Random Chat LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00261, W.D. Tex., 06/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s regular and established places of business within the district and the commission of alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, which facilitates multimedia chat, infringes a patent related to methods for establishing and managing user-defined online communications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns server-side and peer-to-peer systems for enabling multimedia communication (video, audio, text) where users can create profiles to define how they connect and interact with others online.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other parties, but asserts these agreements were to terminate litigation and did not constitute licenses to produce a patented article, a point relevant to potential marking defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-28	'099 Patent Priority Date
2013-03-19	'099 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-04	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 (Issued Mar. 19, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art video and chat systems as being "too constrictive" for the "more complex communication requirements" of emerging "social networks" or "communities." ('099 Patent, col. 2:5-8, col. 1:43-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user first creates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile." ('099 Patent, Abstract). This profile is not merely for identification but is used to "freely define" key aspects of the subsequent communication, such as the "mode of a subscriber selection," the "communication type," and the "number of communication links." ('099 Patent, col. 2:27-31). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical structure of layers (database, link, subscriber, front-end) to manage these complex, user-driven interactions. ('099 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to enable more flexible, user-centric online communities that could better replicate the complexity of real-world social interactions, moving beyond simple one-to-one chat functionalities. ('099 Patent, col. 2:7-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-20. (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for executing multimedia communication between terminals on a network.
  • A subscriber generates a "personalized user account in the form of a virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
  • Setting up this profile establishes the multimedia communication at the terminals.
  • The profile is used to "freely define" a "mode of a subscriber selection," a communication type, or a number of communication links.
  • The "subscriber selection mode" includes a "random process" for connecting to a random subscriber.
  • The "subscriber selection mode" also includes an "activatable call procedure" for connecting to a subscriber from a "selection list," where subscribers form "sub-pools."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals," as embodied by its website, "www.bathandbodyworks.com". (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant operates systems that facilitate chat communication between terminals. (Compl. ¶9). It further alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the '099 Patent into service (i.e., used them)." (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical implementation of the accused chat functionality beyond these general statements.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not attach it to the public filing. (Compl. ¶10). In its narrative allegations, the complaint asserts that Defendant’s website and associated systems practice the method claimed in the ’099 patent by facilitating multimedia chat. (Compl. ¶9). The core theory appears to be that Defendant's operation of its website and chat services constitutes performance of the claimed method steps. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations that map individual claim elements to corresponding features of the accused website.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 is a method claim. A central question will be whether Defendant itself performs every step of the claimed method. The complaint's phrasing that "Defendant's acts... caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" raises the question of whether infringement relies on the actions of end-users (i.e., customers). (Compl. ¶9). If so, Plaintiff may need to satisfy the legal standard for joint infringement, which requires showing that Defendant directs or controls the users' performance of the claimed steps.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1 but does not specify which features of the Bath & Body Works website perform certain claimed functions. This raises the question of what evidence supports the existence of, for example, a "random process for setting up a communication link" or an "activatable call procedure" for connecting to users from a "selection list" in the context of a retail website's customer service chat.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as the "profile" is the mechanism through which communication parameters are defined. The scope of this term will be critical; practitioners may focus on whether it can be read to cover a standard customer account on an e-commerce platform or if it is limited to the more complex, socially-oriented profiles described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states an account includes "login data, contacts, the profile, switching and management-relevant data and other entries," which could be argued to encompass data stored in a typical retail user account. ('099 Patent, col. 2:46-49).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the "profile" to defining specific communication rules, such as selection modes and communication types. ('099 Patent, col. 2:27-31). Figures and embodiments describe the profile in a social networking context, showing features like "WhoAmI tags," "Like tags," "Dislike tags," and a "slogan," suggesting a more feature-rich entity than a standard e-commerce account. ('099 Patent, Fig. 5c, col. 11:24-27).

• The Term: "subscriber selection mode"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires this "mode" to include both a "random process" and a "call procedure" from a "selection list." The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused functionality meets these specific requirements.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the mode broadly as a way to "predefine... preferences and basic parameters, on the basis of which the subscriber wants his multimedia communication to take place." ('099 Patent, col. 2:53-56).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples that could narrow the terms. The "random process" is described as enabling an "'accidental meeting' of two subscribers," akin to a surprise chat feature. ('099 Patent, col. 2:66-67). The "call procedure" is described in the context of a "friends panel" where users can directly contact pre-selected individuals. ('099 Patent, col. 9:27-31). This may suggest the claim requires specific social networking features not typically found on a retail website.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant instructs customers on how to use its services via its website and "product instruction manuals" and had knowledge of the patent at least from the filing date of the suit. (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). For contributory infringement, it alleges the accused services are not staple articles of commerce and that their only reasonable use is an infringing one. (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’099 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). The complaint seeks a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery show pre-suit knowledge or if infringement continues post-suit. (Compl. ¶VI.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 the patent specification describes in the context of creating complex social networks, be construed to cover a standard customer account on a retail e-commerce website?
• A key pleading and evidentiary question will be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations are sufficient to plausibly show that the accused website performs specific claimed method steps, such as a "random process for setting up a communication link" and a "call procedure" from a "selection list."
• A central legal question will be one of direct infringement for a method claim: does Defendant perform all the claimed method steps itself, or does the theory rely on the actions of its customers? If the latter, the case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant directs or controls its users' actions under the standard for joint infringement.