2:25-cv-01071
Upchat LLC v. Panera Bread Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Panera Bread Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01071, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
- 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 allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there, causing harm to the Plaintiff.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to systems for communicating a user's status or activity information to other communication devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using graphical representations, or "avatars," to convey a person's real-world activity status (e.g., "in a meeting," "traveling") to others attempting to communicate with them, as an alternative to direct conversation or text messaging.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 10,182,157 Priority Date |
| 2016-06-30 | Application leading to the '157 Patent filed |
| 2019-01-15 | U.S. Patent No. 10,182,157 Issued |
| 2025-10-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,182,157 - Systems and methods for communicating, issued January 15, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for mobile phone users to "readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly" (e.g., to know if they are in a meeting before calling) ('157 Patent, col. 1:39-44). The existing methods of speaking directly or sending an SMS message were considered inefficient for this purpose ('157 Patent, col. 1:48-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can select an "avatar"—an image conveying their current activity—which is then automatically communicated to a party attempting to contact them ('157 Patent, Abstract). For example, when a call is received, the system identifies the caller, finds a matching pre-configured rule, and transmits an avatar (e.g., a picture of a person in a business suit) to the caller's device, indicating the called party is at work ('157 Patent, col. 2:6-12). The system also describes extending this concept into a "virtual environment" where multiple users' avatars can be displayed ('157 Patent, col. 3:3-14).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a richer, more efficient, and automated form of presence or status information in mobile communications, going beyond simple busy signals or text-based auto-replies.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). Claim 11 is the first independent method claim.
- Essential elements of representative independent Claim 11:
- Storing identifying information indicative of a telephone number of a communication device.
- Storing activity information identifying an activity of at least one user of the communication network.
- Allowing the communication device to access the activity information based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and identification data of the communication device.
- Replacing the activity information with another activity information identifying another activity of the user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint does not name any specific accused product, method, or service (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). This exhibit was not included in the provided filing.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality. It alleges only that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '157 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes "exemplary method claims" of the ’157 Patent (Compl. ¶11). However, it provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint detailing how any particular product feature meets the limitations of any asserted claim. Instead, the complaint incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '157 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in a separate Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶13-14). As this exhibit is not available for review, a detailed analysis of the plaintiff's infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
While the complaint does not specify asserted claims or infringement theories, an analysis of representative Claim 11 suggests the following terms may be central to the dispute.
The Term: "activity information identifying an activity"
Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core of the invention—the substantive status update being conveyed. The scope of "activity information" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the claim covers simple system status updates (e.g., "order processing") or is limited to representations of a human user's personal activities (e.g., "at work," "surfing"), as described in the specification's examples.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 11 itself uses the general term "activity of at least one user of the communication network," which could be argued to encompass any user-related state or status within the network (col. 12:14-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes "activity information" as an "avatar," which is defined as "a form of image (such as a digital photograph or animated icon), which when viewed conveys some information about an activity that the person is involved in" (col. 2:13-17). Specific examples include images of a person in a business suit, carrying shopping bags, a surfboard, or a book (col. 2:10-12; col. 2:23-26; col. 7:28-31). This could support a narrower construction limited to visual representations of a person's real-world actions.
The Term: "based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and identification data of the communication device"
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the mechanism for triggering the display of "activity information." The dispute may center on what constitutes a "match" and what types of data qualify as "identifying information" and "identification data."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general and does not specify the type of match (e.g., exact, partial, logical). The term "identification data" is also broad, and the specification notes it can include a "telephone number, a PIN code or an IP address" (col. 11:32-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes a specific process where the system "searches through a ‘library’ of avatars each of which is associated with a communication device identifier, which...is effectively a telephone number," and checks identifiers until it "finds one that matches the attribute" (col. 7:45-51). This could suggest the "match" requires a lookup in a predefined library correlating specific caller IDs to specific avatars.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains a single count for "Direct Infringement" and does not allege any facts that would support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful infringement" and makes no factual allegations regarding pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the ’157 Patent by the Defendant. The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint provides no factual basis for this request (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i.).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Based on the complaint and the patent-in-suit, the resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to several fundamental, open questions.
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: The first question is procedural: what specific products are accused of infringement and what is the plaintiff's factual basis for this accusation? As the complaint relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit, the defendant may challenge the pleading's sufficiency under federal rules.
- Definitional Scope: A core substantive issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "activity information," which the patent's specification illustrates with visual "avatars" representing a person's real-world status (e.g., being at work), be construed to cover the functionality of the yet-unidentified accused products?
- Technical Application: A key infringement question will be one of technical operation: do the accused products perform the specific lookup and "match" process required by the claims, where an incoming identifier is compared against stored data to retrieve and display activity information, or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the systems operate?