Random Chat LLC v. Ancestrycom DNA LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Random Chat, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Ancestrycom DNA, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00456, D. Utah, 06/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah, committing alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducting substantial business with individuals in Utah.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services, as offered through Ancestry.com, infringe a patent related to methods for establishing and managing multimedia communications within a network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns architectural methods for operating network-based communication platforms, such as social networks or online communities, that support video, audio, and text chat.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patents, though the terms are confidential.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Priority Date
2013-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 8,402,099 Issue Date
2025-06-09	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: 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 March 19, 2013 (’099 Patent).

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior video and chat systems were too "constrictive" and ill-suited for the increasingly complex communication requirements of "social networks" and "communities" that emerged on the internet (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:41-52). These prior systems were described as inadequate for reproducing the complex ways subscribers represent themselves, find each other, and form sub-networks (ʼ099 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a process where a user generates a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server, which goes beyond basic user data to "freely define" key parameters of the communication itself (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:22-31). These parameters include the mode of selecting a communication partner (e.g., via a random process, a search, or a friends list), the type of communication (e.g., one-to-one, one-to-many), and the number of communication links (ʼ099 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-31). The system architecture is described as a hierarchical layer structure (database, link, subscriber, and front-end layers) for managing these complex interactions (ʼ099 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to provide a flexible, user-defined framework for online multimedia interactions, moving beyond simple one-to-one chat to better support the multifaceted dynamics of web-based communities (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 of the ’099 patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for executing multimedia communication between terminals on a network.
  • A subscriber generating a personalized user account as a "virtual subscriber profile" on a server or peer-to-peer network.
  • Using the setup of this profile to establish communication by freely defining: a "mode of a subscriber selection," a "communication type," a "number of communication links," or a "type of data transmission."
  • The "subscriber selection mode" must include a "random process" for linking to another subscriber.
  • The "subscriber selection mode" must also include an "activatable call procedure" for linking to a subscriber from a "selection list."
  • Subscribers on the selection list form "a plurality of at least one of an open and a closed subscriber sub-pool."
  • All subscribers are classified by entries in their profiles, with these classifications resulting in sub-pools.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "systems, products, and services that facilitate multimedia communication, in particular video, audio, and/or text chat between terminals," as provided through the website "https://www.ancestry.com/" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems and "put the inventions claimed by the '099 Patent into service" (Compl. ¶8). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the Ancestry.com platform operates or which specific features (e.g., user messaging, community forums, family tree collaboration) are alleged to perform the claimed methods. The allegations are framed in general terms of facilitating multimedia communication (Compl. ¶7-8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that was not filed with the public pleading (Compl. ¶9). In its absence, the infringement theory must be drawn from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint asserts that Defendant’s systems and services directly infringe one or more of claims 1-20 of the ’099 patent by facilitating multimedia communication (Compl. ¶8). The central theory appears to be that by operating the Ancestry.com platform, Defendant provides a system that necessarily performs the steps of the patented method when users interact with it (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not, however, map any specific functionality of the Ancestry.com service to the discrete elements of the asserted claims. For instance, it does not identify which feature allegedly performs the "random process for setting up a communication link" or how "open and closed subscriber sub-pool[s]" are formed as required by claim 1. The pleading states these allegations are "preliminary" and relies on the unattached exhibit and future discovery to provide detailed support (Compl. ¶9).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "virtual subscriber profile," as claimed in the patent in the context of flexible social chat platforms, can be read to cover a user account on a genealogy-focused service like Ancestry.com. The court may need to consider if creating a family tree and messaging relatives constitutes the kind of dynamic "subscriber selection" and "sub-pool" formation described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest the accused service includes a "random process for setting up a communication link," a specific limitation of claim 1. A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery reveals that the Ancestry.com platform contains functionality that meets this and other specific technical requirements of the claims, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in operation between the accused service and the patented method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual subscriber profile"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core data object of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical, as the infringement case depends on whether a user account on Ancestry.com meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether the term implies more than a standard user account with personal data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the profile as an "account" that includes "login data, contacts, the profile, switching and management-relevant data and other entries," which could be argued to cover a wide range of user accounts on web services (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:45-48).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the profile to the active control of communication parameters. It is set up so that "a mode of a subscriber selection... a communication type... a number of communication links... and/or the type of data transmission... are freely defined" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:27-31). This suggests the profile is not merely a static data repository but an active tool for configuring communication protocols, a potentially narrower meaning.

• The Term: "random process for setting up a communication link"

  • Context and Importance: This is an express functional limitation in independent claim 1. If the accused service does not perform this step, it cannot literally infringe the claim. The dispute will likely center on what level of randomness is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the feature's purpose as enabling an "'accidental meeting' of two subscribers" with a "surprise effect" (ʼ099 Patent, col. 2:66–col. 3:4). A plaintiff could argue that any algorithm that suggests connections to unknown users, even if based on some criteria, satisfies the "random" requirement from a user's perspective.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts this "random connection" with a "random connection with preferences," a search process, and calling from a friends list, suggesting the base "random process" is distinct and perhaps less structured than an algorithmic recommendation engine (ʼ099 Patent, col. 9:7-10; col. 3:6-21). A defendant may argue this requires a specific "chatroulette"-style feature that is absent from its service.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶10, 11). Inducement is based on Defendant allegedly instructing customers on how to use the infringing features through its website and "product instruction manuals" (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the service is not a staple commercial product and its only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’099 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10). It explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint if pre-suit knowledge is revealed during discovery (Compl. ¶10, n.1).

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

This case appears to present several fundamental questions for the court's determination, stemming from the high-level nature of the complaint.

• A core issue will be one of technical applicability: Does the Ancestry.com platform, a service primarily designed for genealogical research, actually implement the specific, flexible multimedia "social network" architecture required by the claims of the ’099 patent? In particular, does it provide for a "random process" of connection or the formation of "sub-pools" based on user-defined tags?

• The case will also turn on a question of evidentiary sufficiency: Given that the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping accused features to claim limitations, can Plaintiff produce evidence through discovery that demonstrates the accused systems perform the precise functions recited in the patent claims, or will the infringement theory fail for lack of proof of a technical match?