Upchat LLC v. Mobilesson Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Mobilesson Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01264, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for communicating a user's status or activity to another user via a representative "avatar."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mobile communication networks where a user can associate a graphical icon or image (an avatar) with their status, which is then communicated to other users attempting to make contact.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings. The asserted patent claims priority from a chain of applications originating with an Australian filing in 2003.

Case Timeline

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of needing to directly contact a mobile phone user (e.g., by calling or messaging) simply to determine their current activity or availability, such as whether they are in a meeting (’157 Patent, col. 1:36-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system that automatically conveys information about a user's activity to another person's device. It does this by identifying an "avatar"—defined as an image like a digital photograph or animated icon—that represents the user's current activity (e.g., an image of a person in a business suit to indicate "at work"). This avatar is then communicated to the other user's device, providing a visual status update without requiring direct conversation (’157 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-16). The system can also present these avatars within a "virtual environment" like a virtual office or boardroom (’157 Patent, col. 3:8-14; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to enhance passive communication in mobile networks, allowing for richer, non-intrusive status updates beyond simple text indicators like "busy" or "available." (’157 Patent, col. 1:36-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "Exemplary '157 Patent Claims" detailed in an attached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 13). As Exhibit 2 was not included with the complaint, the following analysis is based on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • An apparatus with a storage device that stores:
    • (a) identifying information indicative of a telephone number of a communication device; and
    • (b) activity information identifying an activity of a user.
  • A processor configured to:
    • allow 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; and
    • replace the activity information with another activity information identifying another activity.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name or describe any specific accused products, referring only to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint mapping any accused product to the patent's claims (Compl. ¶11-12). Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '157 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates these charts by reference (Compl. ¶13-14). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of detail, any infringement dispute will first require clarification of the accused products and the plaintiff's infringement theories. Based on the patent's claims, the analysis will likely raise several questions:

• Scope Questions: What constitutes "activity information" under the claims? Does this require a graphical "avatar" as described in the specification, or could it read on simpler, text-based status messages?
• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the claimed "match" between a caller's identification data and stored information to retrieve the correct activity information? How is the "replacing" of activity information accomplished in the accused system?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"activity information identifying an activity" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the claims are limited to the graphical "avatars" emphasized in the specification or can encompass a broader range of status indicators.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to "information identifying an activity" without explicitly requiring a graphical format.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly defines the core concept in terms of an "avatar," which is described as "a form of image (such as a digital photograph or animated icon)" that "conveys to a viewer thereof information about a person" (’157 Patent, col. 2:3-5, 13-16). The detailed description focuses on visual depictions, such as a person in a business suit or carrying shopping bags, to represent an activity (’157 Patent, col. 2:10-12, 23-26).

"based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and identification data of the communication device" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the mechanism for retrieving the correct activity information. The dispute will likely focus on how closely an accused system's logic must resemble the "matching" process described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "match" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to cover any logical association between a caller's identity and a stored status.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process where the system "searches through a 'library' of avatars each of which is associated with a communication device identifier" and "checks the communication device identifiers until it finds one that matches the attribute" (’157 Patent, col. 7:45-52). This suggests a direct, one-to-one lookup, which could be argued to be narrower than, for example, a system that applies rules based on group membership (e.g., "co-workers") or context.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support claims for indirect or willful infringement.

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

The complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit leaves the central infringement theories undefined. Once these theories are articulated, the case will likely turn on the resolution of several key questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "activity information," which is rooted in the specification's detailed descriptions of graphical "avatars," be construed broadly enough to cover other forms of status indicators, such as text-based messages, used in modern communication systems?
• A central evidentiary question will concern the mechanism of association: What factual evidence is required to prove that an accused product performs the specific "match" between a caller's ID and stored data as claimed, as opposed to using a different logic (e.g., user-defined rules, contextual triggers, or group settings) to determine which status to display?
• A threshold procedural question will be whether the complaint's skeletal allegations, which incorporate by reference an unprovided exhibit, satisfy the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.