BillSure LLC v. Sandvine

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: BillSure LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Sandvine Incorporated (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00032, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's network management products infringe a patent related to methods for verifying network resource usage records for billing purposes.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of potential billing fraud in environments like public Wi-Fi hotspots, where the entity providing network access is different from the entity billing the end-user.
• 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 claim of willfulness is based on knowledge of the patent acquired only upon service of the complaint itself.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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 disaggregated network environments (e.g., "roaming" on a third-party Wi-Fi hotspot), the hotspot operator reports usage data to a user's home billing provider for payment. The patent's background section identifies a significant risk of fraud, where the hotspot operator could "manipulate their system" to inflate usage statistics (e.g., data volume, connection time) to receive larger payments, a deception that is "almost impossible" for the remote billing provider to detect. (’457 Patent, col. 2:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a verification system where trust is established between the user's device and the access gateway. During a network session, the user's device independently tracks its own resource usage and periodically sends this "Billing Data" to the access gateway. The gateway compares the data it receives from the user device against its own internally-generated usage logs. If the two data sets "correlate," the gateway stores the user-generated data, creating a mutually-agreed-upon, verifiable record that prevents the gateway operator from later inflating the bill and the user from repudiating the charges. (’457 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-17). Figure 3 of the patent illustrates this novel, periodic exchange of "Billing Data" during an active session. (’457 Patent, Fig. 3, steps 6a, 7a).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a mechanism for real-time, tamper-evident accounting, aiming to build trust between otherwise untrusting parties in a decentralized network access market. (’457 Patent, col. 6:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’457 Patent but does not specify which claims will be asserted beyond "the Exemplary '457 Patent Claims" referenced in a non-proffered exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
  • An access gateway device that couples 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 is configured to compare the received billing data from the user device with its own corresponding billing data generated during the session.
  • If the received billing data "correlates" to the gateway's data, the gateway stores predetermined portions of the received data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (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. It alleges only that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '457 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '457 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not attach or include Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by being made, used, and sold, and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '457 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). As no specific allegations tying product features to claim elements are provided in the complaint itself, a claim chart cannot be constructed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: The concept of "correlation" between the user-device-generated data and the gateway-generated data is the core of the patented verification step. The definition of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope—whether it requires an exact numerical match or permits a degree of tolerance—could determine whether the accused system's comparison logic falls within the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that correlation is not necessarily an exact match. It states that in determining correlation, "the Access Gateway may take into account the latency involved in generating and transmitting the billing data" and would "determine whether the received parameter(s) is/are within the specific range of values that would be expected." (’457 Patent, col. 6:17-23). This language may support an interpretation that allows for minor discrepancies or comparison within a predefined tolerance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the specification points toward a flexible comparison, a party could argue that in the context of the patent, the term implies a high degree of correspondence to prevent the fraud the patent seeks to address. The patent does not explicitly define the term, leaving its precise meaning open to construction based on its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.

• The Term: "billing data" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the information being exchanged and verified. The infringement question may depend on whether the specific data generated and compared by the accused system qualifies as "billing data" under the patent's definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an explicit and broad definition: "any data, however encoded, that could be used as the basis for invoicing or otherwise charging a User of Network Resources." (’457 Patent, col. 1:31-33). This definition could be argued to encompass a wide variety of usage metrics or records.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be limited by the specific examples given, such as "amount of time of connection" and "volume of data," to argue that the data in an accused system, if different in kind, does not meet the definition. (’457 Patent, col. 9:28-31).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’457 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based entirely on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the "service of this Complaint" constitutes actual knowledge and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

1. A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual: As the complaint lacks specific details, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals that Sandvine's products perform the core inventive concept—specifically, receiving cryptographically verifiable usage data from an end-user's device during an active session and comparing it against the gateway's own logs for verification, as claimed.

2. A central legal question will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the term "correlates" be defined? The outcome may turn on whether this term is construed to require a strict numerical match or, as the specification suggests, allows for a comparison within a reasonable tolerance that accounts for factors like network latency.

3. A threshold procedural question concerns venue: The complaint's assertion of an "established place of business" for a Canadian corporation in the Eastern District of Texas is a conclusory allegation. (Compl. ¶7). The viability of the case in this district will depend on the specific facts Plaintiff can produce to meet the stringent venue requirements for patent cases.