Upchat LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01265, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed communication products and services infringe a patent related to systems that use "avatars" to communicate a user's status or activity to another user.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns presence information in communication systems, where visual indicators automatically convey a user's real-world activities (e.g., "at work," "in a meeting") to others.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims a priority date from 2003, suggesting the underlying concepts were developed in the context of earlier mobile communication technologies. The patent's specification notes a lengthy application history, including multiple continuation applications, which may be relevant to construing claim scope and assessing potential prosecution history estoppel.

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. (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of needing to directly speak with or text someone to learn their status or what they are doing. The background section notes the desire for a user of a mobile telephone to "readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly." (’157 Patent, col. 1:39-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user's status is represented by an "avatar"—an image such as a digital photograph or animated icon—that conveys information about their current activity. (’157 Patent, col. 2:13-17). The system is operable to determine an attribute of a communication device (e.g., a caller's phone number), use that attribute to identify a corresponding avatar (e.g., an image of the user in a business suit to indicate they are at work), and communicate that avatar to the other device. (’157 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-12). This communication can also take place within a "virtual environment," such as a virtual office. (’157 Patent, col. 3:3-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a richer, more automated, and visual form of presence information than the simple text-based status messages or manual updates prevalent at the time of the invention. (’157 Patent, col. 1:35-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more claims" and "exemplary method claims." (Compl. ¶11). Independent method claim 11 is representative of the invention's core method.

• 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 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....

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. 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 references but does not include claim charts from a missing "Exhibit 2" that allegedly compare the patent claims to the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the patent's claims and the complaint's general allegations. The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing the accused products, and also by having its employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products." (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The core of the alleged infringement appears to be that Defendant's products provide a communication service that stores user identification data, stores corresponding user activity/status information (the "activity information"), allows other users to access that status information based on some form of identification match, and permits the status information to be updated or replaced.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will concern the scope of claim terms originating from a 2003 priority date in the context of modern communication platforms. For example, whether the process of "allowing...access...based on finding a match" tied to "caller identification data" (’157 Patent, col. 7:8-11) can be read to cover the contact-list or social-graph-based permission models common in today's IP-based messaging services.
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence regarding the architecture of any accused product. A central technical question for the court will be whether any accused functionality performs the specific gating function of "finding a match between the stored identifying information and the identification data of the communication device" as a prerequisite for accessing the "activity information," as required by the claim. (’157 Patent, col. 12:18-22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "activity information identifying an activity"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the content being communicated (the avatar/status). Its construction is critical because it will determine whether the claim is limited to specific types of graphical representations or can encompass a broader range of modern status indicators, such as text statuses, emojis, or profile pictures.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "avatar" as "a form of image (such as a digital photograph or animated icon), which when viewed conveys some information about an activity." (’157 Patent, col. 2:13-16). This could support an interpretation that includes various forms of visual status indicators.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s examples consistently describe pictorial representations of a person performing an action, such as a person in a "business suit carrying a briefcase" or "carrying shopping bags." (’157 Patent, col. 2:11-12, 25-26). This could support an argument that the term is limited to such explicit, activity-depicting images and does not cover generic text statuses or profile photos.

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the mechanism that grants access to the status information. Its interpretation will be central to determining whether the patent reads on modern messaging systems that use different permission models than the caller-ID-based system described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that this language generally covers any system where a user's identity is authenticated before they are permitted to view another user's status information, such as checking if a user is on a pre-approved contact list.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "match" to "caller identification data" and a "telephone number." (’157 Patent, col. 3:15-19, 7:45-49). This linkage may support a narrower construction limited to a specific lookup process triggered by an incoming communication's identifier, rather than a persistent permission state within a social network or messaging app.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of willfulness. While the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the complaint pleads no specific facts regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent or any alleged objectively reckless conduct. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ E.i).

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold procedural issue will be whether the complaint, which fails to identify any accused products or asserted claims with specificity, satisfies the plausibility pleading standards required by federal court precedent.

2. Definitional Scope: A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the technological context of early 2000s caller-ID and mobile telephone networks (e.g., "finding a match" based on a "telephone number") be construed to encompass the architectures of modern, IP-based messaging and social networking applications?

3. Functional Operation: Should the case proceed, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will show that any accused product performs the specific, multi-step method of the patent—particularly the "match"-based access control—as opposed to employing a technically distinct method for displaying user status information?