DCT
7:25-cv-00039
Random Chat LLC v. Advance Auto Part Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00039, W.D. Tex., 01/31/2025
- 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 within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for facilitating online multimedia communications, such as customer support chat, infringe a patent related to methods for user-defined communication in a network environment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the architecture of online communication platforms, particularly how users can create profiles to define and control their interactions with other users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses, but argues that those agreements did not involve the production of patented articles and therefore do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-08-28 | '099 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | '099 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-01-31 | 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 asserts that prior art video and chat systems were "too constrictive" and ill-suited for the complex, user-driven interactions of emerging "social networks" and "communities" where the distinction between content provider and user was blurring (’099 Patent, col. 1:47-65, col. 2:4-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a process where a user generates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile" (’099 Patent, col. 2:22-24). This profile is not merely for identification; it is the mechanism through which the user "freely define[s]" the parameters of their multimedia communications, such as the mode of selecting other users (e.g., randomly or from a list), the type of communication, and the number of connections (’099 Patent, col. 2:26-31). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical structure of database, link, subscriber, and front-end layers that enable this user-centric control (’099 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described technology provides a framework for creating flexible, user-controlled communication platforms, a foundational concept for many social media and interactive web services that gained prominence in the late 2000s (’099 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-20, with independent claim 1 being foundational (Compl. ¶8).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’099 Patent requires:
- A method for executing multimedia communication between terminals on a network.
- At least one subscriber generating a personalized user account as a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
- Establishing multimedia communication by setting up the profile.
- The profile is used to freely define a "mode of a subscriber selection," communication type, number of links, or data transmission type.
- The subscriber selection mode includes a "random process" for linking with a random subscriber.
- The subscriber selection mode includes an "activatable call procedure" for linking with a subscriber from a "selection list," where subscribers form "open and... closed subscriber sub-pool[s]."
- The complaint asserts infringement of dependent claims 2-20, which add further specific limitations (Compl. ¶8).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals" (Compl. ¶8). A specific example provided is a help desk website feature (Compl. p. 4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is the operation of systems that allow for chat-based communication, such as a customer support chat tool available on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶8, p. 4). The complaint alleges that Defendant derives substantial revenue from its business in the district, which includes the provision of these services (Compl. ¶5). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an unattached Exhibit B (Compl. ¶9). The following summary table is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'099 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one subscriber generates a personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile on a server... | Defendant’s systems allow users (e.g., customers) to initiate communication sessions. | ¶8 | col. 2:22-26 |
| via the subscriber profile a mode of a subscriber selection... are freely defined... | Defendant's systems allegedly allow users to define communication parameters by using the chat feature. | ¶8 | col. 2:26-31 |
| the subscriber selection mode includes a random process for setting up a communication link... | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element. | ¶8 | col. 2:61-65 |
| the subscriber selection mode includes an activatable call procedure for establishing a communication link... stored in a selection list... | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element. | ¶8 | col. 3:16-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether a customer service chat session constitutes a "virtual subscriber profile" as described in the patent, which emphasizes comprehensive self-portrayal and persistent settings (’099 Patent, col. 2:36-44). The court may need to determine if initiating a support chat qualifies as "freely defin[ing]" a communication mode, or if the system's rules are, in fact, fixed by the defendant.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1, which explicitly requires both a "random process" for connection (akin to Chatroulette) and a "selection list" function (akin to a friends list). A key question will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that a standard corporate help desk chat tool includes these specific social-networking-style features.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"
Context and Importance: This term is the central structure through which the invention is implemented. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused customer support chat systems fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely differentiate between a temporary user session and the more permanent, feature-rich user accounts described in the patent's preferred embodiments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the profile allows a subscriber "means available in order to represent himself and his person comprehensively inside the network" (’099 Patent, col. 2:38-40), which a party could argue covers any user-provided information, however minimal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures depict a profile as a sophisticated construct containing personal data, "WhoAmI tags," "like/dislike tags," slogans, and links, suggesting more than a transient chat identity (’099 Patent, Fig. 5c; col. 11:18-28).
The Term: "freely defined"
Context and Importance: This term qualifies the degree of control a user must have over communication parameters. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the limited choices available in a typical customer support interface (e.g., choosing to start a chat) satisfy this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any user-initiated choice, such as selecting a communication channel (e.g., text chat) or partner, constitutes a "free" definition of the communication parameters.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states the point is to "predefine by the details in the subscriber profile preferences and basic parameters, on the basis of which the subscriber wants his multimedia communication to take place" (’099 Patent, col. 2:53-56), suggesting a more granular level of user control over the rules of engagement than simply initiating a pre-configured process.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant actively encouraging and instructing customers and others on how to use its products and services, such as through its website and "product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’099 patent and its infringement from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" onward (Compl. ¶10). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10, n.2).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present two fundamental questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual subscriber profile," which the patent describes in the rich context of social networking with extensive personalization, be construed to read on the transient user session of a corporate customer support chat tool?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given that independent claim 1 requires specific user selection modes—namely a "random process" and a "selection list" for "sub-pools"—what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused Advance Auto Parts help desk system actually performs these specific, claimed functions?