DCT

3:25-cv-00381

Malikie Innovations Ltd v. Match Group Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00381, N.D. Tex., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants Match Group, Match Group Americas, and Tinder have a regular and established place of business in the district, and Defendant Hyperconnect is a foreign corporation not residing in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, successors-in-interest to a portfolio of patents from BlackBerry Ltd., allege that Defendants’ online dating and social discovery applications (including Tinder, Match.com, and Azar) infringe five patents related to mobile messaging, communication protocol switching, and peer-to-peer routing.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational challenges in mobile communications from the early smartphone era, such as managing network bandwidth, enabling data roaming, and establishing efficient peer-to-peer connections.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Malikie sent pre-suit notice letters to Defendant Match Group on March 19, 2024, and February 11, 2025, identifying the asserted patents and accused products. These allegations form the basis for the claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’152 Patent
2003-09-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’747 Patent
2004-12-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’625 Patent
2005-11-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’156 Patent
2008-01-01 ’747 Patent Issued
2012-03-06 Earliest Priority Date for ’208 Patent
2012-05-08 ’625 Patent Issued
2014-03-11 ’208 Patent Issued
2014-04-01 ’152 Patent Issued
2020-09-15 ’156 Patent Issued
2024-03-19 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2025-02-11 Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant
2025-10-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,688,152 - “Method for creating a peer-to-peer immediate messaging solution without using an instant messaging server,” Issued April 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that early instant messaging (IM) applications required "frequent exchange of messages between the client and server to indicate when a user is available" (’152 Patent, col. 2:11-13). This frequent exchange consumed limited wireless bandwidth, increased data costs, and reduced mobile device battery life (Compl. ¶38; ’152 Patent, col. 2:12-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing explicit "presence information" with "implied availability" (’152 Patent, col. 11:2-4). It leverages the "always-on, always-connected" nature of mobile devices to allow "assumptions to be made about [a user's] availability" based on factors like message delivery status, rather than constant server check-ins (’152 Patent, col. 10:54-59). The system utilizes a "stateless peer-to-peer routing" center that routes messages without storing state information for each device (’152 Patent, col. 10:37-43).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to significantly reduce network traffic and power consumption, addressing two of the primary technical hurdles for widespread adoption of mobile messaging in the early 2000s (Compl. ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a method of operating a first mobile station by:
    • receiving a first message from a second mobile station;
    • determining an implied availability based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list detected by the first mobile station; and
    • sending a second message to the second mobile station indicative of the implied availability of the first mobile station.
  • Independent Claim 11 requires a method of operating a first mobile station by:
    • sending a first message to a second mobile station; and
    • receiving a second message indicative of an implied availability of the second mobile station, where that implied availability is determined based on messaging activity detected by the second mobile station.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 10 and 20 (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,156 - “System and methods for data communications in a wireless communication system,” Issued September 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of allowing a mobile device user to "take their mobile device from their home country or region and travel elsewhere and still receive service from a foreign network carrier" (’156 Patent, col. 1:43-45; Compl. ¶49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "relay network infrastructure" that includes a "relay services node" (’156 Patent, col. 5:26-28). This node acts as an intermediary, providing "connectivity between mobile communications devices" and "various data application services" (such as email servers) "regardless of the geographic location of the mobile communications devices... and their respective wireless carriers" (’156 Patent, col. 5:32-36). This architecture enables a device to receive notifications of new data and retrieve it, even when roaming on a foreign network.
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for seamless international data roaming, a critical feature for business travelers and the global expansion of mobile data services (Compl. ¶49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a method of operating a mobile device by:
    • receiving an enable message indicating that a pending data message is available for retrieval from a host service; and
    • communicating directly with the host service to retrieve the pending data message after receiving the enable message and opening an application.
  • Independent Claim 14 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions for a system to perform a method by:
    • sending an enable message to a mobile device that identifies a pending data message at a host service; and
    • communicating directly with the mobile device to retrieve the pending data message after sending the enable message and opening an application.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 5 and 19 (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 7,315,747 - “Handheld electronic device and associated method providing availability data in a messaging environment,” Issued January 1, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges that this patent addresses the imprecision of binary "available" and "unavailable" presence statuses in an "always on" mobile environment, which wastes user time and network bandwidth (Compl. ¶60). The patented solution provides for "stepwise indications of the relative availabilities" of users and a protocol to communicate this more descriptive "enhancement data" between devices, potentially over a separate communications band (Compl. ¶61-62).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 and dependent claim 13 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products from Match Group, Match Americas, and Tinder of infringing, citing an exemplary claim chart attached as Exhibit 8 (Compl. ¶66).

