Random Chat LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00237, W.D. Tex., 09/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for facilitating multimedia communication infringe a patent related to methods for establishing such communications based on user profiles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns network-based systems for video, audio, and text chat, which are foundational to modern social networking platforms and online communities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities but alleges that these agreements do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because they did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099, "Method For Carrying Out A Multimedia Communication Based On A Network Protocol, Particularly TCP/IP And/Or UDP," Issued March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that, at the time of invention, existing video and chat systems were too restrictive and failed to adequately support the complex, user-driven interactions characteristic of emerging "social networks" and "communities" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:42-51). These systems lacked the flexibility for users to define how they connect and interact with others (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a process where a user creates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network (ʼ099 Patent, Abstract). This profile is not merely a static collection of data; it is used to actively establish and define the parameters of the multimedia communication. Specifically, the profile can define the "subscriber selection mode," the "communication type," and the "number of communication links," giving users control over how they find and connect with others (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:25-31). The architecture is described as a hierarchical layer structure, including a database layer, a link layer, a subscriber layer, and a front-end layer for the user interface (ʼ099 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to shift network communication from a centrally managed model to a more user-centric one, allowing for the flexible and dynamic formation of connections and communities online, mirroring real-world social interactions (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:52-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1, Key Elements:
  • A method for executing a multimedia communication between terminals on a network.
  • At least one subscriber generates a personalized user account in the form of a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
  • By setting up the virtual subscriber profile, the multimedia communication is established at each of the terminals.
  • The subscriber profile is used to freely define a "mode of a subscriber selection preceding the communication."
  • The subscriber selection mode includes a "random process" for setting up a communication link between a first subscriber's terminal and another random subscriber's terminal.
  • The selection mode also includes an "activatable call procedure" for connecting with a subscriber stored in a selection list, forming subscriber "sub-pools."
• Plaintiff has not indicated it will limit its assertions to specific dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8). No specific product name is provided.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these unspecified systems perform infringing methods and that Defendant derives "monetary and commercial benefit" from them (Compl. ¶8). It further alleges that the accused systems facilitate communication between terminals, but provides no specific details on their operation, architecture, or user interface (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is contained in an attached Exhibit B claim chart (Compl. ¶9). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the public complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s operation of its multimedia communication systems meets all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the ’099 Patent (Compl. ¶8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: Given the absence of a specific accused product or detailed infringement theory, a primary question is what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Costco's systems practice the claimed method. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that a "virtual subscriber profile" in a Costco system is used to define a "random process" for connecting users, as required by claim 1?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the term "random process" can be interpreted to cover modern algorithmic or curated user-matching features, or if it is limited to the patent’s described embodiment of an "accidental meeting" akin to early random chat platforms (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:66).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the asserted claims. The infringement analysis will depend on whether any user account on Defendant's system qualifies as a "virtual subscriber profile," or if the term requires a more specific technical structure that actively defines and establishes communication parameters.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the profile in general terms as a "personalized user account" (ʼ099 Patent, Abstract) and a "collection place for tags" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 11:31-32), which could support an argument that any user account with customizable settings or preferences meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "by setting up the virtual subscriber profile, the multimedia communication is established" and that the profile "determines the subscriber selection mode" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:25-31, col. 2:56-60). This language suggests the profile is not just a passive data store but an active component in the connection-logic itself, potentially narrowing its scope to exclude simple user accounts.

• The Term: "random process for setting up a communication link"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is a key part of the "subscriber selection mode." Whether Defendant's systems infringe will depend on what type of connection mechanism qualifies as a "random process."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "random" simply means non-deterministic or not based on a pre-existing user list, which could encompass a wide range of computer-generated suggestions or matching algorithms.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this feature as enabling an "accidental meeting" with a "surprise effect similar to that encountered in everyday life" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:66, col. 3:3-5). Practitioners may focus on this language to argue that the term requires a purely stochastic, arbitrary connection, rather than a pseudo-random or algorithmically-guided match based on user data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its services in a way that causes infringement (Compl. ¶10). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging there are no substantial non-infringing uses for the accused systems and services (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’099 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which provides a basis for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶10). It explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10 n.1).

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

1. A Central Evidentiary Question: Can Plaintiff factually demonstrate that Costco's vaguely-accused "systems" for multimedia chat implement the specific architecture of the asserted claims? The lack of detail in the complaint places the burden on discovery to substantiate the core allegation that a "virtual subscriber profile" is used to define a "random process" for connecting users.
2. A Core Issue of Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on claim construction. Can the term "random process," which the patent links to creating an "accidental meeting," be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially more structured, algorithm-driven user matching functions of a modern commercial platform?
3. A Question of Pleading Sufficiency: The high level of generality in the complaint, which fails to identify a single specific product or provide any factual basis for how that product infringes, raises the question of whether the allegations meet the plausibility standards required by federal pleading rules.