DCT

7:25-cv-00497

Upchat LLC v. Salesforce Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00497, W.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products from Defendant infringe a patent related to systems for communicating a user's status via a graphical avatar.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for using mobile communication networks to automatically share a visual indicator of a user’s real-world activity (e.g., "in a meeting," "traveling") with another party attempting to contact them.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-11-27 ’994 Patent Priority Date
2013-07-16 ’994 Patent Issued
2025-10-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,489,994 - "Systems and methods for communicating"

  • Issued: July 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for mobile phone users to determine another user's status or activity without having to speak with them directly, noting the inefficiency of calling someone only to find out they are in a meeting. (’994 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an "avatar"—defined as an image like a digital photograph or animated icon—is automatically communicated to a calling party's device. (’994 Patent, col. 2:51-61). This avatar is selected based on an attribute of the calling device (e.g., its telephone number) and is intended to convey information about the called person's current activity, such as being at work or shopping. (’994 Patent, col. 1:47-53; col. 2:2-7). The avatar is presented within a "virtual environment," such as a virtual office or lounge room, to provide additional context. (’994 Patent, col. 2:56-63; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The described system aims to enhance communication efficiency by providing passive, visual status updates between users, reducing the need for direct, synchronous interaction to ascertain availability. (’994 Patent, col. 1:15-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify any specific claims of the ’994 Patent asserted against the Defendant, instead referring generally to "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. (Compl. ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an "Exhibit 2" which is incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’994 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this claim. (Compl. ¶11). Instead, it states that infringement is detailed in claim charts contained within an external document, "Exhibit 2," which is incorporated by reference. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible. The complaint contains no narrative description of how any specific product feature is alleged to meet any specific claim limitation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, which precludes an analysis of claim terms that may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’994 Patent." (Compl. ¶14). The complaint again relies on the unprovided Exhibit 2 as the source for these materials. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the filing and service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement." (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving this notice is willful. (Compl. ¶14).

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

Based on the complaint, the case appears to present significant initial procedural questions before any substantive technical disputes can be addressed.

  • A primary procedural issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which omits the names of the accused products and the specific infringement theory from its text and relies entirely on an incorporated-by-reference exhibit, meet the plausibility pleading standards required under federal law?
  • Should the case proceed, a central substantive question will concern technological scope: how will the patent’s concept of an "avatar" conveying a person's real-world physical "activity" (e.g., "out shopping") be mapped onto the functionalities of Defendant's products, which are likely modern enterprise software platforms where user status often relates to online presence rather than physical location?