3:12-cv-00770
Intercarrier Communications LLC v. Iris Wireless LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercarrier Communications LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Iris Wireless, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Butler Royals, PLC
- Case Identification: 3:12-cv-00770, E.D. Va., 10/26/2012
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, including making sales, soliciting business, and deriving substantial revenue from services provided to individuals in Virginia.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inter-carrier messaging solutions infringe a patent related to routing messages between different wireless carrier networks using only a recipient's phone number.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of interoperability between different mobile messaging systems (e.g., SMS, MMS), which historically required users to know complex, carrier-specific address formats to message subscribers on other networks.
- Key Procedural History: The patent owner filed a disclaimer for claims 2, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of the asserted patent on May 21, 2009. This action narrows the scope of the patent by permanently surrendering these specific claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 6,985,748 Priority Date |
| 2006-01-10 | U.S. Patent No. 6,985,748 Issued |
| 2009-05-21 | Disclaimer filed for claims 2, 7, 8, 15, and 16 of patent |
| 2012-10-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,985,748 - "Inter-carrier Messaging Service Providing Phone Number Only Experience"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,985,748, "Inter-carrier Messaging Service Providing Phone Number Only Experience," issued January 10, 2006 (the "'748 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In the early 2000s, sending a text message to a person on a different mobile carrier network was difficult. It often required the sender to know a complex, non-obvious email-style address (e.g., "4105551212@mobile.att.net") instead of just the recipient's phone number, creating a cumbersome user experience and limiting the adoption of cross-carrier messaging (’748 Patent, col. 3:9-19, 3:41-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized "Message Distribution Center" (MDC) that acts as an intermediary between carrier networks (’748 Patent, Fig. 1). When a user sends a message addressed only with a phone number, the system determines if the recipient is on an external network. If so, the message is sent to the MDC, which uses a database to look up the recipient's phone number (MIN), identify their correct carrier, and then consult a second database to find the appropriate routing syntax (e.g., the
@carrier.netdomain). The MDC then automatically appends this syntax to the phone number and routes the properly-formatted message to the destination carrier, enabling a "phone number only" experience for the sender (’748 Patent, col. 5:42-col. 6:5). - Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical solution for interoperability between competing and incompatible wireless network technologies (e.g., GSM, CDMA, TDMA), a significant hurdle for messaging services in the U.S. market at the time (’748 Patent, col. 4:6-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 14 appear to be representative of the invention.
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
- A system for processing a digital packet addressed with only a phone number, comprising:
- a database associating subscriber phone numbers with servicing carriers;
- a database associating carriers with routing syntax; and
- an inter-carrier messaging module to receive the digital message packet, perform a lookup in both databases, and add the determined routing syntax to the phone number.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the "Iris Wireless Inode Interoperator SMS and Mnode Interoperator MMS solutions" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these products are "messaging services" (Compl. ¶11). Based on their names, these products appear to be software or system solutions that facilitate the exchange of SMS (Short Message Service) and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) messages between different mobile carrier networks ("interoperator").
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the architecture or operation of the Accused Instrumentalities beyond the general allegation that they "provide messaging services claimed in the '748 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only a conclusory allegation of infringement, identifying the accused products but not mapping their specific features to the elements of any asserted patent claim. The following chart summarizes the allegations for the representative independent claim based on the information available.
’748 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a database associating subscriber phone numbers with servicing carriers; | The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities as a whole provide the claimed messaging services, but does not identify a specific component corresponding to this database element. | ¶11 | col. 14:22-24 |
| a database associating carriers with routing syntax; and | The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities as a whole provide the claimed messaging services, but does not identify a specific component corresponding to this database element. | ¶11 | col. 14:25-26 |
| an inter-carrier messaging module to receive a digital message packet...to perform a lookup...and to add routing syntax determined from said lookup to said phone number. | The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities as a whole perform the functions of an inter-carrier messaging module, but does not detail how they receive messages, perform lookups, or add routing syntax. The allegation is that the products "provide messaging services claimed in the '748 Patent." | ¶11 | col. 14:27-33 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The primary question will be evidentiary. Given the lack of factual detail in the complaint, the case will depend on what discovery reveals about the Defendant's system architecture. A central issue will be whether the "Inode" and "Mnode" solutions contain the specific, separate database structures ("database associating...phone numbers with...carriers" and "database associating carriers with routing syntax") as required by the claim, or if they use a different architecture (e.g., a single, monolithic database or a real-time external query system).
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of "addressed with only a phone number." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system processes messages that, at some point in their transmission, contain other addressing information in addition to the phone number, and whether that falls outside the scope of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific disputed terms. However, based on the technology, certain terms are likely to be central to the dispute.
The Term: "message distribution center"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the title of claim 1 and is described as the core of the system architecture (’748 Patent, col. 5:53-54). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claims read on a distributed, cloud-based system or are limited to a more centralized, single-entity architecture as depicted in certain figures. Defendant may argue its system is architecturally distinct from the "center" described.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the MDC as a "service bureau" or "clearinghouse" and notes that its components can be distributed across servers, suggesting a logical or functional grouping rather than a single physical location (’748 Patent, col. 6:30-32; col. 9:56-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "Message Distribution Center (MDC)" as a distinct, singular box in the network diagrams, connected to various carriers (’748 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 3). This could support an argument that it must be a discrete system component.
The Term: "database associating subscriber phone numbers with servicing carriers"
Context and Importance: This element is a core component of the claimed system. Its definition is critical because the accused system may not use a static, pre-populated "database" in the traditional sense. The dispute will likely center on whether a system that performs, for example, a real-time query to an external service to identify a carrier meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit how the "database" is constructed or populated. It is described functionally as a means to associate a phone number with a carrier, which could encompass various technical implementations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of the database as a table with columns for "ALL MINs" and "CARRIER NAME" (’748 Patent, Fig. 4). An argument could be made that this exemplary embodiment limits the term to a structure that stores this association directly, rather than obtaining it dynamically from an outside source.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges Defendant is "providing and causing to be used" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). This language suggests a claim for induced infringement, but the complaint pleads no specific facts to support the requisite element of intent, such as allegations that Defendant knew of the patent and encouraged its customers to use the products in an infringing manner.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count, but the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 3). The complaint alleges that Defendant was made aware of the patent "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶12). This allegation, on its own, would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness and does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two fundamental questions:
A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence that the Defendant's "Inode" and "Mnode" systems contain the specific two-database structure and "inter-carrier messaging module" recited in claim 1, or will discovery reveal a fundamentally different technical architecture for routing messages?
A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "database"? Will it be limited to the static, table-like structures shown in the patent's figures, or can it be interpreted more broadly to cover modern systems that may rely on dynamic, real-time queries to external systems to associate a phone number with a carrier?