WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Cloudflare Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: CloudFlare, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00746, W.D. Tex., 11/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to establishing symmetrical, bi-directional communication over the typically asymmetrical HTTP protocol.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in standard web protocols by enabling a network server to initiate communication back to a client, a capability crucial for real-time, peer-to-peer style applications operating across network firewalls or Network Address Translators (NAT).
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of its parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,403,995. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983 - "Symmetrical bi-directional communication", issued July 13, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the fundamental asymmetry of the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP), where a "client" node must always initiate a request to a "server" node, which can only respond (’983 Patent, col. 2:10-21). This model prevents a server from spontaneously sending data to a client, a significant hurdle for peer-to-peer applications, particularly when a client is behind a firewall or Network Address Translator (NAT) that blocks unsolicited incoming connections (’983 Patent, col. 2:41-54). The patent notes that "polling," where a client repeatedly asks the server for updates, is an inefficient solution that "undesirably wastes network bandwidth" (’983 Patent, col. 3:4-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create a symmetrical, peer-to-peer communication channel over standard network infrastructure. The process begins with a client establishing a conventional, client-initiated HTTP session over an underlying network connection (e.g., TCP/IP) (’983 Patent, Abstract). The two nodes then "negotiate transactional role reversal" (’983 Patent, Abstract). Following this negotiation, the initial HTTP session is terminated, but the underlying TCP/IP connection is explicitly preserved (’983 Patent, col. 10:54-56). A new HTTP session is then created over this preserved connection, but with the roles "flipped": the original server now acts as a client, capable of initiating requests to the original client, which now acts as a server (’983 Patent, col. 10:57-61; Fig. 9, steps 512-514).
• Technical Importance: This technique allows applications to leverage the ubiquity of HTTP to bypass common network restrictions and establish a persistent, bi-directional communication channel, enabling server-initiated messaging without the overhead of constant client polling (’983 Patent, col. 3:19-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1: A method comprising:
  • first and second network nodes engaging in an asymmetric hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) transactional session with an underlying network connection, each node enacting distinct initial transactional roles;
  • terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection;
  • said first and second network nodes negotiating transactional role reversal;
  • said first and second network nodes further communicating under a reversed asymmetric transactional protocol;
  • wherein each network node enacts the initial transactional role of the other; and
  • wherein said uniquely identifiable session uses a network connection traversing hardware enforcing asymmetric communication.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services, referring to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in an "Exhibit 2" which is referenced but not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '983 Patent" but offers no description of how they operate (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory is presented entirely within "Exhibit 2," which is incorporated by reference but was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). The body of the complaint does not provide a narrative description or any specific facts regarding how the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are alleged to meet the limitations of the asserted claims. Consequently, a claim chart summary and identification of specific points of contention cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint lacks a detailed infringement theory, the technology of the ’983 Patent suggests that the construction of the following terms from independent claim 1 may be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "negotiating transactional role reversal"
  • Context and Importance: This step is the catalyst for creating the symmetrical connection. The definition of "negotiating" will be critical. The dispute may center on whether the accused system performs an explicit, two-way negotiation to reverse roles, or if it uses a different mechanism that Plaintiff alleges is equivalent. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused functionality, once revealed, involves a protocol-level exchange that can be characterized as a "negotiation."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the invention broadly as "nodes negotiate transactional role reversal," without limiting it to a specific protocol (’983 Patent, col. 3:30-33). This could support an argument that any exchange of messages that results in reversed roles meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts depict a specific sequence involving a "SEND HTTP FLIP REQUEST" from the client and an "Accept" or "Refuse" response from the server (’983 Patent, Fig. 9, step 504; Fig. 10, step 536). This could support a narrower construction requiring an explicit request-and-acceptance sequence for the negotiation.
• The Term: "terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the core technical mechanism of the invention. Proving infringement will require evidence that an accused system tears down an HTTP-layer session while preserving and reusing the lower-level TCP/IP connection. The dispute will likely involve a technical analysis of network traffic and system architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional. An argument could be made that any method that achieves the result of using the original connection for a new, reversed session infringes, regardless of the precise implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of extracting "raw TCP circuit information," saving it, terminating the HTTP session, and then creating a "new HTTP layer session using the preserved TCP circuit information" (’983 Patent, Fig. 9, steps 508-514; col. 11:36-64). This could support a construction requiring the explicit extraction and reuse of the original TCP socket information, as opposed to other methods of session management.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶1-16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege any facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct. The prayer for relief includes a request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the factual basis for this request is not articulated in the complaint body (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on an unprovided exhibit. A threshold question is whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to support its claims against specific CloudFlare products and survive a potential motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
2. Claim Scope and Technical Equivalence: A central issue will be one of functional implementation. Once the accused technology is identified, the case will turn on whether it achieves bi-directional communication by performing the specific, claimed method of terminating an HTTP session while preserving and reusing the underlying TCP connection for a "flipped" session, or if it employs a different, non-infringing architecture (e.g., WebSockets, long-polling, or another protocol).
3. Definitional Interpretation: The outcome may depend on the construction of key claim terms. A primary legal question will be the scope of "negotiating transactional role reversal." The court’s interpretation—whether it requires an explicit, bidirectional "FLIP" request as shown in embodiments or can encompass any protocol that results in a de facto role swap—will significantly influence the infringement analysis.