WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Sysco Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sysco Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00573, E.D. Tex., 05/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products of the Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for symmetrical, bi-directional communication over traditionally asymmetrical network protocols.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in client-server protocols like HTTP, enabling two network nodes to communicate as peers, where either can initiate a data exchange, even when one is behind a firewall.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history.

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 describes a fundamental problem with network communication protocols like HTTP, which are inherently asymmetrical. In a standard HTTP session, a "client" node initiates requests, and a "server" node can only respond; the server cannot spontaneously initiate communication with the client (’983 Patent, col. 1:36-44, col. 2:9-21). This asymmetry is a major obstacle for peer-to-peer applications, especially when one node is behind a Network Address Translation (NAT) firewall, which typically blocks unsolicited inbound connections (’983 Patent, col. 2:44-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to create a symmetrical communication channel over an asymmetrical protocol. First, two nodes establish a standard client-server session, which also creates a persistent underlying network connection (e.g., a TCP/IP socket) (’983 Patent, col. 9:41-44). The nodes then "negotiate" a reversal of their roles. The initial HTTP-layer session is terminated, but the underlying TCP/IP connection is preserved. A new HTTP-layer session is then created over the same preserved connection, but with the roles "flipped"—the original server is now the client and can initiate requests to the original client, which now acts as a server (’983 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 9, steps 508-514).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for true peer-to-peer communication using the ubiquitous and firewall-friendly HTTP protocol, avoiding the need for constant, inefficient "polling" where a client must repeatedly ask a server if it has data to send (’983 Patent, col. 3:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
• 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
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It states only that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed by the '983 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint body itself provides no factual detail mapping any specific product feature to a claim element. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that "the Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '983 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Given the absence of specific infringement allegations, any analysis is speculative. However, based on the technology, a dispute would likely center on the following questions:
  • Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to show that an accused system performs the specific, sequential steps of (1) establishing an initial session, (2) terminating only the HTTP layer while preserving the underlying network layer, (3) negotiating a role reversal, and (4) communicating under reversed roles? Proving that an accused system performs this precise sequence, as opposed to using a different mechanism for bi-directional communication (e.g., WebSockets), would be a central evidentiary challenge.
  • Scope Questions: A primary legal dispute will concern the scope of key claim terms. For instance, what actions constitute "negotiating transactional role reversal" as required by the claim? Does this require an explicit "FLIP" command as described in the patent's embodiments (’983 Patent, col. 10:61-65), or could it read on more implicit or automated protocol-switching mechanisms?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• 1. The Term: "negotiating transactional role reversal" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the actions performed by the accused products can be characterized as "negotiating" a "reversal." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the claim covers only the specific "HTTP FLIP" protocol shown in the patent or also extends to other, more modern bi-directional communication technologies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "negotiating," which does not on its face require a specific command. The summary of the invention also speaks more broadly of nodes that "negotiate transactional role reversal" without limiting it to a single method (’983 Patent, col. 3:30-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a very specific multi-step process for achieving the role reversal, initiated by sending an "HTTP FLIP request" (’983 Patent, col. 10:61-62; Fig. 9, step 504; Fig. 10, step 534). A party could argue that "negotiating" should be construed as being limited to this explicit, request-and-acceptance-based process.

• 2. The Term: "terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a critical technical step that distinguishes the invention from simply opening two separate connections. Infringement requires proof that the accused system decouples the termination of the application-layer (HTTP) session from the underlying transport-layer (TCP/IP) connection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language covers any process where client-server roles are swapped over a persistent socket, regardless of the specific commands used to manage the application-layer state.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes terminating the "HTTP layer session" and creating a "new HTTP layer session" while "preserving the TCP connection" (’983 Patent, Fig. 9, steps 512-514; col. 9:46-53). This could support a narrower construction requiring distinct, separable termination and preservation steps, rather than a single, integrated protocol switch.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement. The sole count is for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. p. 2).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" and pleads no specific facts regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent or its alleged infringement that would support such a claim. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a remedy that can be awarded on various grounds, but the complaint lacks a standalone willfulness count (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the unspecified accused products perform the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims. The case will hinge on whether discovery reveals a technical process that maps onto the patent's method of terminating an application-layer session, preserving the transport-layer connection, and creating a new, role-reversed session on that same connection.

2. Claim Scope and Modern Equivalents: A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "negotiating transactional role reversal," which is described in the patent in the context of a specific "HTTP FLIP" command, be construed to cover modern bi-directional web technologies that achieve a similar peer-to-peer result through different technical means?

3. The Unidentified Accused Instrumentality: The complaint's failure to identify any accused product or service raises a fundamental threshold question. The initial phases of litigation will likely focus on compelling Plaintiff to identify the specific products at issue and the factual basis for the infringement allegations, which are currently absent from the public record.