Random Chat LLC v. Lumen Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Lumen Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00968, E.D. Tex., 09/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multimedia communication products and services infringe a patent related to methods for carrying out network-based multimedia communication, such as video or text chat.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the architecture of online communication platforms, specifically how users create profiles that define the manner in which they connect and communicate with other users over a network.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, though none were for producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Earliest Priority Date
2013-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Issues
2025-09-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 - “Method For Carrying Out A Multimedia Communication Based On A Network Protocol, Particularly TCP/IP And/Or UDP”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to move beyond simple video and chat systems, which it characterizes as too constrictive for the complex interactions required by modern "social networks" and "communities" (’099 Patent, col. 1:43-52). It notes that in such networks, the clear separation between a content provider and a user becomes blurred, requiring more flexible communication methods (’099 Patent, col. 1:63-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a process where a user generates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network (’099 Patent, Abstract). This profile is central to the invention, as setting it up establishes how multimedia communication will occur for that user. Specifically, the profile itself is used to "freely define" key parameters like the method for selecting other users, the type of communication (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-many), the number of connections, and the data transmission type (’099 Patent, col. 2:25-31). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical layer structure including a database, link, subscriber, and front-end layer (’099 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach centralizes control of complex communication rules and preferences within a user's profile, aiming to provide a more flexible and user-defined experience than prior systems (’099 Patent, col. 2:6-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method for executing multimedia communication between terminals on a network.
  • Wherein at least one subscriber generates a personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile on a server or in a peer-to-peer network.
  • Wherein, by setting up the virtual subscriber profile, the multimedia communication is established at each of the terminals.
  • Via the subscriber profile, a mode of subscriber selection, at least one of a communication type or a number of communication links, or the type of data transmission are freely defined.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-20 covers them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services (Compl. ¶9). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals" maintained, operated, and administered by the Defendant (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's instrumentalities perform infringing methods and are introduced into the stream of commerce for sale in Texas (Compl. ¶3). It further alleges that Defendant offers these products with instructions or advertisements that suggest an infringing use, citing a general "contact-us/sales" webpage (Compl. ¶12). No specific technical functionality of any product is described.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶10). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's unnamed "systems, products, and services" directly infringe claims 1-20 of the ’099 Patent (Compl. ¶9). The core allegation is that these systems facilitate multimedia chat and that by Defendant's actions, "the claimed-invention embodiments involving Defendants' products and services" are put into service and perform as a whole (Compl. ¶9). The complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping any particular feature of a Lumen product to the elements of the asserted claims, such as what constitutes the claimed "virtual subscriber profile" or how it is used to "freely define" communication parameters.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint does not identify which specific Lumen product or service is accused of infringement, nor which features of that instrumentality allegedly practice the limitations of the asserted claims.
  • Scope Question: A likely dispute will concern whether the accused systems, once identified, practice the claim limitation that the "virtual subscriber profile" itself is the mechanism via which communication parameters are "freely defined." The case may turn on whether a standard user settings interface in a communication product meets this limitation as described in the patent.
  • Technical Question: Does the accused technology, once identified, establish communication "by setting up the virtual subscriber profile" as required by claim 1, or is the profile merely a data repository separate from the systems that establish communication sessions?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the asserted independent claim. Its construction will determine what type of user account architecture falls within the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory appears to equate it with any user account in a chat system, while the patent specification describes it as an active component that defines and determines communication parameters.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "account includes in particular: login data, contacts, the profile, switching and management-relevant data and other entries" (’099 Patent, col. 2:46-48). This language could support an interpretation that covers a wide range of user account data structures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the profile directly to defining communication behavior, stating, "the subscriber profile defines the subscribers as well as in what way, in what number and how the owner of the subscriber profile wants to communicate with them" (’099 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This suggests the profile is not just a collection of data but an operative component that dictates the communication mode.

The Term: "freely defined"

• Context and Importance: This term qualifies the degree of control a user must have over communication parameters via their profile. The dispute will likely center on whether selecting from a limited set of pre-programmed options meets the "freely defined" requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "freely defined" without specifying the degree of freedom, which could be argued to encompass any user choice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of highly specific, user-generated definitions, such as "freely definable keywords for describing sympathies" (like tags) and antipathies (dislike tags) (’099 Patent, col. 12:7-10). This may support a construction requiring more granular, user-driven control than simple menu selections.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant encourages and instructs customers on how to use its products for multimedia communication through its website and instruction manuals (Compl. ¶12). The complaint cites only a generic sales contact webpage as evidence of such instruction (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’099 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff produce evidence identifying a specific accused product and mapping its features to the patent's claims, particularly the "virtual subscriber profile" that actively defines communication parameters? The complaint's lack of specificity on this point will be a central focus.
• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "virtual subscriber profile," as used in the patent, read on a conventional user account and settings architecture in a modern communication platform, or is it limited to a more specialized system where the profile itself is the direct mechanism for defining and establishing complex communication rules?
• A final question will be one of technical operation: Does the functionality of the accused product, once identified, meet the claim requirement that communication parameters are "freely defined" by the user via the profile, or do the product's underlying architecture and server-side rules impose limitations that fall outside the scope of the claims?