BillSure LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Name: BillSure LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Plaintiff: BillSure LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00020, E.D. Tex., 01/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to methods for verifying network resource usage records for billing purposes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for ensuring accurate billing data is generated when a user accesses a network (e.g., the Internet) through a third-party access provider (e.g., a public Wi-Fi hotspot).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit was granted a 488-day patent term adjustment during its prosecution.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-09-02	’457 Patent Application Filing Date
2011-08-23	’457 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,457 - "Method and system for verifying network resource usage records," issued August 23, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In network environments where the access provider (e.g., a Wi-Fi hotspot operator) is independent of the user's billing service provider, there is a risk of billing fraud. The access provider, who reports usage statistics for payment, has an incentive to manipulate the data by "inflating the reported amount of data transferred, overstating the length of connection or misreporting the type of resource used, etc." (’457 Patent, col. 2:15-19). This is difficult for the billing service provider to detect. (’457 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the user's own device periodically generates its own billing data during a network session and sends it to the access gateway. The access gateway compares this user-generated data with its own logs. If the data "correlates," the access gateway stores the user-generated data as a verified record. This creates an auditable trail based on mutual agreement during the session, preventing the access gateway from later reporting fraudulent data. (’457 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-38). Figure 3 illustrates this solution by showing new communication steps (6a, 7a, 10) where "Billing Data" is exchanged between the user's "Network Device" and the "Access Gateway" during an active session. (’457 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a trustworthy, verifiable billing record in decentralized network environments where the parties (user, access provider, billing provider) do not inherently trust each other. (’457 Patent, col. 6:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify them beyond referencing charts in a missing exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A system comprising an "access gateway device" for coupling to a "network user device" and a "billing service provider's system."
  • The network user device generates billing data based on its actual network resource usage (e.g., connection time, data volume).
  • The access gateway device is configured to "compare received billing data" from the user device with "corresponding billing data generated by said access gateway device" during the session.
  • If the received billing data "correlates" to the access gateway's data, the access gateway device "stores predetermined portions of said received billing data."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context, as these details are contained within the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’457 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint incorporates these allegations by reference from claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's allegations is not possible.

The patent’s Figure 3 shows the inventive concept of periodic, in-session billing data exchange between a user device and an access gateway. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s product literature and website materials direct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶14). These materials, cited in the missing Exhibit 2, presumably describe a functionality that Plaintiff alleges maps to the process shown in Figure 3.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes, as the infringement theory is contained in a missing exhibit. However, based on the patent's claims and specification, the following terms may be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "compare received billing data ... with corresponding billing data" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The nature of this "comparison" is core to the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system performs a function that meets the claimed "comparison."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not require a specific algorithm, suggesting any form of comparison could suffice.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses the comparison in the context of determining if the data "correlate(s)" and notes the need to "take into account the latency involved in generating and transmitting the billing data" and allow for certain time delays. This suggests the comparison is not a simple bit-for-bit identity check but a more complex correlation allowing for tolerances. (’457 Patent, col. 7:15-26).

• The Term: "correlates" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the success condition for the "comparison." Its definition will determine what level of similarity between the user-device data and the gateway data is required to meet the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a term of degree, not an absolute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a strict mathematical definition, which may support a broader construction covering various methods of establishing a relationship between the data sets.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the gateway would "determine whether the received parameter(s) is/are within the specific range of values that would be expected," allowing for processing and network latency. This implies correlation requires the data to fall within a calculated, expected range, not just a general similarity. (’457 Patent, col. 7:20-26).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the ’457 Patent at least since being served with the complaint and that its continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14). The allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge.

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

As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations regarding the accused products, the initial focus will be on discovery. Once a technical record is developed, the case may turn on the following key questions:

1. A question of technical operation: Do the accused products, in fact, perform a two-way verification where a user's device sends its own usage data to a network gateway for comparison during an active session, or does the system use a different, one-way reporting architecture?
2. A question of claim scope: Assuming some comparison occurs, what does it mean for the data to "correlate" under Claim 1? The case will likely require a judicial construction of this term, hinging on whether it requires the data to fall within a specific, calculated tolerance range as described in the specification, or if it can be read more broadly.
3. An evidentiary question for indirect infringement: What specific instructions in Defendant’s "product literature and website materials" does Plaintiff allege direct users to perform the patented method, and do those instructions necessarily result in infringement of all claim elements?