U.S. Patent No. 8,671,208 - “System and method for adaptively routing peer-to-peer (P2P) communications,” Issued March 11, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint states this patent solves the problem of server-based communication systems (like SIP) unnecessarily keeping a proxy server in the signaling path for sessions that could be converted to a more efficient direct peer-to-peer (P2P) connection (Compl. ¶73, 75). The invention is a method for enabling adaptive conversion from a proxy-based session to a P2P session by first determining whether the devices' respective "network protection types" (e.g., firewalls, NATs) are compatible with a direct connection (Compl. ¶76).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, and 7 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The video chat feature of Match Group’s and Hyperconnect’s Azar product (Compl. ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 8,175,625 - “Messaging protocol/service switching methods and devices,” Issued May 8, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent addresses the inefficiency of devices defaulting to a suboptimal communication protocol (e.g., SMS) because they are unaware of the other device's superior capabilities (Compl. ¶85). The solution is a method to switch communication modes by embedding "messaging information" about a second, preferred protocol within the header of a first message sent using the initial protocol, allowing the receiving device to initiate communication on the better protocol (Compl. ¶86).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 6, 7, and 9 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: The video chat feature of Match Group’s and Hyperconnect’s Azar product and Tinder’s "Face to Face Video Chat" feature (Compl. ¶90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies numerous online dating brands owned by Match Group but lodges specific infringement allegations against the Tinder, Match.com, and Azar applications (Compl. ¶4, 79, 90; Ex. 6a, 6b, 7, 9, 10a, 10b).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are mobile and web-based applications that provide social discovery and communication services, including text and video chat, to facilitate connections between users (Compl. ¶4). The allegations focus on the underlying technical functionality of these messaging features, such as push notifications for new messages, the display of typing indicators and read receipts, and the establishment of video calls between users (Ex. 6a, 7, 10b). For example, a screenshot in the complaint shows a Tinder notification for a new GIF message (Ex. 7, p. 131). The complaint characterizes Defendant Match Group as a "leading provider of digital technologies designed to help people make 'meaningful connections'" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits, which provide the basis for the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶42, 53).

’152 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a first message from a second mobile station; The Tinder application receives an incoming chat message from another user's device. Ex. 6a, p. 102 col. 15:27-28
determining an implied availability based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list detected by the first mobile station; The Tinder application determines a user's status based on their real-time messaging activity, such as typing a response, which is then displayed to the other user as animated dots. A screenshot provided in Exhibit 6a shows these typing indicator dots in a Tinder chat window (Ex. 6a, p. 102). Ex. 6a, p. 102 col. 15:29-32
sending a second message to the second mobile station indicative of the implied availability of the first mobile station. The Tinder application sends data to the second user's device that causes the typing indicator or a "read" status to be displayed, indicating the first user's current activity or "implied availability." Ex. 6a, p. 104 col. 15:33-36

Identified Points of Contention (’152 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of "implied availability." The complaint suggests that real-time activity indicators like typing dots meet this limitation. The question for the court will be whether this term, as described in the patent, can be construed to cover simple, transient actions, or if it requires a more complex inference of a user's state based on a wider set of inputs described in the specification, such as calendar status or call activity (’152 Patent, col. 13:10-16).
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires determining availability based on activity with a "contact list." It raises the question of whether a list of matches within a dating application functions as the "contact list" contemplated by the patent, which was developed in the context of general-purpose mobile device address books.

