Upchat LLC v. Uber Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: UpChat LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00498, W.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems that determine a communication device user's status and convey that status to another party via a graphical "avatar."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns providing real-time user presence or activity information within a communications network, a concept foundational to modern status indicators in messaging and social media applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims a priority date from 2003, suggesting its technological framework precedes the modern smartphone application ecosystem. The complaint itself does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings related to the patent.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,182,157, "Systems and methods for communicating," issued January 15, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for mobile phone users to "readily determine what another mobile telephone user is doing without having to communicate directly" (e.g., to know if they are in a meeting before calling) (’157 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user's device can automatically communicate an "avatar"—defined as an image like a digital photograph or animated icon—to a calling party's device (’157 Patent, col. 2:13-18). This avatar conveys information about the user's current activity (e.g., an icon of a briefcase to indicate "at work") based on an attribute of the calling device, such as its telephone number (’157 Patent, col. 2:5-12, 2:32-38). The patent also describes presenting these avatars within a "virtual environment," such as a virtual office or boardroom, to provide additional context (’157 Patent, col. 3:3-14).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to add a layer of non-verbal, passive context to mobile communications, anticipating the "presence" and status indicator features that later became common in digital messaging platforms (’157 Patent, col. 1:35-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’157 Patent are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '157 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the invention.
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim) Elements:
  • A storage device that stores (a) identifying information indicative of a telephone number of a communication device and (b) activity information identifying a user's activity.
  • A processor configured to:
    • Allow the communication device to access the activity information based on finding a match between the stored identifying information and identification data of the communication device; and
    • Replace the activity information with different activity information identifying another activity of the user.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶1-16). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an external claim chart exhibit, which was not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the features, functions, or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶1-16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations entirely by reference to an external document, "Exhibit 2," which it describes as containing "charts comparing the Exemplary '157 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not provided, the complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping any accused functionality to the elements of the asserted patent claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Based on the patent's language, a central dispute may concern whether the claim term "telephone number" can be interpreted to cover modern user identifiers (e.g., application-specific user IDs or email addresses) used in IP-based communication systems. A related question is whether a modern client-server application architecture falls within the scope of the "communication device" and network structure described in the patent, which is rooted in early 2000s mobile telephony (’157 Patent, col. 6:20-54).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will likely be what specific process in the accused product performs the claimed function of "allowing the communication device to access the activity information... based on finding a match" between identifiers (’157 Patent, col. 11:14-29 (Claim 1)). The analysis will question whether the accused product employs a comparable matching and access-gating mechanism or operates on a different data permission and distribution model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "activity information identifying an activity" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core content being communicated. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to discrete, pre-selected user states (e.g., "available," "busy") or can encompass more dynamic, real-time data streams (e.g., a live location on a map). Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of "activity information" is central to the infringement analysis against modern applications that provide rich, real-time user data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the avatar as conveying "information about an activity that the person is involved in," providing general examples like being "at work" or "out shopping" (’157 Patent, col. 2:16-18, 2:23-25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments described are largely static representations, such as selecting an avatar from a list including a "picture of a surfboard, a picture of a book, [or] a picture of an office" to represent a single, user-selected state (’157 Patent, col. 8:16-18).

• The Term: "identifying information indicative of a telephone number" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term anchors the patent's access-control mechanism to a specific type of identifier prevalent at the time of invention. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term can be construed to cover the types of user account identifiers used in modern, non-telephony-based applications.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent Claim 2 broadens the "identification data" used for matching to include "one of a telephone number, a PIN code or an IP address associated with the communication device," suggesting the inventors contemplated identifiers beyond just a telephone number (’157 Patent, col. 11:31-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description is heavily grounded in the context of a "mobile telephone system," frequently referencing "telephone handset[s]," "base station[s]," and "caller identification data" generated by the "telephone network" (’157 Patent, col. 6:20-22, col. 7:1-12). This could support an argument that the invention is fundamentally tied to the architecture of traditional mobile telephony.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶1-16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations of pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent to support a claim for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285," a remedy often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. p. 4).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the patent's claims, drafted in the context of early 2000s mobile telephone networks and their associated identifiers (e.g., "telephone number"), be construed to cover the fundamentally different architecture of modern, IP-based applications that use account-based user identifiers?
• A preliminary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does a complaint that omits any identification of the accused products and incorporates all substantive infringement allegations by reference to an external, unattached exhibit meet the plausibility standard required to provide a defendant with fair notice of the claims against it?
• Should the case proceed, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: what specific technical feature within the accused instrumentality performs the claimed step of "allowing... access" to status information specifically "based on finding a match" with an identifier, and does that mechanism operate in a manner consistent with the process described in the ’157 Patent?