DCT

6:22-cv-00249

Ak Meeting IP LLC v. Fuze Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00249, W.D. Tex., 01/11/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s methods for sharing content over a computer network infringe a patent related to multi-client content sharing managed by a server.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to client-server architectures for real-time, multi-user collaboration, a foundational element of modern online meeting and shared workspace platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: This Corrected First Amended Complaint removed allegations against a previously asserted patent and a dismissed defendant. Notably, while not mentioned in the complaint, public records indicate that all claims of the patent-in-suit (claims 1-14) were subsequently cancelled in an inter partes review proceeding (IPR2022-01142), with a certificate issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 20, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-03-30 '124 Patent Priority Date
2021-03-30 '124 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-11 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,963,124 - "Sharing Content Produced By A Plurality Of Client Computers In Communication With A Server"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,963,124, "Sharing Content Produced By A Plurality Of Client Computers In Communication With A Server," issued March 30, 2021 (’124 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem in online communications where delays in transmitting posted comments and other information reduce the feeling of "presence" among participants in the communication (’124 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server method to improve this experience. In the system, multiple client computers all display some form of "common content." When one user provides input, their client computer generates messages defining "shared content" and sends them to a central server. The server then transmits "output messages" to all participating clients, which causes each client to display the new "shared content" over the existing "common content," thereby synchronizing the view for all users (’124 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:35-51).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture for managing and synchronizing shared content overlays was a foundational approach for enabling real-time collaborative applications, such as online whiteboards or shared document editing, beyond simple text-based communication systems (’124 Patent, col. 2:59-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-14, with a focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A method on multiple client computers communicating with a server, each displaying "common content."
    • Generating messages at one client computer based on user input, where the input defines "content to be shared."
    • Causing that one client to transmit the generated messages to the server.
    • The transmission to the server "elicit[s] transmission of output messages" from the server to each of the client computers.
    • The output messages contain information defining the content to be shared.
    • In response to receiving the output messages, each client computer displays the "shared content over the common content."
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions (Compl. p. 3, fn. 2).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses Defendant's "methods for sharing content produced by a plurality of client computers over a computer network" as embodied in its "products and services" (Compl. ¶8). No specific product names are identified.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the functionality of the accused instrumentality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" methods that perform the steps of the claimed invention (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations for claim 1 (Compl. ¶9). However, this exhibit was not included in the provided filing. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s products and services utilize methods for sharing content that practice one or more of claims 1-14 of the ’124 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent language and the general allegations in the complaint, the infringement analysis raises several questions.
    • Scope Questions: The complaint does not specify what constitutes "common content" versus "shared content" in the accused products. A central question for the court would be how the accused product's architecture (e.g., a primary shared screen versus a secondary chat window) maps onto the patent's distinction of displaying "shared content over the common content."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide technical evidence of the accused system's message-passing architecture. The analysis may turn on what evidence demonstrates that the accused product uses the claimed two-step message process, wherein a message from one client to the server "elicit[s]" a distinct set of "output messages" broadcast from the server to all clients.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a deep analysis, but based on the claim language, certain terms would be central to any dispute.

"displaying the shared content over the common content"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the claimed method's architecture. Its construction would determine whether the claim requires a literal visual overlay (e.g., drawing on a shared whiteboard) or could be construed more broadly to cover functionally separate but concurrently displayed information (e.g., a chat feed appearing alongside a video presentation).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses sharing a "common view of a displayed page" and allowing users to "post comments," which could suggest a functional relationship rather than a strictly spatial one (’124 Patent, col. 2:62-66).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Abstract and Claim 1 both use the specific word "over." Furthermore, illustrative figures show text and drawings (475, 499) superimposed directly on top of a background image (472), which may support a narrower, literal overlay interpretation (’124 Patent, Fig. 11).

"elicit transmission"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the causal relationship between the initial client's message and the server's subsequent broadcast. Its construction would determine whether the claim requires a direct, one-to-one triggering mechanism or could cover more complex server-side architectures where an incoming message is one of several inputs that collectively lead to an output.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes server-side processes involving shared buffers, pointers, and message processing, suggesting the server performs functions beyond simple re-transmission, which may support a less direct causal link (’124 Patent, Fig. 15A, 510-512).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrasing in Claim 1, "causing the one client computer to transmit... to elicit transmission," suggests a direct cause-and-effect relationship, which could be argued to require a more immediate and direct server response to the initial client's message.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not currently allege indirect infringement but reserves the right to do so "if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge" (Compl. p. 3, fn. 2).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not currently allege willful infringement but reserves the right to do so (Compl. p. 3, fn. 2). No facts are alleged that would support pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A dispositive issue in this case is procedural: given that all asserted claims of the ’124 Patent were cancelled in a final written decision of an inter partes review (IPR2022-01142) that concluded after the complaint was filed, the central question for the court will be the proper procedural mechanism for dismissing the case.
  • A key question of claim scope would have been one of architectural mapping: can the patent’s specific framework of displaying "shared content over... common content" be construed to read on the multi-layered information displays of modern collaboration platforms, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical and visual architectures?
  • A central evidentiary question would have been one of message flow: what technical proof could demonstrate that the accused product employs the specific two-step communication protocol required by Claim 1, where a single client’s message to the server "elicits" a distinct broadcast of "output messages" to all participants?