DCT

1:25-cv-00258

Malikie Innovations Ltd v. Bumble Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00258, W.D. Tex., 02/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants maintain a headquarters and principal place of business in Austin, conduct business in the district, and the alleged infringing acts occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, successors-in-interest to a patent portfolio from BlackBerry Ltd., allege that Defendants' Bumble social networking platform infringes five patents related to peer-to-peer messaging, mobile user interfaces, and adaptive network communication routing.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address foundational challenges in early mobile computing, such as efficient messaging without a central server, managing user interfaces on crowded screens, and optimizing data communications for roaming devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Malikie sent a letter to Bumble on July 2, 2024, identifying the ’152, ’156, and ’847 patents and offering a license. A second letter was allegedly sent on February 11, 2025, identifying the ’208 and ’625 patents. The complaint states that after multiple follow-up communications, Defendants did not respond, forming the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,688,152 Priority Date
2004-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,175,625 Priority Date
2005-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,156 Priority Date
2007-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847 Priority Date
2012-03-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,671,208 Priority Date
2012-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,175,625 Issue Date
2012-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847 Issue Date
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,671,208 Issue Date
2014-04-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,688,152 Issue Date
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,156 Issue Date
2024-07-02 Plaintiff sends first pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2025-02-11 Plaintiff sends second pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2025-02-20 Complaint Filing Date

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. (Compl. ¶19).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent sought to address the shortcomings of early mobile instant messaging (IM) applications, which suffered from poor performance compared to their desktop counterparts and created excessive network traffic and battery drain by constantly communicating with a server to track user presence (’152 Patent, col. 2:1-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a peer-to-peer style messaging system that eliminates the need for a central IM server to track state information such as "presence and 'buddy list' information" (Compl. ¶38; ’152 Patent, col. 1:28-32). Instead, mobile devices determine a contact's "implied availability" based on their recent activity (e.g., sending messages, being in a call) and share this status information directly, reducing the need for constant server pings (’152 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:20-52).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to create a more efficient and secure mobile messaging experience by reducing network overhead and battery consumption, key limitations for early-generation smartphones (’152 Patent, col. 2:10-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 22 and 24 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Claim 22 Essential Elements:
    • A non-transitory computer readable medium for a first mobile station that includes instructions to:
    • receive a first message from a second mobile station;
    • determine an "implied availability" based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list; and
    • send a second message to the second mobile station that is indicative of the implied availability.
  • Claim 24 Essential Elements:
    • A non-transitory computer readable medium for a first mobile station that includes instructions to:
    • send a first message to a second mobile station; and
    • receive a second message indicative of the "implied availability" of the second mobile station, where that availability is determined based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list on the second station.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,156 - "System and methods for data communications in a wireless communication system"

  • Issued: September 15, 2020. (Compl. ¶20).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of a user traveling with a mobile device outside their home network and needing to maintain data services from a foreign carrier, which may offer a different set of features or have different limitations (’156 Patent, col. 1:33-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a mechanism to "automatically alter the services and/or the features offered to and the behaviour of a mobile device... based on the location and abilities of the mobile device" (Compl. ¶50; ’156 Patent, col. 1:58-61). The system works by sending a notification (an "enable message") to a device to inform it of a pending data message on a host server. In response to the user "opening an application," the device then communicates directly with the server to retrieve the data, avoiding the need for a persistent, battery-draining connection (’156 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided an efficient way for mobile devices to retrieve data, such as emails, particularly when roaming, by initiating data sessions only when necessary, thereby conserving battery and managing data costs on varied networks (’156 Patent, col. 1:52-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Claim 14 Essential Elements:
    • A non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions for communicating with a mobile device, comprising:
    • sending an "enable message" to the device that identifies a pending data message at a host service; and
    • communicating directly with the mobile device to retrieve the message, where this communication occurs after the enable message is sent and after an application is opened on the device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847, "System Having User Interface Using Object Selection and Gestures," issued December 18, 2012. (Compl. ¶21).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of "display crowding" on touchscreens, where selecting small, closely-packed objects is difficult (Compl. ¶61; ’847 Patent, col. 1:38-41). It discloses a user interface system that can distinguish between a user selecting an object (when touch movement is below a threshold value) and performing a gesture (when movement exceeds the threshold), allowing for more versatile interaction in a confined space (’847 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶65).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Bumble's user interface infringes by detecting and differentiating between a low-magnitude touch to select an object and a higher-magnitude touch (a gesture) to perform a different function (Compl. ¶65).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,671,208

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,671,208, "System and method for adaptively routing peer-to-peer (P2P) communications," issued March 11, 2014. (Compl. ¶22).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the trade-offs between server-based and P2P communication sessions. While server-based routing helps manage network congestion, direct P2P is often more efficient (Compl. ¶72; ’208 Patent, col. 1:30-37). The invention provides a system for adaptively routing communications by first determining the network protection types (e.g., NAT, firewall) of the endpoints to see if a P2P connection is possible. If it is, the connection is switched to P2P; if not, it remains routed through the server (proxy) (’208 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
    • Accused Features: Bumble's video chat feature is accused of infringing by allegedly establishing a P2P connection when possible, and otherwise using a proxy when a P2P connection is not possible (Compl. ¶76).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,175,625

