Aqua Connect Inc v. GoTo Tech USA LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aqua Connect, Inc. (Nevada) and Strategic Technology Partners, LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: GoTo Technologies USA, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00991, D. Del., 08/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's GoTo Remote Suite of software products infringes two patents related to methods for securely and efficiently managing remote user sessions on computers running Mach-derived operating systems, such as Apple's macOS.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses architectural limitations in Mach-based operating systems that historically hindered the development of multi-user remote desktop solutions, a significant feature in the enterprise and IT support software market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that the asserted patents survived a subject-matter eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in prior litigation against TeamViewer US, LLC in the same court. It also notes that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially rejected claims of the RE46,386 patent on § 101 grounds during prosecution but later withdrew the rejection. Plaintiffs also cite a $5.7 million jury verdict against TeamViewer for infringement of the same patents as a basis for Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-09-23	Priority Date for '386 and '502 Patents
2014-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 Issues
2015-06-03	USPTO issues § 101 rejection for '386 patent application
2015-10-15	Applicant responds to § 101 rejection for '386 patent
2016-06-13	USPTO withdraws § 101 rejection for '386 patent
2017-05-02	U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,386 Issues
2018-10-11	Plaintiffs file suit against TeamViewer US, Inc.
2020-09-16	Court denies TeamViewer's § 101 motion
2022-08-01	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of patents-in-suit
2026-08-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,386 - Updating a user session in a Mach-derived computer system environment, issued May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of creating remote terminal services for computer systems based on a "Mach" microkernel, such as Apple's operating systems Compl. ¶¶33-34 Compl. ¶¶42-43 In such systems, critical resources like device drivers are controlled by individual user sessions, not the central kernel Compl. ¶42 This architecture made it difficult to enable multiple simultaneous remote user sessions, run a remote session in the background of the host machine, or secure the session from network-based attacks Compl. ¶¶42-44
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a novel software architecture that splits remote access functions into two separate processes running in distinct "Mach contexts" on the host machine Compl. ¶46 An "agent server" runs within the user's specific login session (the "user context"), while an "agent client" runs in a separate context (e.g., a system-level "protocol translator" context) Compl. ¶49 '386 Patent, Fig. 1 These two components communicate with each other using inter-process communication (IPC) to pass user input and display data back and forth, isolating the user session from direct network exposure and enabling a single host to manage multiple remote connections simultaneously (Compl. ¶49; Compl. ¶50; Compl. ¶51, Compl. ¶¶col. 3:9-24). The complaint includes a diagram from the patent illustrating this architecture, showing a "KVM Agent Client" in a "Protocol Translator" context communicating with a "KVM Agent Server" in a "User Context" Compl. ¶46
• Technical Importance: This architectural approach claimed to enable, for the first time, true multi-user, secure, and backgrounded remote desktop functionality on Mach-derived systems like macOS, solving what the complaint describes as a "long felt need" in that market Compl. ¶8

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts method claims, with a focus on independent claim 25 Compl. ¶¶64, 69
• Essential elements of independent claim 25, a method performed on the remote computing device, include:
  • Receiving an update to a user instance from a Mach-derived computing device.
  • The update originates from a process on the Mach-derived device involving an "agent server" in a user computer context and an "agent client" executing in a separate process and separate Mach context.
  • The update data was previously transferred between the client/server over a "computer system communication facility" (e.g., a socket, port, or pipe).
  • Transmitting input data from the remote device back to the Mach-derived device.
  • Outputting the data from the received update on the remote device's display.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional method claims, including claims 1-7, 10-26, 30-32, and 35 Compl. ¶64

U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 - System, method and computer program product for updating a user session in a Mach-derived system environment, issued December 30, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that the specifications of the '386 Patent and the '502 Patent are the same, as the '502 patent issued from a continuation of the application that led to the '386 patent's underlying original patent Compl. ¶32 The technical problems addressed are identical to those described for the '386 Patent, namely the inherent architectural challenges of providing multi-user remote access on Mach-based systems '502 Patent, col. 1:40-67 Compl. ¶¶42-45
• The Patented Solution: The patented solution is also identical to that of the '386 patent, utilizing a split architecture of an "agent server" and "agent client" in separate Mach contexts communicating via IPC to manage remote sessions '502 Patent, Fig. 1 Compl. ¶¶46-51 The complaint includes a diagram contrasting the minimal "Mach Kernel" with a traditional "monolithic" kernel to explain the technical environment the invention operates in Compl. ¶37
• Technical Importance: As with the '386 Patent, the invention's contribution was enabling robust, multi-user remote desktop capabilities for Apple and other Mach-based platforms Compl. ¶¶51-52

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts method claims, highlighting independent claim 25 Compl. ¶¶64, 91
• Essential elements of independent claim 25 are structurally similar to claim 25 of the '386 Patent and also describe a method performed on the remote device:
  • Receiving an update to a user instance from a Mach-derived system.
  • The Mach-derived system comprises a "first context" with an "agent server" and a "second context" with an "agent client," with the client and server being separate processes.
  • Data for the update was previously transferred over a "system communication facility" on the Mach-derived system.
  • Transmitting input data from the remote device to the Mach-derived system.
  • Outputting data from the received update.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional method claims, including claims 1-7, 10-26, 30-32, and 35-42 Compl. ¶64

