DCT
7:25-cv-00200
Vieri v. Braze Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Riccardo Vieri (Individual)
- Defendant: Braze, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00200, W.D. Tex., 04/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established physical place of business in the Western District of Texas and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SMS customer engagement platform infringes a patent related to contextual advertising systems for messaging services.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for monetizing messaging services by analyzing message context to deliver targeted advertisements to message senders.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent has been cited in patent applications by other technology companies. Plaintiff also states that no products have been commercialized or licensed under the patent, a fact that may be relevant to determining the appropriate measure of damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-01-22 | ’005 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-04-10 | ’005 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-04-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,156,005 - “Systems and Methods of contextual advertising”
- Issued: April 10, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the declining performance of traditional digital advertising (e.g., banner ads) and seeks to leverage the increasing popularity of Short Message Service (SMS) for a new form of advertising. (’005 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that acts as an intermediary for messages. It receives a message from a sender intended for a recipient, analyzes characteristics of the sender, recipient, and the message itself to select a targeted advertisement, sends the original message to the recipient, and then delivers the selected advertisement back to the original sender. (’005 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is designed to monetize the act of sending a message by showing an ad to the sender.
- Technical Importance: This system proposed a method for integrating targeted advertising directly into a communication channel's workflow, monetizing the interaction by advertising to the message initiator rather than the recipient. (’005 Patent, col. 4:1-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’005 Patent recites a system comprising:
- A processor;
- A message receiving module to receive SMS message data from a sender via a user interface on a website;
- An advertisement selection module that identifies campaign data, determines if the sender is a "frequent message sender" and a "frequent visitor to the particular website," selects an advertisement based on this data and the message content, and adds the sender to an "autoresponder cycle";
- A message delivery module to send the SMS message to the recipient; and
- An advertisement delivery module to send the selected advertisement to the sender.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later in the proceedings. (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s Braze platform, specifically its SMS messaging system. (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is a customer engagement platform that enables businesses to send "automated and personalized SMS messages to their customers." (Compl. ¶26; Fig. 2). A key feature identified in the complaint is the use of "segments," which are "dynamic groups of users that fit specific criteria you define, such as user attributes, user behavior, and custom events." (Compl. ¶27; Fig. 3). This segmentation allows businesses to send "highly personalized and engaging content" to targeted users. (Compl. ¶27; Fig. 3). Figure 2 of the complaint provides a screenshot of the accused product's marketing webpage, describing it as a tool to "Send SMS campaigns that convert." (Compl. p. 7; Fig. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a message receiving module to receive short messaging service (SMS) message data, wherein the SMS message data is received from a sender via a user interface associated with a particular website... | The Braze platform includes an SMS system that provides companies the ability to send automated and personalized SMS messages to their customers. | ¶26, Fig. 2 | col. 11:56-62 |
| an advertisement selection module executable by the processor to: identify data associated with an advertisement campaign... | The Braze platform uses "segments," which are dynamic groups of users that fit specific criteria such as user attributes, user behavior, and custom events. | ¶27, Fig. 3 | col. 11:63-col. 12:22 |
| select an advertisement based on the identified data... and based on at least a portion of the SMS message data; | The segmentation feature allows sending "highly personalized and engaging content to the right users" based on user data. Figure 3 from the complaint shows a description of the "About Braze segments" functionality. | ¶27, Fig. 3 | col. 12:12-19 |
| an advertisement delivery module to send the selected advertisement to the sender. | The complaint does not explicitly map this element but alleges the Braze system as a whole infringes. In the accused system's apparent operation, the "advertisement" (the business's promotional message) is sent to the consumer ("recipient"), not back to the business ("sender"). | ¶26 | col. 12:26-28 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Architectural Questions: A central question may be whether the accused B2C marketing platform architecture maps to the claimed system. The patent describes a system where a "sender"'s message to a "recipient" is relayed, and a separate "advertisement" is sent back to that "sender". The accused product appears to be a platform where a business (the "sender") sends a promotional message (the "advertisement") to a consumer (the "recipient"). This raises the question of whether the roles of "sender", "advertisement", and "recipient" are consistent between the patent and the accused system.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the "advertisement selection module" to perform specific functions, including determining if the sender is a "frequent message sender" and a "frequent visitor to the particular website," and adding the sender to an "autoresponder cycle." The complaint alleges infringement based on Braze's general user segmentation capabilities but does not provide specific facts showing that the accused system performs these precise claimed functions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sender"
- Context and Importance: The identity of the "sender" is critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's architecture appears to contemplate an individual user sending a message and receiving an advertisement, whereas in the accused platform, the "sender" is the business entity conducting the marketing campaign. The resolution of this term's scope could determine if the accused system's architecture can read on the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to "sender 108" in general terms as originating a "message 106" from an electronic device, without explicitly limiting the sender to a non-commercial individual. (’005 Patent, col. 3:3-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall system design, which delivers the original message to a recipient but a separate advertisement back to the sender, may imply the sender is a consumer who is the target of advertising, not the advertiser itself. (’005 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:5-11).
The Term: "advertisement selection module"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is central because Claim 1 requires this module to perform a specific sequence of analytical steps. The dispute may turn on whether the accused "segment" feature, which performs general user targeting, meets these specific limitations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification generally describes the module as selecting an advertisement "based on at least one of a characteristic of the recipient, a characteristic of the sender, and a characteristic of the message." (’005 Patent, col. 4:3-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the module by its functions, including determining sender status as a "frequent message sender" and a "frequent visitor to the particular website." The specification provides explicit support for these functions, describing a process of "comparing the total number of messages sent by the sender" and "the total number of website visits by the sender" to thresholds. (’005 Patent, col. 5:1-5; col. 5:32-36; Claim 1).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a passing allegation of inducement, stating that features of the accused products "induce and contribute to infringement... at least from the service of this lawsuit." (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not allege specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for pre-suit indirect infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or request enhanced damages in its prayer for relief. (Compl. p. 8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the roles of "sender", "recipient", and "advertisement" as defined in the patent's P2P-style communication relay model be construed to read on the accused B2C marketing platform, where the business is the sender and its message is the advertisement?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused platform's general-purpose "segment" feature for user targeting perform the specific, multi-part analytical functions of the claimed "advertisement selection module"—including determining "frequent message sender" and "frequent visitor" status and using an "autoresponder cycle"—as required by the plain language of Claim 1?