DCT
6:22-cv-01013
Backertop Licensing LLC v. BlackBerry Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Backertop Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Blackberry Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fresh IP, PLC
- Case Identification: Backertop Licensing LLC v. Blackberry Corp., 6:22-cv-01013, W.D. Tex., 09/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Blackberry Intelligent Security System infringes two patents related to enforcing device policies, such as disabling applications, as a precondition for granting or managing network access within a defined physical area.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the enterprise mobility management (EMM) field, where organizations use software to secure and control applications and data on employee mobile devices based on context, such as user location.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385. The patents share a specification and priority date. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-13 | Priority Date for ’385 and ’617 Patents |
| 2016-05-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385 Issued |
| 2017-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617 Issued |
| 2022-09-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,332,385, “Selectively Providing Content to Users Located Within a Virtual Perimeter,” issued May 3, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for entities to control network services and application usage on mobile devices within a specific physical environment, noting that mobile applications can create security and policy challenges not present with traditional web browsers (ʼ385 Patent, col. 1:8-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a system identifies a mobile device’s presence within a "virtual perimeter" using wireless beacons. In response, the system sends a message to the device specifying at least one application to be disabled. After receiving a confirmation from the device that the application has been disabled, the system authorizes the device to connect to a network maintained for that physical location (ʼ385 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-43; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a mechanism for an administrator to enforce security or usage policies as a prerequisite for granting network access to guest or employee devices inside a controlled space, such as a corporate office or secure facility (ʼ385 Patent, col. 10:7-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶24).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Identifying a mobile device's present physical location based on wireless communication with at least one beacon.
- Communicating a first message to the device that specifies at least one application to be disabled while the device is at that location.
- In response to receiving a response from the device indicating the application is disabled, authorizing the device to establish presence on a network for that location.
- Independent Claim 8 (System): A system claim comprising a processor programmed to execute the steps of method claim 1.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,654,617, “Selectively Providing Content to Users Located Within a Virtual Perimeter,” issued May 16, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’385 Patent: controlling application functionality on mobile devices to manage network access within a defined physical area (ʼ617 Patent, col. 1:8-28).
- The Patented Solution: As a continuation, the patent describes an identical technical solution embodied as a computer program product on a non-transitory storage medium. Program code, when executed, performs the method of identifying a device's location, instructing it to disable an application, receiving confirmation, and then authorizing network access (ʼ617 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-45).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides the same technical utility as the ’385 Patent, securing its concepts in the form of a software product.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
- Independent Claim 1 (Computer Program Product):
- A computer-readable storage medium with executable program code to perform a method comprising:
- Identifying a mobile device's physical location via a beacon.
- Communicating a message to the device specifying an application to be disabled.
- In response to receiving a confirmation that the application is disabled, authorizing the device to establish network presence.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Blackberry Intelligent Security System software and services" and associated platforms like Blackberry Unified Endpoint Management (“UEM”) (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused system is a cloud-based security service that "dynamically adapt[s] the security requirements and behavior" of user devices based on their "real-world contexts" (Compl. ¶11). It allegedly uses location data from the device to assess a "geozone risk" (Compl. ¶16). Based on this risk level, an administrator-defined policy is applied to the device, which can restrict or alter its functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20). The complaint includes a workflow diagram illustrating how the BlackBerry Intelligent Security services, UEM, and the user's device interact to apply authentication policies based on risk. (Compl. p. 4, "Workflow: Integrating BlackBerry Intelligent Security..."). The system is positioned as an enterprise-grade tool for managing corporate security on mobile devices.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’385 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| based on wireless communication between a mobile device and at least one beacon, identifying a present physical location of a mobile device; | The accused system allegedly uses wireless communication (e.g., Wi-Fi) between a user's mobile device and a "beacon (e.g., Blackberry Unified Endpoint Management ('UEM') system)" to identify the device's location and determine a "geozone risk" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16). | ¶¶13, 16, 25 | col. 3:57-4:1 |
| responsive to determining that the mobile device is located at a particular physical location, communicating to the mobile device at least a first message, the first message specifying at least one application to be disabled...; | When a device is in a location deemed high-risk, the system allegedly communicates and applies a policy that results in disabling device features such as "The iPhone camera" and "Bluetooth functionality" (Compl. ¶20, 27-28). The complaint includes a screenshot detailing the changes a user notices when a high-security policy is applied, including the disabling of specific functions (Compl. p. 8, "Create a BlackBerry Intelligent Security policy"). | ¶¶20, 27-28 | col. 9:20-30 |
| responsive to receiving from the mobile device a response to the first message indicating that the at least one application is disabled, | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the system receives a response from the mobile device indicating that an application is disabled (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 2:37-40 |
