HS Treasure Contacts Ltd v. Viber Media SARL

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: H.S. Treasure Contacts LTD (Cyprus)
  • Defendant: VIBER Media S.a r.l a/k/a RAKUTEN VIBER (Luxembourg)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01156, E.D. Tex., 10/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any district where the defendant, a foreign corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Viber mobile application infringes a patent related to methods for the viral distribution of software by leveraging a user's device contact list.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses user acquisition for mobile applications by automating a process where existing users invite contacts to install the application, creating a self-propagating or "viral" growth loop.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,655,341 - "Methods for Mobile Phone Applications"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the technical challenge of distributing mobile applications to a wide user base, particularly given the proliferation of different mobile device models requiring different software versions and the large market of users who have internet-enabled phones but lack regular PC access for discovering and installing applications ('341 Patent, col. 2:13-21, 48-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system and method to facilitate "viral marketing" directly from a mobile device ('341 Patent, col. 1:26-31). As depicted in Figure 1, an application installed on a first user's phone (10) reads the user's contact list (20) and transmits it to a central server (200). The server's "application distribution unit" (230) then contacts unregistered users from that list and invites them to install the application, creating a self-replicating distribution cycle ('341 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach automates and expedites user acquisition by leveraging a user’s pre-existing social network (their contact list) without requiring the user or their contacts to use a PC, which was a significant barrier for a large segment of mobile users at the time ('341 Patent, col. 2:22-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-18, focusing on independent method Claim 1 and independent system Claim 10 (Compl. ¶¶11, 15-16).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • installing software on networked mobile devices;
  • reading, via the software, a portion of a contact list stored on the devices;
  • transmitting the portion of the contact list to a server;
  • sending an invitation to install the software to unregistered users from that portion of the contact list;
  • installing the software on the devices of those who accept the invitation;
  • repeating these steps for each contact to achieve viral distribution; and
  • providing a server with an applications database, a client's database (subdivided into registered and unregistered sub-databases), and an application distribution unit adapted to contact unregistered users.
• Independent Claim 10 (System) includes the following essential elements:
  • an application running on networked mobile devices;
  • a database storing a contact list of the mobile devices;
  • means for sending an invitation to install the application to a portion of the contact list;
  • installing the application upon acceptance of the invitation;
  • means to repeat the prior steps for each contact;
  • a server with an applications database, a client's database (subdivided into registered and unregistered sub-databases), and an application distribution unit adapted to contact unregistered users; and
  • whereby viral distribution of applications is achieved.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional dependent claims but makes a general assertion against claims 1-18 (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Viber mobile application and the associated Viber service, specifically including the "Invite Friends feature" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Invite Friends feature" enables existing Viber users to invite non-Viber users to download and install the application (Compl. ¶17). This process is alleged to accomplish the "viral distribution of the application on mobile devices" (Compl. ¶17). A series of screenshots in the complaint illustrates a user flow where a user first installs the Viber app, then grants it access to their device's contact list. The complaint provides a screenshot of a user selecting contacts from their list to invite to Viber (Compl. p. 7, ¶24). It further shows that an invited user receives an invitation message containing a link to download and install the app from an app store (Compl. p. 8, ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for representative method Claim 1 of the ’341 Patent. The complaint refers to a claim chart in Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document. This summary is based on the narrative allegations and screenshots provided in the body of the complaint.

’341 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the specific server architecture recited in claim 1(g) and claim 10(f)—requiring a "client's database being subdivided into registered clients Sub database and unregistered clients Sub database"—reads on the actual architecture of Viber's backend servers. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation on this point without providing specific evidence.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's visual evidence raises a technical question about how the invitation is sent. The screenshot of a received invitation appears within an Apple iMessage interface (Compl. p. 8, ¶24), suggesting the user, not Viber's server, may be transmitting the invitation via a separate messaging service. This could create a dispute over whether Defendant's system performs the claimed step of "Sending invitation to install said software to unregistered users" (claim 1(d)) or merely facilitates the user sending their own invitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "viral distribution"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of the asserted independent claims and describes the overall outcome of the patented method. The definition of this term will be critical for determining the scope of the claims, as it could be interpreted either as a general marketing concept or as a technical process strictly defined by the claim steps that precede it.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background section introduces "viral marketing" in broad terms, defining it as a technique using "pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives...through self-replicating processes" ('341 Patent, col. 1:26-31). This language may support an interpretation that covers a wide range of user-driven growth mechanisms.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1, element (f), recites the repetition of steps b-e, "whereby viral distribution of software...is achieved." This language suggests the possibility that, for the purposes of the patent, "viral distribution" is not a broad concept but is specifically defined and limited by the particular sequence of steps recited in the claim itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides the Viber application with instructions that encourage users to perform the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶¶19, 37). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Defendant supplies the "invite friends feature," which is described as a material part of the invention that is not a staple article of commerce and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶20, 29).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced damages but bases allegations of knowledge on notice provided by the filing of the lawsuit itself (Compl. ¶¶19-20; VII(H)). This suggests the allegation is directed at post-suit conduct rather than pre-suit willfulness.

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

This case will likely depend on the resolution of two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Do the specific server components recited in the claims—particularly the "client's database being subdivided into registered...and unregistered...Sub database[s]"—map directly onto the technical architecture of Viber's backend systems, or is there a material difference that could support a non-infringement argument?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical agency: Does the accused Viber system directly perform the claimed step of "Sending invitation...to unregistered users," or does it merely generate an invitation link that the user then sends independently through a third-party service like SMS or iMessage? The answer will determine whether Defendant's system practices a key step of the claimed method.