WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Alkami Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Alkami Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00923, E.D. Tex., 11/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for symmetrical bi-directional communication over computer networks.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in standard HTTP protocol, which is inherently asymmetrical (client-request, server-response), to enable more flexible, peer-to-peer style communication between network nodes.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983 - "Symmetrical bi-directional communication", issued July 13, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a "fundamental problem" in network communications where the standard Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) imposes rigid, asymmetric roles: a "client" initiates requests and a "server" responds (’983 Patent, col. 2:6-12). This structure prevents a server from initiating communication, which is a significant barrier for peer-to-peer applications, especially when one node is behind a Network Address Translation (NAT) firewall that blocks inbound connections (’983 Patent, col. 2:41-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where two network nodes first establish a standard, client-initiated HTTP session over an underlying TCP/IP connection. The nodes then negotiate a "transactional role reversal." This involves terminating the initial HTTP session layer while preserving the underlying TCP/IP connection. A new, "reversed" HTTP session is then created over the preserved connection, allowing the original server to act as a client and initiate requests to the original client, which now acts as a server (’983 Patent, col. 5:15-31; Fig. 9). This creates a symmetrical, bi-directional communication channel.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to give peer-to-peer applications the ability to use the ubiquitous and firewall-friendly HTTP protocol without being constrained by its inherent client-server asymmetry (’983 Patent, col. 3:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method:
• Independent Claim 1:
  • first and second network nodes engaging in an asymmetric hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) transactional session with an underlying network connection, each node enacting distinct initial transactional roles
  • terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection
  • said first and second network nodes negotiating transactional role reversal
  • said first and second network nodes further communicating under a reversed asymmetric transactional protocol
  • wherein each network node enacts the initial transactional role of the other
  • wherein said uniquely identifiable session uses a network connection traversing hardware enforcing asymmetric communication

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but states they are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11). These charts are part of Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and that employees "internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not included with the public filing, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

The narrative theory suggests that Plaintiff will attempt to show that Defendant’s products establish a communication channel in a manner that maps onto the steps of the asserted claims. The core of the allegation is that the accused products establish an initial, standard HTTP connection, and then "flip" the connection roles to allow for bi-directional communication initiated by either end-point. This is alleged to occur by terminating the first HTTP session, negotiating a role reversal, and creating a new session over the preserved underlying network connection, as depicted in the patent (’983 Patent, Fig. 6). Figure 6 illustrates this "flipped" communication, showing the original server node initiating a "Response chain" back to the original client node over the preserved connection (col. 4:18-22). The success of this theory will depend on whether the technical operation of the accused products mirrors this specific multi-step process.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the accused products actually perform the specific sequence of (1) terminating an HTTP session while (2) explicitly maintaining the underlying TCP/IP connection for the purpose of (3) creating a new, reverse-role HTTP session. Modern communication protocols like WebSockets achieve similar bi-directional results, but may do so through different technical means that do not map onto this claimed sequence.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' method of achieving bi-directional communication constitutes "negotiating transactional role reversal" as required by the claims, or if it is a different, non-infringing mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "negotiating transactional role reversal" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers only a specific, explicit negotiation process or a broader range of methods for reversing communication flow. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific "HTTP FLIP request" mechanism, and infringement will depend on whether the accused products perform an equivalent step.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the concept more generally as when "nodes negotiate transactional role reversal and further communication" without being limited to a single command (’983 Patent, col. 3:30-33).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts point to a specific implementation. For example, the client sends an "HTTP FLIP request to server" (Fig. 9, block 504), and the server can "ACCEPT NEW FLIPPED" connection (Fig. 10, block 536). The specification also discusses a specific HTTP header, "TACT:DFLIP," as declaring the role reversal (’983 Patent, col. 12:46-49). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the scope of the term.

The Term: "terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This element requires a specific two-part action: the application-layer (HTTP) session ends, but the transport-layer (TCP/IP) connection persists. This distinguishes the invention from simply closing one connection and opening another. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing the accused products perform this precise technical step.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that nodes "terminate, let terminate, or otherwise abandon" the initial HTTP session, which could suggest a variety of ways to end the session layer (’983 Patent, col. 9:15-17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts explicitly show a step to "TERMINATE EXISTING HTTP LAYER SESSION WHILE PRESERVING TCP CONNECTION" (’983 Patent, Fig. 9, block 512). This language suggests a deliberate and distinct technical step, not just a passive timeout, potentially narrowing the claim's scope to systems that explicitly manage the layers in this way.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing reference to infringement by Defendant's "customers" (Compl. ¶11) but provides no specific factual allegations to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain any factual allegations to support a claim of willful infringement (e.g., knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit). However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is the statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees, often sought in connection with findings of willfulness or other litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

1. A central issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the accused technology achieve bi-directional communication by following the patent's specific method—terminating the HTTP layer, preserving the underlying TCP socket, and creating a new, reversed HTTP session on top of it—or does it use a different protocol, such as a protocol upgrade mechanism (e.g., WebSockets), that may not meet all claim limitations?
2. The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the phrase "negotiating transactional role reversal" be construed broadly to cover any protocol that results in a reversed communication flow, or will it be narrowly construed to require a specific, explicit "flip" request and acceptance, as detailed in the patent’s embodiments?
3. An evidentiary burden will fall on the Plaintiff to demonstrate infringement. Given the lack of specific product identification or technical detail in the complaint, the case will depend heavily on discovery to reveal the inner workings of the accused products and whether they align with the patent's claims.