| authorizing, using a processor, the mobile device to establish presence on a network maintained for the physical location. | The system is alleged to authorize the device to establish or maintain its presence on a network, such as by enforcing a "Force Wi-Fi to be enabled" policy (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 30). The complaint provides a table of iOS policies, including one to "Force Wi-Fi to be enabled (supervised only)" (Compl. p. 10). | ¶¶22, 30 | col. 2:40-43 |
’617 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...identifying, by the processor, a present physical location of a mobile device; | The accused software allegedly uses wireless communication from a mobile device to identify its physical location for purposes of assessing a "geozone risk" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 41). | ¶¶16, 41 | col. 2:59-3:1 |
| ...communicating, by the processor, to the mobile device at least a first message...specifying at least one application to be disabled...; | The accused software, upon determining a device is in a high-risk location, allegedly sends and applies a policy that disables applications or device features like the camera and Bluetooth (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 44). The complaint includes a screenshot detailing the changes a user notices when a high-security policy is applied, including the disabling of specific functions (Compl. p. 8, "Create a BlackBerry Intelligent Security policy"). | ¶¶20, 44 | col. 9:20-30 |
| ...responsive to receiving from the mobile device a response to the first message indicating that the at least one application is disabled, | The complaint alleges that the accused software receives a response from the mobile device indicating that the specified application has been disabled (Compl. ¶45). | ¶45 | col. 2:37-40 |
| ...authorizing, by the processor, the mobile device to establish presence on a network maintained for the physical location. | The accused software is alleged to authorize the device to establish or maintain network presence, for example by enforcing Wi-Fi connectivity rules (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 46). The complaint provides a table of iOS policies, including one to "Force Wi-Fi to be enabled (supervised only)" (Compl. p. 10). | ¶¶22, 46 | col. 2:40-43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: What evidence supports the allegation that the accused system performs the claimed step of "receiving from the mobile device a response... indicating that the at least one application is disabled"? The complaint alleges this conclusorily (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 45) but does not provide specific facts showing that a confirmation message is sent back to the server, as opposed to the server simply pushing a policy to the device.
- Scope Question: Does the term "beacon," which the patent illustrates with Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE) examples ('385 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1), read on the general-purpose Wi-Fi access points allegedly used by the accused system for location identification?
- Scope Question: The claims require "authorizing... the mobile device to establish presence on a network." It is a question for the court whether this limitation, which the patent specification links to an initial handshake and connection process ('385 Patent, col. 5:25-36), covers the accused system's alleged function of managing policies on a device that may already be connected to a network (e.g., public Wi-Fi).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "response... indicating that the at least one application is disabled"
Context and Importance
- This term is central to the claimed method's interactive, two-step authorization process. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system's operation includes this specific feedback loop, or if it merely pushes a one-way command.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of the claims does not specify the format of the "response," which could suggest any signal or status update confirming the disabled state may suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart, FIG. 4, depicts a distinct decision step, "Is a response received from the mobile device indicating the application(s) is/are disabled" (step 408), before proceeding to authorization (step 410). This suggests a specific, required message is contemplated, not merely an assumed state change.
The Term: "beacon"
Context and Importance
- The infringement theory hinges on the accused Wi-Fi infrastructure qualifying as a "beacon." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine if the foundational element of the claim is met.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "beacon." The summary section states the identification is based on "wireless communication between a mobile device and at least one beacon," without limiting the type of wireless technology ('385 Patent, col. 2:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example: "the beacon 120 can include a Bluetooth® low-energy (BLE) transmitter or transceiver that transmits the beacon signal" ('385 Patent, col. 3:64-4:1). A party could argue this context limits the term to devices primarily intended for location signaling, rather than general data communication like a Wi-Fi router.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement and does not plead specific facts regarding Defendant's knowledge or intent to induce infringement by third parties.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself, seeking enhanced damages for post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶d, p. 13). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute will likely focus on the congruence between the patent's specific, sequenced method and the real-world operation of BlackBerry's dynamic, policy-based security system. The central questions for the court appear to be:
- A key evidentiary question of technical operation: Does the BlackBerry system actually perform the claimed step of "receiving... a response" confirming an application is disabled, or does it operate via a one-way policy push? The complaint's non-conclusory allegations describe policy enforcement but do not detail a corresponding confirmation message sent back to the server.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "beacon," which the patent exemplifies with BLE technology, be construed to encompass the general-purpose Wi-Fi networks allegedly used by the accused system for location sensing?
- A further question of scope and function will be whether the claim limitation "authorizing... to establish presence on a network" reads on the accused product's function of applying security rules to an already-connected device, or if the claim is limited to the distinct act of granting initial network access.