Webcon Vectors LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Webcon Vectors LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00089, W.D. Tex., 02/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of alleged infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products infringe patents related to methods for simplifying and amalgamating communications between users on disparate platforms.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns unified communications, specifically systems that automatically bridge different conferencing platforms and user contact methods to streamline the process of initiating group calls.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,681,218 - Telecommunication method and system for simplifying communication such as conference calls (Issued June 9, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional teleconferencing as burdensome, noting that coordinating schedules, distributing call-in details (numbers, access codes), and managing participants joining at different times can be a "colossal waste of valuable professional time" (’218 Patent, col. 1:39-41). A further problem identified is the technical challenge for non-savvy users to locate and use ancillary materials like documents or presentations during a call (’218 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where disparate communication platforms (e.g., a traditional conferencing service and a separate proprietary system) are automatically bridged together. A system receives meeting details, identifies users on different platforms, provisions a "bridge" between them, and automatically contacts all users at a scheduled time without requiring action from the users themselves (’218 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8). This aims to create a "unified communication" experience from otherwise incompatible systems (’218 Patent, col. 7:22-26).
• Technical Importance: The described solution seeks to eliminate user-side friction in conference calling by abstracting away the underlying platform differences and removing the need for participants to manually dial in or manage connection details (’218 Patent, col. 4:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '218 Patent Claims" in a missing exhibit (Compl. ¶17). Assuming assertion of the first independent claim, the key elements of Claim 1 are:
  • providing a first conferencing and scheduling platform and a second conferencing and scheduling platform;
  • selecting a plurality of first users of the first platform for simultaneous contact;
  • identifying second pre-existing users of the second platform;
  • providing a bridge for bridging the first and second sets of users;
  • creating bridged users by using the bridge;
  • simultaneously contacting the bridged users by a determined identifier at a scheduled time; and
  • effecting these steps "in the absence of any action by said users."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 11,290,428 - Telecommunication method and system for simplifying communication such as conference calls (Issued March 29, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '218 Patent, the '428 Patent addresses the complexity and inconvenience of coordinating multi-party communications, where invitees must manually find invitation details, dial in, and enter access codes, often leading to delays and disruptions (’428 Patent, col. 1:14-34). It also notes the privacy risks of systems that automatically extract contact information without user control (’428 Patent, col. 2:21-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where users are contacted simultaneously based on a pre-selected "electronic identifier" (e.g., email, phone number, social media handle) without requiring any action from the user at the scheduled time of the call (’428 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-50). The system manages the connection process, maintaining the anonymity of users' specific contact details and precluding non-responsive users from joining late unless authorized (’428 Patent, col. 13:42-14:14).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide a "passive" and secure communication experience where the system, not the user, bears the burden of establishing connections at a precise time, while allowing users to change their preferred contact identifier up to the last minute (’428 Patent, col. 3:10-15; col. 13:43-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '428 Patent Claims" in a missing exhibit (Compl. ¶26). Assuming assertion of the first independent claim, the key elements of Claim 1 are:
  • selecting a plurality of users for simultaneous contact at a predetermined time from a provided identifier for each user;
  • collating a respective identifier of all selected users;
  • forming a conferencing bridge with the identifier of each user on the bridge;
  • simultaneously contacting bridged identifiers of all users at the predetermined time "absent any action by any selected user";
  • enabling communication between all selected users; and
  • precluding contacted nonresponsive users from communication unless subsequently authorized.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific Cisco products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused functionality or market context. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes, induces infringement, and will continue to infringe the '218 and '428 Patents (Compl. ¶12, ¶16, ¶21, ¶25). It states that claim charts demonstrating this infringement are included in Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). However, these exhibits were not provided with the publicly filed complaint. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for both patents may be whether the accused products perform the claimed steps "in the absence of any action by said users" (’218 Patent, col. 16:21-23) or "absent any action by any selected user" (’428 Patent, col. 14:2-3). The defense may argue that standard user actions, such as clicking a "join meeting" link or accepting a software prompt, constitute an "action" that falls outside the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: For the '218 Patent, a key factual question will be whether the accused products perform the claimed step of "bridging" two distinct conferencing platforms into a unified call, as opposed to merely providing a single, integrated platform. For the '428 Patent, a question will be what evidence shows the accused products "preclud[e] contacted nonresponsive selected users from communication" automatically, as required by Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electronic identifier" (’428 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed invention in the '428 Patent, as it defines the contact point for each user that the system automatically connects. The breadth of this term will be critical to the scope of infringement, as it dictates what types of user accounts or contact methods are covered. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the patent reads on modern, multi-modal communication systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and non-limiting list of what the term can encompass, including "a Twitter address, a Facebook address, a Skype address, LinkedIn address, website address, email address, land based phone number, cellular phone number, text message, short message service (SMS), Smart Messaging, extended message service (EMS), multimedia messaging service (MMS), email and combinations thereof" (’218 Patent, col. 16:47-54; incorporated by reference into the '428 patent prosecution history). This suggests the term should be construed broadly to cover a wide range of current and future communication methods.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of the overall invention, an "electronic identifier" must be one that the system can use to initiate contact "absent any action by any selected user" (’428 Patent, col. 14:2-3). This could be used to argue that identifiers requiring user interaction to establish a connection (e.g., a social media handle that only permits connection after a user accepts a request) do not meet the full claim limitation, potentially narrowing the term's effective scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents, which the complaint asserts was established, at the latest, by the service of the complaint and its attached (but missing) claim charts (Compl. ¶14, ¶15, ¶23, ¶24). The allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge.

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

1. A core issue will be one of claim scope and user action: can the claims, which require system functionality "in the absence of any action by said users," be interpreted to cover modern communication products that typically require some form of user input, such as clicking a link or button, to join a call?
2. A second central issue will be one of definitional breadth: how broadly will the court construe the term "electronic identifier," and will the specific technical implementation of contact initiation in the accused products align with the patent's requirement for a passive, system-driven connection?
3. A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can muster to show that the accused products actually perform the specific "bridging" and "precluding" functions recited in the independent claims, particularly given the lack of technical detail in the complaint itself.