WebSock Global Strategies LLC v. Zello Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WebSock Global Strategies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Zello Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00339, W.D. Tex., 08/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to methods for symmetrical, bi-directional communication over a network using asymmetrical protocols like HTTP.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses limitations in standard internet protocols (like HTTP) where communication is typically initiated by a "client," preventing a "server" from spontaneously sending data, a significant hurdle for peer-to-peer applications.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,403,995. This shared specification may be relevant for claim construction and understanding the disclosed invention.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-08	'983 Patent Priority Date (via parent application)
2010-07-13	'983 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-04	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983 - "Symmetrical bi-directional communication"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,756,983, “Symmetrical bi-directional communication,” issued July 13, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Standard HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is inherently "asymmetrical": a "client" node must initiate a request before a "server" node can respond. This model prevents a server from initiating communication, which is problematic for peer-to-peer networks or applications where a node behind a firewall or Network Address Translator (NAT) needs to receive unsolicited data ('983 Patent, col. 2:8-21). Methods like constant "polling" by the client are inefficient and waste network bandwidth (id. at col. 3:4-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where two network nodes first establish a standard, asymmetrical HTTP session over an underlying network connection (e.g., TCP/IP). They then "negotiate transactional role reversal." This involves terminating the initial HTTP layer session while preserving the underlying TCP/IP connection. A new, "reversed" HTTP session is then created over that same preserved connection, allowing the original server to act as a client and initiate communication with the original client, which now acts as a server ('983 Patent, col. 10:26-40; Fig. 9).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables true peer-to-peer communication using the widely adopted and firewall-friendly HTTP protocol, overcoming its inherent client-request/server-response limitation without resorting to inefficient polling ('983 Patent, col. 3:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the first such method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • First and second network nodes engage in an asymmetric hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) transactional session with an underlying network connection.
  • Each node enacts distinct initial transactional roles (HTTP server and HTTP client).
  • The nodes terminate the asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining the underlying network connection.
  • The nodes negotiate transactional role reversal.
  • The nodes communicate further under a reversed asymmetric transactional protocol, where each node enacts the initial role of the other.
  • The session uses a network connection traversing hardware enforcing asymmetric communication.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11). These charts, part of Exhibit 2, were not included with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement by incorporating by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '983 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶13). As these charts (Exhibit 2) were not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant directly infringes "by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The central issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can marshal to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, multi-step method of the asserted claims. The complaint itself offers no technical details.
  • Technical Question: Does the accused technology actually "terminate" an HTTP session while "maintaining" the underlying network connection for the express purpose of reversing communication roles? A key point of dispute may be whether the accused products achieve a similar result using a technically distinct method that does not map onto the claim limitations.
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused functionality constitutes "negotiating transactional role reversal" as understood in the context of the patent, or if it is merely a different form of bi-directional data exchange not contemplated by the inventors.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "negotiating transactional role reversal" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused products' method for enabling server-initiated communication falls within the scope of the claims. The dispute will likely center on what specific actions constitute "negotiating" and "reversal."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any process where a client and server agree to swap communication-initiating capabilities, not limited to a specific implementation. The patent describes the invention as providing "improved symmetrical communication compatible with the HTTP protocol" generally ('983 Patent, col. 3:21-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed flowchart for this process, which includes sending a specific "HTTP FLIP request," extracting and saving TCP circuit information, terminating the existing HTTP layer session, and creating a new one with reversed roles ('983 Patent, Fig. 9, steps 504-514). A party could argue the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment or a close equivalent.

• The Term: "terminating said asymmetric HTTP transactional session while maintaining said underlying network connection" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from simply opening a new, separate connection. Infringement requires proof of a specific sequence: tearing down the application (HTTP) layer while preserving the transport (TCP/IP) layer for reuse.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "maintaining" does not require the connection to be continuously active, but merely that its state information (e.g., socket details) is preserved for reuse in the reversed session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that after negotiation, "nodes 112a and 112b terminate... session 150 of HTTP layer 116... [but] maintain, however, the underlying network connection... at TCP layer 114" ('983 Patent, col. 9:14-19). This explicit distinction between terminating the HTTP session and maintaining the TCP connection suggests the terms have precise, distinct technical meanings that must be met.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for indirect infringement or allege facts to support the requisite knowledge or intent for inducement or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be "declared exceptional" and for an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶E.i). The complaint does not allege any facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent, that would typically underpin such a request.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the central phrase "negotiating transactional role reversal"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the term is interpreted broadly to mean any method of swapping client/server roles, or narrowly to require the specific sequence of terminating the HTTP layer while preserving the underlying network connection as detailed in the patent’s specification.
2. The primary hurdle for the plaintiff will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of technical specifics, the case will hinge on whether discovery produces evidence that the accused products' software architecture and network behavior literally perform each step of the asserted method claims, particularly the discrete termination of the HTTP session and subsequent reuse of the maintained TCP/IP connection for a reversed-role session.