a separate "activatable call procedure" for connecting users from a "selection list." The claim requires both features to be part of the "subscriber selection mode."
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused product raises fundamental questions. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the features of whatever system Defendant operates (e.g., a website customer chat feature, an internal communication tool) can be characterized as meeting the claim limitations, which are described in the context of a public-facing social network platform (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:43-51).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "random process" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is a core functional element of the claimed method. The patent contrasts this "random connection" with connections to preferred or pre-selected users (ʼ099 Patent, col. 9:7-18). The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether the accused system's method for connecting previously unassociated users constitutes a "random process" as claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the "random process" is simply a way to connect with a "random partner from the main pool" without preferences, implying a very general, non-specific matching function could meet the definition (ʼ099 Patent, col. 9:7-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a "random connection with preferences," where the matching is not purely random but is guided by "like/dislike tags" and user behavior, suggesting the term may require a more sophisticated, preference-based algorithm rather than a simple stochastic connection (ʼ099 Patent, col. 9:12-24).

• The Term: "selection list" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term, in conjunction with the "call procedure," defines the second required mode of connection. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine what kind of contact management feature in the accused system could be infringing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is generic. A party could argue it covers any list of stored users that can be selected for communication, such as a basic address book.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links this concept to a "friends panel" where users are "registered as friends" and represented by "profile images" or "thumbnails" with online status indicators (ʼ099 Patent, col. 9:28-32; col. 11:27-34). This could support a narrower construction requiring a system with social networking-style "friend" management features.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by actively encouraging or instructing others, such as customers, on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement on similar grounds (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not cite specific evidence, such as user manuals or marketing materials, to support these allegations.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the '099 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 11). The complaint also reserves the right to prove pre-suit knowledge and seek enhanced damages if such evidence is found in discovery (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue, stemming from the complaint's lack of detail, will be an evidentiary one: does discovery reveal that Defendant operates a system that performs the specific, conjunctive steps of the asserted claims? In particular, evidence will be needed to show that a single "subscriber selection mode" in the accused system includes both a "random process" and a "call procedure" for a "selection list," as mandated by claim 1.
2. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, specifically whether the term "random process", which is rooted in the patent's description of a social chat platform, can be construed to read on the functionality of whatever system Defendant is accused of using. The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a broad definition or a narrower one tied to the patent's preference-based "zapping" embodiments.
3. Applicability of the Technology: A central question will be one of technological context: can a patent describing a peer-to-peer or social networking communication platform be applied to the "system and methods" of a retail company like Big Lots? The answer will depend on the specific nature of the accused instrumentality, which is not identified in the complaint.