Communication Interface Tech LLC v. Marriott Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Communication Interface Technologies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Marriott International, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beaty Legal PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00725, E.D. Tex., 08/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including a specific location in Plano, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Marriott Mobile App infringes three patents related to maintaining and efficiently re-establishing client-server communication sessions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating "virtual sessions" that persist even when a physical data connection is inactive, designed to reduce latency and resource consumption in mobile and remote computing environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit have been the subject of extensive prior litigation against numerous other defendants, with many cases having been dismissed. The complaint also states that there are more than 180 licensees to each of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239 - VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER, Issued June 3, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in client-server computing where establishing and tearing down communication sessions for intermittent access is inefficient (’239 Patent, col. 2:35-44). Prior art methods required a full, time-consuming renegotiation process each time a connection was needed, which was particularly costly for dial-up and wireless connections (Compl. ¶12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "virtual session" layer that allows a communication session to be maintained in a deactivated or "inactive" state after a physical connection is dropped (’239 Patent, col. 3:45-50). When communication is needed again, the session can be quickly reactivated by reusing saved parameters, avoiding the overhead of a full re-authentication and negotiation sequence (’239 Patent, col. 4:56-64; Compl. ¶12). The system is illustrated in figures showing a virtual session server maintaining the session on behalf of the remote unit (’239 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make remote and mobile computing more seamless and efficient by reducing connection latency and conserving billable resources like wireless airtime (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶39).
• Claim 7 Essential Elements:
  • A method for use in controlling a virtual session on a server.
  • Establishing a virtual session with a remote unit to support at least one application layer program.
  • Placing the virtual session in an inactive state.
  • Sending a signal for an incoming communication request and an application-program identifying packet to the remote unit.
  • The packet identifies an application program that needs to resume the virtual session.
  • Placing the virtual session back into the active state and transferring data in response to sending the signal.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 8,266,296 - APPLICATION-LAYER EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY A MOBILE DEVICE, Issued September 11, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family, the ’296 Patent addresses the same general problems of inefficient client-server connections for mobile devices (Compl. ¶10-12). This patent focuses on the process at the mobile device for handling server-initiated communications.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a mobile device receives an "unsolicited communication" from a remote entity (e.g., a server) while a session is inactive (’296 Patent, Abstract). The mobile device evaluates information within that communication to identify a specific application program. If a match is found, the device launches the identified application and reactivates the communication session, allowing data transfer to resume (’296 Patent, Abstract; ’239 Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism for server-side events to trigger activity on a mobile device, enabling features like push notifications that create the appearance of a persistent, "always-on" connection without maintaining a continuous physical link (Compl. ¶15, ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
• Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • A method performed by a computing device.
  • Establishing a communication session with a remote server supporting an application layer program.
  • Subsequent to deactivation of the session, receiving an incoming communication from the server that was not in response to a request from the computing device.
  • At the application layer, reading a set of information included in the incoming communication.
  • In response to determining the information identifies the first program, reactivating the communication session.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,291,010, VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER, Issued October 16, 2012.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’239 Patent, also describes a system for maintaining a virtual communication session between a remote unit and a server. The technology allows the session to be placed in an inactive state and later reactivated by the remote unit without requiring a full, new authentication process, thereby reducing connection delays.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶75-76).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Marriott Mobile App's use of TLS sessions and push notifications to manage client-server communications (Compl. ¶74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Marriott Mobile App" (Compl. ¶36, ¶54, ¶72).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities are mobile device applications that perform methods for client-server communication (Compl. ¶36, ¶38). Specifically, the complaint alleges that "wireless push notification messages are sent over TLS sessions, and the remote server and the client-side application establish a separate TLS connection for traditional client-server communications" (Compl. ¶38, ¶56, ¶74).
• The complaint asserts that such mobile applications provide significant commercial value by enhancing customer engagement and increasing operational efficiency (Compl. ¶23).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶39, ¶57, ¶75-76). The narrative allegations provide a high-level summary of the infringement theory.

’239 Patent and ’296 Patent Infringement Allegations

The core of Plaintiff’s infringement theory appears to be that the Accused Instrumentality’s use of modern mobile communication protocols maps onto the claimed methods for managing "virtual sessions." The complaint alleges that the Marriott Mobile App and its associated servers send and receive push notifications over Transport Layer Security (TLS) sessions while also establishing separate TLS connections for other communications (Compl. ¶38, ¶56). Plaintiff appears to contend that this functionality meets the claim limitations of establishing a session, placing it in an inactive state, and reactivating it based on a server-initiated message that identifies a specific application.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "virtual session," as described in the patents with reference to dial-up and proxy-server embodiments, can be construed to read on modern, standardized protocols like TLS session resumption. A further question is whether a standard push notification from a service like Apple's or Google's constitutes "sending... an application-program identifying packet" as specifically required by claim 7 of the ’239 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused app's use of TLS and push notifications technically maps to each element of the asserted claims. A point of contention may be whether the accused system actually performs the claimed steps of, for example, "placing the virtual session in an inactive state" or whether it simply relies on the underlying operating system and notification services to manage connectivity in a way that is technically distinct from the patented method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’239 Patent (Claim 7) and ’296 Patent (Claim 1)

• The Term: "virtual session"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core concept of the asserted patents. The outcome of the case may depend on whether its scope is limited to the specific proxy-agent architecture described in the specification or is broad enough to cover modern client-server communication management techniques like TLS session resumption.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a virtual session as a communication session that can be maintained while a physical connection is decoupled, and distinguishes it from the underlying application session (’239 Patent, col. 10:15-35). This could support an interpretation covering any protocol that achieves this functional outcome.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details an embodiment where a "virtual session server" acts as a proxy agent for the remote unit, maintains a table of session parameters, and manages the logon state with a separate application program (’239 Patent, col. 10:45-56, col. 12:4-20). This may support an interpretation limiting the term to systems employing such a specific architecture.

For the ’296 Patent (Claim 1)

• The Term: "receiving an incoming communication... that was not in response to a request from the computing device" (i.e., an unsolicited communication)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory based on push notifications. Practitioners may focus on whether a modern push notification, which typically requires a user to install an app and grant permissions, qualifies as "unsolicited" in the context of the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is general and could be argued to cover any communication not directly preceded by a client request.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of server-initiated communication such as a server dialing out to a remote unit and using caller-ID packets to identify the purpose of the call (’239 Patent, col. 22:45-55, Fig. 7). This could suggest the term implies a communication initiated without any prior persistent connection or user opt-in, potentially distinguishing it from modern push notification architectures.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "virtual session," which is rooted in the technical context of 1990s dial-up modems and proxy servers, be construed to cover modern, standardized mobile communication protocols such as TLS session resumption and operating-system-level push notifications?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: What specific evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the functionality of the Marriott Mobile App—allegedly using TLS and push notifications—is not merely analogous to, but structurally and functionally equivalent to, the specific multi-step methods recited in the asserted claims?
3. A central legal and factual question will be the impact of the extensive licensing history: How will the existence of over 180 licensees for the patents-in-suit influence arguments regarding claim construction, non-obviousness, and the overall commercial success and industry acceptance of the patented technology?