WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Xome Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Xome, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00574, E.D. Tex., 05/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of alleged infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for establishing symmetrical, bi-directional communication over network protocols that are inherently asymmetrical, such as HTTP.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in peer-to-peer communication over the internet, particularly when one communicating device is behind a Network Address Translation (NAT) firewall, which typically prevents unsolicited incoming connections.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application filed in 2003. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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 the "fundamental problem" of establishing peer-to-peer communication using protocols like HTTP, which are inherently asymmetric (’983 Patent, col. 2:6-12). In a standard HTTP session, a "client" initiates a request and a "server" responds; the server cannot spontaneously initiate a connection to the client (’983 Patent, col. 2:18-21). This asymmetry is often enforced by network hardware like NAT routers, which prevent devices on a private network from receiving unsolicited incoming connections from the public internet (’983 Patent, col. 2:45-50). The patent notes that "polling" methods, where a client repeatedly asks a server if it has data to send, are inefficient and waste network bandwidth (’983 Patent, col. 3:4-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for two network nodes to establish an initial, conventional asymmetric session (e.g., over HTTP) and then "negotiate transactional role reversal" (’983 Patent, col. 16:1-3). This process involves terminating the initial HTTP-layer session while explicitly preserving the underlying TCP/IP-layer network connection (’983 Patent, col. 16:4-6). A new, "reversed" HTTP session is then created over the preserved TCP/IP connection, allowing the node that was originally the server to act as a client and initiate requests to the node that was originally the client (’983 Patent, col. 10:48-59; Fig. 9). By establishing two such oppositely-directed sessions, the nodes can achieve symmetrical, bi-directional communication, effectively treating each other as peers (’983 Patent, col. 9:49-54).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanism to enable true peer-to-peer interactions over the ubiquitous HTTP protocol, circumventing common network restrictions without the inefficiency of constant polling.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• Independent Claim 1: A method of computer network node communication comprising:
  • 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, said roles comprising either of an HTTP server that relays data and an HTTP client that initiates requests;
  • terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection;
  • said first and second network nodes negotiating transactional role reversal; and
  • 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 does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name in the body of the complaint. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts contained in an Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '983 Patent" and incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint provides no narrative infringement theory or description of the accused technology's operation. Accordingly, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the technology described in the ’983 Patent, the infringement analysis, once developed, may center on several technical and legal questions:

• Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused products actually perform the specific multi-step process recited in the claims. Key questions may include:
  • What evidence demonstrates that an initial HTTP-layer session is terminated while the underlying TCP/IP-layer connection is maintained? This requires distinguishing between operations at different layers of the network stack.
  • How do the accused products "negotiate" a role reversal? Does this involve an explicit message, such as the "HTTP FLIP request" described in the patent specification, or can it be inferred from other behavior (’983 Patent, col. 10:61-62)?
• Scope Questions: The language of the claims raises potential disputes over scope.
  • What is the scope of "hardware enforcing asymmetric communication" as recited in claim 1? The specification focuses on NAT routers (’983 Patent, col. 2:45-50), raising the question of whether the term could be limited to that context or if it reads on other network components like standard firewalls.

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 definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the action that enables the "flipped" session. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the case could depend on whether the accused functionality, whatever it may be, meets this specific requirement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "negotiating" itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that any process through which two nodes agree to reverse roles meets the limitation, regardless of the specific mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment where negotiation occurs via a specific "HTTP FLIP request" sent from the client to the server (e.g., ’983 Patent, Fig. 9, step 504; col. 10:61-62). A defendant may argue that this specific implementation limits the scope of "negotiating" to require an explicit, formalized request-and-acceptance process.

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

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires two distinct but simultaneous conditions that are core to the patented method. The infringement analysis will hinge on evidence showing both the termination at the application (HTTP) layer and the preservation at the transport (TCP) layer.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the concept generally, suggesting the focus is on the outcome rather than the precise software implementation. For example, it states "nodes 112a and 112b terminate, let terminate, or other wise abandon session 150 of HTTP layer 116 ... [and] maintain, however, the underlying network connection" (’983 Patent, col. 9:15-19). This could support a reading that covers any method achieving this result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowcharts and detailed descriptions illustrate a specific sequence of events: first saving the TCP circuit information, then terminating the HTTP session, then creating a new HTTP session using the saved information (’983 Patent, Fig. 9, steps 508-514). This could support an argument that the claim requires this discrete, sequential process.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. It focuses exclusively on direct infringement (Compl. ¶11-12).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or make any factual assertions regarding Defendant’s knowledge of the ’983 Patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees, which is relief often sought in connection with findings of willfulness (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unattached exhibit and lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused products, a threshold issue will be whether the complaint can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.
2. Technical Infringement: A central technical question will be one of operational mechanics: can Plaintiff produce evidence that Defendant’s systems perform the specific, layered process of terminating an HTTP session while consciously preserving the underlying TCP connection to enable a role-reversed communication channel, as claimed in the patent?
3. Claim Scope: A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: how broadly will the court construe the term "negotiating transactional role reversal"? The case may turn on whether this requires an explicit, formalized protocol step (as detailed in the patent’s embodiments) or if it can be satisfied by a more general or implicit agreement between two communicating systems.