Data Fence LLC v. Telus Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Data Fence LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Telus Corporation (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-877, E.D. Tex., 08/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe three U.S. patents related to methods and systems for controlling and filtering inbound telephone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the widespread problem of unsolicited "spam" or "robocalls" by using network-accessible data to identify and manage unwanted inbound communications before they reach the end-user.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit. The asserted patents constitute a family, with U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286 being a continuation of the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843, and U.S. Patent No. 9,819,797 being a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the '286 patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,917,843, "Methods and systems for inbound call control," issued December 23, 2014 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the problem of "unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls," specifically the "dramatically" increased volume of such calls due to "computer dialed 'robocalls'" that represent an "unwelcome intrusion into privacy" (’843 Patent, col. 1:20-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system centered on a "call control unit" that intercepts an incoming call. This unit queries an external server to determine if "additional information" exists for the caller, such as inclusion on a user-configurable or community-sourced blacklist (’843 Patent, Abstract). Based on this information, the unit performs a "first operation" (e.g., blocking the call or sending it to voicemail); in the absence of such information, it performs a "second operation" (e.g., allowing the call to connect) (’843 Patent, col. 2:40-56). Figure 1A illustrates this architecture, showing a call control unit (135) positioned between the telephone (130) and the network (105), communicating with a server (115) to make a filtering decision.
• Technical Importance: The technology enables a dynamic, crowd-sourced approach to call filtering, allowing a "community blacklist" to be updated in near real-time to combat new and emerging sources of unwanted calls (’843 Patent, col. 3:23-4:13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted in its narrative body, instead referring to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶15). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is examined as a representative claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an indication of an incoming call at a call control unit.
  • Querying, by the call control unit, an external server to determine if additional information regarding the caller is stored in a database.
  • The database stores information including a "user-configurable list of at least one of desired and undesired callers" associated with a "preferred operation."
  • Performing a "first operation" if such additional information exists, or a "second operation" in its absence.
  • Receiving an indication at the call control unit that a call is undesired.
  • Automatically adding that call's identification information to the user-configurable list of undesired callers.

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,491,286, "Methods and systems for inbound call control," issued November 8, 2016 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '843 Patent's application, the '286 Patent addresses the same problem of unsolicited telemarketing, "spam," and "robocalls" (’286 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a similar call control system but claims it from the perspective of identifying a "negative characteristic" associated with the caller or their number. The system queries a server for additional information and, if that information indicates a negative characteristic, performs a first operation (e.g., blocking); otherwise, it performs a second operation (e.g., connecting the call) (’286 Patent, Abstract). The underlying architecture of a call control unit querying a remote database remains consistent with the parent '843 Patent.
• Technical Importance: This patent continues the development of a dynamic, data-driven framework for call filtering that can adapt to new threats more effectively than static, pre-programmed block lists (’286 Patent, col. 3:27-4:14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify asserted claims, referring to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶21). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is examined as a representative claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an incoming call at a call control unit.
  • Querying a server to determine if additional information associated with the caller or telephone number exists.
  • If it exists, determining whether the information "indicates that a negative characteristic is associated with" the caller or number.
  • If a negative characteristic is indicated, performing a "first operation" on the call.
  • Otherwise, performing a "second operation" on the call.

U.S. Patent No. 9,819,797 - "Methods and systems for inbound call control"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,819,797, "Methods and systems for inbound call control," issued November 14, 2017 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: This continuation-in-part patent builds on the prior inventions by introducing an active challenge-response mechanism. The system is described as capable of providing an "inquiry" to the caller to verify if they are a human, rather than an automated system, and blocking the call if a correct response is not received (’797 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:15-46). This adds an interactive verification layer to the passive database-querying method of the parent patents.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring instead to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶27). Independent claim 1 is a representative claim.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not provide details regarding which specific features are accused of practicing the claimed inquiry-based filtering technology (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific products or services by name, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 19, 25).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of functionality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the unnamed products practice the technology of the patents-in-suit but offers no description of how they operate or their position in the market (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 27).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe one or more claims of the '843, '286, and '797 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 19, 25). The substantive basis for these allegations is incorporated by reference from three exhibits (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6), which are described as claim charts but were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 21, 27). The complaint itself contains no narrative explanation of how any accused product meets any specific claim limitation.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of detail regarding the accused instrumentality, any analysis of potential disputes must be based on the patent claims themselves.
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of a "call control unit." The patents depict both a physical, customer-premise hardware device (’843 Patent, Fig. 5) and a network-level implementation (’843 Patent, Fig. 2). Whether Defendant's accused system, which may be a purely network-based software service, falls within the scope of this term could be a central issue. Further, for the '797 Patent, a key question will be the scope of the term "inquiry" and whether the accused system performs an interactive challenge-response action that meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The core technical question will be whether the accused system's filtering logic operates in the manner required by the claims. For instance, does the system base decisions on a "user-configurable list" (’843 Patent, claim 1) or a "negative characteristic" (’286 Patent, claim 1) derived from external data? For the '797 Patent, an evidentiary question is whether the accused product actually provides an interactive inquiry to the caller or uses other, non-interactive means to detect automated calls.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'843 Patent

• The Term: "call control unit"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining the structural and architectural scope of the claims. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to a physical device at the user's location or can also read on a distributed, software-based function within a telecommunication provider's network.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that operations may be applied "at the device level... and/or at a network or PSTN level," suggesting the "unit" is a functional concept not tied to a specific physical form (’843 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Several figures explicitly depict a distinct hardware box labeled "Call Control Unit" (135), complete with physical ports for phone, line, network, and power connections, which may be argued to limit the term to such a customer-premise device (’843 Patent, Figs. 4, 5).

'286 Patent

• The Term: "negative characteristic"
• Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for performing a filtering operation (e.g., blocking a call). Its construction will determine what types of call-screening criteria are covered by the claims and is central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition, which may support a broad construction encompassing any data point that suggests a call is unwanted, such as its origin, time, frequency, or association with a high "spam score."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's discussion of the "spam score algorithm" focuses on crowd-sourced data such as the "velocity" of user reports, credibility of reporters, and the number of users who have blacklisted a number (’286 Patent, col. 3:42-4:14). A defendant may argue that "negative characteristic" is implicitly limited to these types of community-derived reputational data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint exclusively pleads direct infringement and does not contain allegations or counts for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 19, 25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement, nor does it plead facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The prayer for relief does not request enhanced damages for willfulness (Compl. pp. 6-7).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions, which cannot be assessed from the complaint alone.

• A primary issue will be one of architectural scope: can the term "call control unit," which is illustrated in the patents as a physical hardware device, be construed to cover what may be a fully integrated, software-based call-filtering service operating entirely within the defendant's network infrastructure?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused system's method for identifying and blocking unwanted calls rely on the specific mechanisms recited in the claims, such as querying an external database for a "negative characteristic" or presenting an active "inquiry" to the caller, or does it achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different technical process?