Upchat LLC v. Keka Tech Pvt Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Keka Technologies PVT Ltd (India)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01263, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for communicating a user's activity status.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a representative image, or "avatar," to convey a person's current status or activity to others over a communication network, potentially within a virtual environment.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a 2003 Australian application and is the result of a chain of U.S. continuation applications.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the challenge for mobile device users to readily determine another user's status or activity (e.g., being in a meeting) without having to communicate directly via a call or text message (ʼ157 Patent, col. 1:39-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system where an "avatar"—defined as an image like a digital photograph or animated icon—is used to convey information about a person's activity ('157 Patent, col. 2:13-17). The system determines an attribute of a communication device (e.g., its telephone number) and uses it to identify and communicate a corresponding avatar, which can be displayed to other users, potentially within a "virtual environment" like a virtual office ('157 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:3-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a richer, more nuanced, and passive method for communicating user status than the binary "available" or "busy" indicators common in early communication systems ('157 Patent, col. 1:36-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "exemplary method claims," but does not specify them (Compl. ¶11). Independent method claim 11 is representative of the asserted subject matter.
• Independent Claim 11 Elements:
  • 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 identifying the activity of the at least one user of the communication network stored by the storage device based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and the identification data of the communication device; and
  • replacing the activity information with another activity information identifying another activity of the at least one user of the communication network.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an "Exhibit 2" which is referenced but not attached to the complaint filing (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '157 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but does not contain claim charts or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features; instead, it incorporates by reference an unattached "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶13-14). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges infringement occurs through Defendant's acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products, as well as through internal testing and use by its employees (Compl. ¶11-12).

Due to the absence of specific allegations or claim charts in the provided document, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Based on the patent's language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the features of the accused products fall within the scope of the patent’s claim terms. For example, does a modern user profile picture or status message in a messaging application constitute the "activity information identifying an activity" as contemplated by the patent, which the specification describes as an "avatar" that is an "image... which when viewed conveys some information about an activity" ('157 Patent, col. 2:13-17)?
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products perform the specific access-control method recited in claim 11. Specifically, what evidence shows that the accused system "allow[s]... access... based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and the identification data of the communication device," where the "identifying information" is "indicative of a telephone number" ('157 Patent, cl. 11)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "activity information identifying an activity"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of what is being stored, accessed, and replaced. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers modern status indicators (e.g., text-based statuses, emojis, profile pictures) or is limited to the more specific "avatar" concept described in the specification.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not explicitly limit "activity information" to a visual image or "avatar."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "activity information" as an "avatar," which it defines as "a form of image (such as a digital photograph or animated icon)" that conveys activity information, providing examples such as a person in a "business suit carrying a briefcase" to indicate work ('157 Patent, col. 2:10-17).

• The Term: "allowing the communication device to access the activity information ... based on finding a match"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the gatekeeping mechanism for sharing status information. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused product's permission or contact-list functionality operates in the manner required by the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language could be argued to cover any system where a user's identity is authenticated before status information is displayed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation 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 for a match ('157 Patent, col. 7:45-52). This could support an interpretation requiring a specific lookup function tied to a telephone number.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "activity information," which is heavily contextualized in the specification as a visual "avatar" depicting a real-world activity, be construed broadly enough to read on the status-displaying features of a modern software product?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, discovery will be central to determining whether the accused products actually perform the method of Claim 11, particularly the step of granting access to information "based on finding a match" between a device's identification data and stored identifying information that is "indicative of a telephone number."