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,175,625, "Messaging protocol/service switching methods and devices," issued May 8, 2012. (Compl. ¶23).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses situations where two devices could communicate using multiple protocols, one of which may be preferable (e.g., cheaper or more reliable) than the other (Compl. ¶83; ’625 Patent, col. 1:62-67). It discloses a method for automatically switching from a first protocol (e.g., SMS) to a second, preferred protocol (e.g., P2P) by embedding the necessary connection information for the second protocol into the header of a message sent using the first protocol (’625 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
    • Accused Features: Bumble's video chat feature is accused of infringing by allegedly switching communication between devices from a first protocol to a second one (Compl. ¶87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' products and services, including the Bumble mobile application and associated platform (Compl. ¶5, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint targets core functionalities of the Bumble platform. This includes its messaging system, which facilitates communication and displays user availability status (Compl. ¶42, 45). The complaint references an image in Exhibit 6, described as showing a contact list with user availability indicators, to support its infringement allegations for the ’152 Patent (Compl. ¶45). The suit also implicates the platform's method for handling data communications, such as notifying a user of a new message and retrieving it from a host service (Compl. ¶54). Further, the user interface, which allows users to interact with profiles via taps or swipes, is accused of infringing the ’847 Patent (Compl. ¶65). Finally, the technical implementation of the video chat feature is accused of infringing the ’208 and ’625 patents by adaptively establishing connections and switching between protocols (Compl. ¶76, 87).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 6-10, which were not provided for this analysis. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

'152 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' hardware and software, which are "responsible for sending or receiving messages and indicating user availability based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list," infringe claims 22 and 24 of the ’152 Patent (Compl. ¶42). The infringement theory centers on the Bumble app's functionality for displaying a user's status (e.g., "active," "recently active"), which Plaintiffs allege constitutes the claimed "implied availability." The exchange of messages and status updates between users on the platform is alleged to meet the claim elements of sending and receiving messages indicative of this availability (Compl. ¶42, 45).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A primary issue will be whether Bumble's method for determining and displaying user status (e.g., "online") meets the definition of "implied availability" as taught in the patent. The defense may argue that the patent requires a more complex determination based on specific events like calendar entries or active phone calls (’152 Patent, col. 8:60-67), whereas Bumble's feature may be a simpler online/offline indicator.
    • Technical Question: Claim 22 requires "sending a second message... indicative of the implied availability." A key factual question is whether the Bumble platform sends a discrete data message to update user status, as the claim may require, or whether status is updated through a different mechanism that does not involve sending a "message" in the claimed sense.

'156 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' products and services infringe claims 14 and 19 by providing a system that receives a "notification of a message" and then "directly communicate[s] with the host service to retrieve the message" (Compl. ¶54). This theory appears to map to standard push notification functionality, where a mobile app receives a lightweight notification and subsequently fetches the full message content from a server. The complaint alleges that this process meets the patent's claim limitations (Compl. ¶54, 57).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The analysis will likely focus on whether a standard mobile push notification qualifies as an "enable message" as the term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that an "enable message" is a specific type of instruction distinct from a generic notification.
    • Technical Question: Claim 14 requires that the direct communication to retrieve the message occurs after "opening an application at the mobile device." An essential factual question is one of operational sequence: does the Bumble app retrieve message data only after a user brings the app to the foreground, or does it pre-fetch data in the background upon receiving a push notification, which could potentially fall outside the claim's specific sequence?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "implied availability" (’152 Patent, claims 22, 24)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’152 Patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent will depend heavily on whether Bumble's user status feature (e.g., "active now") is construed to be the claimed "implied availability."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the term as being "based on messaging activity with contacts in a contact list" (’152 Patent, col. 20:10-12). Plaintiffs may argue this broad language covers any status derived from recent message history.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific examples of what contributes to implied availability, including a user being "in a current telephone call," in a meeting according to a "calendar application," or "ignoring incoming telephone calls" (’152 Patent, col. 8:60-67). Defendants will likely argue the term should be limited to these more sophisticated, activity-based determinations rather than a simple online/offline indicator.

  • The Term: "opening an application at the mobile device" (’156 Patent, claim 14)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement of claim 14 hinges on a specific sequence of events, and the timing of the "opening" of the application is critical. If data is retrieved before this event occurs, the claim may not be infringed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may argue that this term encompasses any user action that brings the application to the foreground or makes it the active process on the device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states, "In response to opening an application... the mobile device communicates directly with the server" (’156 Patent, Abstract). This language suggests a causal relationship. Defendants may argue that this requires the user's act of opening the application to be the direct trigger for the data retrieval, as opposed to a background process that may have already initiated communication.

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 "selling and offering access to its products and services" with the alleged intent that users will use them in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶44, 56). The contributory infringement claims allege that Defendants supply the Bumble software, which is a "material part" of the claimed inventions and is not a "staple article of commerce" (e.g., Compl. ¶45, 57).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents based on Defendants’ purported pre-suit knowledge. The complaint cites notice letters sent on July 2, 2024 (for the ’152, ’156, and ’847 patents) and February 11, 2025 (for the ’208 and ’625 patents), and alleges that Defendants failed to take any action to stop the alleged infringement after being notified (e.g., Compl. ¶40-41, 52-53).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the technical context of early BlackBerry-era mobile devices (e.g., "implied availability" based on discrete events, "enable message" for data retrieval) be construed to cover the generalized, and potentially technically distinct, features of a modern social media platform like Bumble?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused Bumble platform perform the specific, multi-step logical functions in the precise order required by the claims? For example, does opening the app cause message retrieval as claimed in the ’156 Patent, and does the video chat feature first analyze network conditions before deciding between P2P and proxy routing as claimed in the ’208 Patent?
  • A central dispute will likely concern technical implementation: do the accused features function in a manner that is technically equivalent to the patented methods? For instance, does Bumble's protocol for its video chat feature operate like the claimed method in the ’625 Patent, which involves embedding connection data for a second protocol within a message sent via a first protocol, or does it use a different method entirely to establish sessions?