Upchat LLC v. Jibble Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Jibble Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01262, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems that determine and communicate a user's status (e.g., "at work") to other users via a representative "avatar" or other activity information.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns presence and status indication in communication networks, a feature that has become a foundational element of modern messaging, collaboration, and social media platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events. The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a 2003 Australian application, a factor that may be relevant in future validity analyses concerning prior art.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,182,157 - "Systems and methods for communicating"

• Patent Identification: 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 describes the difficulty for a mobile phone user to "readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly" (e.g., speaking or texting), such as knowing if the other person is in a meeting. (’157 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user's device stores "activity information" (described as an "avatar") that conveys information about the user's current status. When another device communicates with the user's device, the system identifies the calling device (e.g., via its phone number), matches it to stored permissions, and then transmits the user's avatar to the calling device for display, thereby informing the caller of the user's status without direct conversation. (’157 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). The system also allows the user to change or "replace" the avatar to reflect a new activity. (’157 Patent, col. 2:18-29).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for passively communicating rich presence information in a mobile network, moving beyond simple busy signals to convey more nuanced user context.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '157 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus claims.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A storage device that stores (a) identifying information indicative of a telephone number of a communication device and (b) activity information identifying a user's activity.
  • A processor configured to allow access to the activity information based on a match between the stored identifying information and identification data from the communication device.
  • The processor is also configured to "replace the activity information with another activity information identifying another activity" of the user.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Defendant products." (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the accused instrumentality's features or functionality. All infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed complaint document. (Compl. ¶13-14). Accordingly, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory is presented in claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which is referenced but not provided. (Compl. ¶13-14). The body of the complaint offers only the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '157 Patent." (Compl. ¶13). As no narrative infringement theory or specific facts are provided in the complaint itself, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of detail about the accused products, any analysis of potential disputes is necessarily predictive. Based on the patent's claims and the general state of the technology, key questions may include:
  • Scope Questions: Will the term "activity information," which the patent specification frequently equates with a visual "avatar," be interpreted to cover more abstract presence indicators common in modern software, such as text-based statuses (e.g., "In a Meeting") or simple colored icons (e.g., a green dot for "online")? (’157 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
  • Technical Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused products perform the claimed function of allowing access to status information "based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and identification data of the communication device." (’157 Patent, col. 12:2-8). The evidence required to show this specific matching process will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "activity information identifying an activity"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the object of the patent's system—it is what is stored, accessed, and replaced. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims read on modern text-based status updates and simple presence icons or are limited to the more complex graphical "avatars" described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "information," which is not explicitly limited to images. (’157 Patent, col. 11:18-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently defines this concept in relation to an "avatar," which it describes as "a form of image (such as a digital photograph or animated icon)." (’157 Patent, col. 2:13-17). The summary of the invention also frames the invention around communicating an "avatar." (’157 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

• The Term: "replace the activity information with another activity information"

  • Context and Importance: This element requires a dynamic updating capability. The dispute could center on whether a simple manual change of a user's status satisfies this limitation or if a more structured selection and replacement process, as described in the patent, is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "replace" could be argued to cover any act of changing one stored piece of information for another. (’157 Patent, col. 12:9-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this functionality in the context of a user selecting a new avatar from a "plurality of different avatars" that represent different activities (e.g., an office picture, a surfboard picture), suggesting a system of pre-defined, selectable states rather than free-form text entry. (’157 Patent, col. 8:12-23).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct. It includes a request in the prayer for relief that the case be declared "exceptional," which is a predicate for enhanced damages and attorney's fees, but offers no supporting factual allegations in the body of the complaint. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

• Pleading Sufficiency: An immediate question is whether the complaint, which lacks any factual allegations describing the accused products or how they infringe and instead relies entirely on an unprovided external exhibit, meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement established by federal court precedent.
• Definitional Scope: A central substantive issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "activity information," which the patent's specification consistently describes as a graphical "avatar," be construed broadly enough to encompass the text-based statuses and simple presence icons that are ubiquitous in modern communication software?
• Prior Art and Priority: Given the patent’s 2003 priority date, its validity will likely be tested against the state of the art in the early 2000s. A key question will be whether the claimed combination of storing, matching, and replacing status information was novel and non-obvious over earlier instant messaging and mobile communication systems from that era.