’156 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving an enable message indicating that a pending data message is available for retrieval from a host service; The Tinder application on a mobile device receives a push notification (e.g., via Apple's or Google's notification service) informing the user of a new pending message, such as "sent you a GIF." A screenshot in Exhibit 7 depicts this notification on an iPhone's home screen (Ex. 7, p. 131). Ex. 7, p. 131 col. 13:36-39
communicating directly with the host service to retrieve the pending data message from the host service after receiving the enable message and opening an application at the mobile device. After the user taps the notification, the mobile device opens the Tinder application, which then communicates with Tinder's servers to fetch and display the pending message/GIF. Exhibit 7 contains screenshots illustrating the user opening the app to view the newly delivered GIF (Ex. 7, p. 132). Ex. 7, p. 132 col. 13:40-44

Identified Points of Contention (’156 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether a standard operating system push notification (e.g., from Apple Push Notification Service) constitutes the claimed "enable message" received from a "relay services node" as required by dependent claim 5. Defendants may argue that such third-party OS services are distinct from the integrated "relay network infrastructure" described in the patent (’156 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires "communicating directly with the host service." Given modern cloud architectures, which often involve load balancers, content delivery networks, and various microservices, a key factual dispute could be whether the accused application's communication path is "direct" in the manner contemplated by the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’152 Patent

  • The Term: "implied availability"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’152 Patent. The case may turn on whether this term is broad enough to cover modern real-time activity indicators (like typing dots or read receipts) or if it is limited to the specific, more complex methods of inferring a user's state described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory relies on equating a simple, observable user action (typing) with an inferred state of availability.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as replacing the "over-used concept of 'presence information', which can be updating constantly, with 'implied availability'" (’152 Patent, col. 11:2-4). This language could support an interpretation where any status not explicitly set by the user is "implied."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of inputs for determining availability, such as calendar events, ignoring phone calls, or the device being physically turned off (’152 Patent, col. 13:10-16). This list of more passive, state-based inputs may support a narrower construction that excludes direct, active user input like typing a message.

’156 Patent

  • The Term: "communicating directly"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on the user opening the app and the app then "communicating directly" with the host service. The definition of "directly" is critical, as modern app architectures are rarely simple point-to-point connections.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a required network topology, suggesting that "directly" could mean communicating without requiring a user to take further manual steps (e.g., logging in again or navigating through menus) after opening the app.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a relatively simple architecture where the mobile device communicates with a "host service" via a "wireless router" and "communication network" (’156 Patent, Fig. 1). This may support an argument that "directly" precludes communication through the complex chain of intermediaries (e.g., CDNs, multiple API gateways) common in modern systems.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on Defendants allegedly providing their applications and services and encouraging users to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶44, 55, 68, 81, 92). The contributory infringement claims allege that Defendants supply a material part of the invention that is not a staple article of commerce and is incapable of substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶45, 56, 69, 82, 93).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported knowledge of the patents since at least March 19, 2024, and February 11, 2025, via pre-suit notice letters. The allegations state that Defendants failed to respond to these communications or take any action to cease infringement (Compl. ¶40-41, 46, 51-52, 57).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: can claim terms drafted for the BlackBerry-era of mobile computing (e.g., "implied availability," "relay services node") be construed to cover the functionally similar but architecturally distinct features of modern, cloud-based social applications, such as typing indicators and operating-system-level push notifications?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: does the technical infrastructure of the accused services—involving WebSockets, WebRTC, and complex cloud backends—actually operate in the manner required by the patent claims? The case may turn on whether Plaintiffs can successfully map the components and steps of the accused systems onto the specific elements and sequences recited in the asserted claims, or if fundamental mismatches in technical operation exist.