Random Chat LLC v. URBN US Retail LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: URBN US Retail LLC, f/k/a Anthropologie, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00029, W.D. Tex., 05/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains 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, such as online customer chat, infringe a patent related to methods for establishing such communications based on user profiles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing video, audio, and text communication between users over a network, using personalized profiles to define how users connect and interact.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff also indicates it may limit its infringement claims to method claims to obviate potential issues with patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-28	'099 Patent Priority Date
2013-03-19	'099 Patent Issue Date
2025-05-16	Complaint Filing Date

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"

• Patent Identification: 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’s background section states that existing video and chat systems were "too constrictive" for the complex requirements of emerging "social networks" and "communities," which demanded more flexible ways for users to find and interact with each other ('099 Patent, col. 1:43-49; col. 2:5-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a subscriber generates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile" on a server ('099 Patent, Abstract). This profile is used to establish communication by freely defining parameters such as the "mode of a subscriber selection," the communication type (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-many), and the number of communication links ('099 Patent, col. 2:21-31). This profile-centric approach allows for more dynamic and user-driven interactions than traditional systems ('099 Patent, col. 2:50-60).
• Technical Importance: The described method sought to evolve online communication from simple, direct connections to a more flexible system that could replicate the complex, multi-faceted interactions of real-world social groups ('099 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 ('Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central and recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • 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.
  • The multimedia communication is established at each terminal by "setting up" this profile.
  • The profile is used to freely define a "mode of a subscriber selection," communication type, or number of links.
  • The subscriber selection mode includes a "random process" for linking to another random subscriber.
  • The subscriber selection mode also includes an "activatable call procedure" for linking to a subscriber from a "selection list."
  • Subscribers form a "plurality of at least one of an open and a closed subscriber sub-pool."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims ('Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies Defendant's "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals" (Compl. ¶8). The website https://www.anthropologie.com/contact-us is identified as a place where Defendant offers such services (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused systems provide chat functionality for users, and that Defendant derives "monetary and commercial benefit" from their use (Compl. ¶8). The functionality is presented in the context of customer service communications. The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused chat system operates.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in a claim chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by maintaining, operating, and administering systems that perform the claimed methods for multimedia communication (Compl. ¶8). The primary point of contention appears to be whether the operation of a retail customer service chat system constitutes performance of the steps recited in the '099 patent's claims.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of "social networks" and "communities" ('099 Patent, col. 1:50-52). A central question may be whether the term "virtual subscriber profile", as described in the patent, can be construed to read on the user data associated with a customer or agent in a structured, business-to-consumer chat system, or if it requires the richer, user-generated "self-portrayal" features described in the specification ('099 Patent, col. 2:39-44).
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires specific "subscriber selection modes," including a "random process" for initiating contact and a "call procedure" based on a "selection list" ('099 Patent, col. 22:41-51). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused customer service chat system, which likely connects customers to the next available agent, performs these specific functions as claimed. The patent describes the "random process" as creating a "'surprise effect' similar to that encountered in everyday life," a context that may be distinct from a customer service queue ('099 Patent, col. 3:3-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claimed invention, as it is the mechanism by which communication is defined and established. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the data associated with users of Defendant's chat system (e.g., customer name, order history, agent ID) qualifies as a "virtual subscriber profile."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a profile includes "login data, contacts, the profile, switching and management-relevant data and other entries," which could arguably encompass any form of user account data ('099 Patent, col. 2:46-48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the profile as a tool for "self-portrayal" that a subscriber "substantially manages himself," containing elements like "WhoAmI tags," "like tags," "dislike tags," and "jingies" to facilitate social discovery ('099 Patent, col. 11:15-18, 11:24-56). This suggests a more complex and user-curated entity than a typical customer account in a commercial chat system.

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

• Context and Importance: This is a required "subscriber selection mode" in independent claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because a standard customer service queue, which connects a customer to the next available agent, may not be a "random process" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a restrictive definition, so an argument could be made that any non-user-directed connection to a pool of potential partners is a "random process."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes this feature as enabling an "'accidental meeting'" to create a "surprise effect," a purpose aligned with social networking rather than efficient customer service routing ('099 Patent, col. 2:66-col. 3:5). The specification also details "random connection with preferences" based on matching user tags, implying a process more sophisticated than simple sequential assignment ('099 Patent, col. 9:13-17).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's instructions to customers and others on how to use the accused services, provided via its website and "product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶10-11). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused services are not staple articles of commerce and their only reasonable use is infringing (Compl. ¶11). For both, knowledge is alleged "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10-11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness conditioned on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. p. 6, ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual subscriber profile", which is rooted in the patent’s context of user-managed "self-portrayal" for "social networks," be construed to cover the data associated with a user in a commercial customer service chat application?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: does the accused chat system perform the specific "subscriber selection modes" required by Claim 1, particularly the "random process" for initiating social connections and the "call procedure" based on a user's "selection list," or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the claimed invention and the accused system?