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are products within Defendant's "GoTo Remote Suite," including LogMeIn Pro, GoToMyPC, LogMeIn Resolve, LogMeIn Rescue, and LogMeIn Central Compl. ¶55 The complaint uses LogMeIn Pro as a representative example for its infringement analysis Compl. ¶70

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products provide remote desktop access software, allowing a user to control a host computer (including Apple Macs running macOS) from a separate client device over the internet Compl. ¶55a The functionality requires "Host" software to be installed on the computer to be controlled and "Client" software (which may be a standalone application, web app, or mobile app) on the controlling computer Compl. ¶¶55a, 70a The complaint alleges these products are marketed to small and medium-sized businesses and IT departments and that Defendant is a "leading provider" of such software Compl. ¶¶54, 55a

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,386 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving, by the at least one computer processor of the computing device, an update to a user instance...	The LogMeIn Pro client software receives updated screen data from the host computer, which is presented to the user as seeing the host's desktop.	¶70b	col. 5:21-25
wherein the Mach-derived computing device comprises a user computer context comprising an agent server... the agent client executing in a process separate from and in a separate Mach context from the agent server...	The "LMIGUIAgent" process runs as the "agent server" in a user session (the user context), while the "LogMeIn" process runs as the "agent client" in the root session (a separate Mach context).	¶¶70h, 70i, 70k	col. 3:9-14
wherein data corresponding to the update...was previously transferred over a computer system communication facility of the Mach-derived computing device...	Before being sent over the network, updated session data (e.g., screen updates) is allegedly exchanged between the macOS "WindowServer" process and the "LMIGUIAgent" process via "Mach ports."	¶70d	col. 11:15-18
transmitting, by the at least one computer processor of the computing device, input data received from at least one input device... over the communications network to the Mach-derived computing device...	The LogMeIn Pro client software transmits user input, such as mouse movements, over the internet to the host macOS computer.	¶70n	col. 3:15-20
outputting, by the at least one computer processor of the computing device... data included in the update of the user instance...	The LogMeIn Pro client software updates the display on the client computer to reflect the new screen state received from the host.	¶70o	col. 2:59-62

8,924,502 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving, by the at least one processor of the computing device, an update to a user instance...	The LogMeIn Pro client software receives updated screen data from the host, allowing the user to see the remote desktop.	¶92b	col. 12:20-24
wherein the Mach-derived system comprises: a first context comprising an agent server, a second context comprising an agent client...	The host macOS computer has a user session (the "first context") where the "LMIGUIAgent" process ("agent server") runs, and a root session (the "second context") where the "LogMeIn" process ("agent client") runs.	¶¶92j, 92k	col. 12:38-42
wherein data was previously transferred over a system communication facility of the Mach-derived system...	Screen update data is allegedly exchanged on the host computer between the "LMIGUIAgent" process and the "WindowServer" process using Mach ports.	¶92d	col. 12:25-28
transmitting, by the at least one processor of the computing device, input data received from at least one input device... over the network to the Mach-derived system...	The client software transmits user input like mouse movements from the client device over the internet to the host macOS computer.	¶92n	col. 13:4-9
outputting, by the at least one processor of the computing device, data included in the update of the user instance...	The client software running on the remote computer updates its display to show the new screen state received from the host.	¶92o	col. 13:9-13

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on mapping the patent's "agent client" and "agent server" in separate "Mach contexts" to the accused software's architecture. The complaint alleges the "LogMeIn" process in the system's "root session" is the "agent client" and the "LMIGUIAgent" process in a "user session" is the "agent server" Compl. ¶¶70h, 70i A central issue may be whether the "root session" and a "user session" on macOS qualify as "separate Mach contexts" as that term is understood in the patent, which uses the example of a "Protocol Translator" context versus a "User Context" '386 Patent, Fig. 1
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that data is exchanged between the "LMIGUIAgent" process and the macOS "WindowServer" process via Mach ports to satisfy the limitation of data being "transferred over a computer system communication facility" Compl. ¶70d This raises the question of whether this specific interaction, which involves a third-party OS process ("WindowServer"), is equivalent to the more direct communication between the claimed "agent client" and "agent server" depicted in the patent's specification '386 Patent, Fig. 1

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Mach context"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claimed invention, which is defined by its architectural separation of processes into different contexts. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the Defendant's use of a "root session" and a "user session" falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a user context as being "kept separate from all other existing user contexts" and that "separate memory utilization, file system access, and/or process execution can be maintained for each user context" '502 Patent, col. 3:62-4:1 This language could support a construction where any two execution environments with process and memory isolation within the OS constitute separate "Mach contexts."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment, shown in Figure 1, depicts a "User Context" and a distinct "Protocol Translator" context '502 Patent, Fig. 1 This could support a narrower interpretation requiring the contexts to be of different functional types (e.g., user-facing vs. system-level service), not merely two different privilege levels like a user session and the root session.

• The Term: "agent client"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint identifies the "LogMeIn" process running in the root session as the "agent client" Compl. ¶70i Whether this specific process performs the functions required by the claims for an "agent client" will be a critical point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the agent client's role functionally, stating it can "provide remote input and output for a user context" and can be configured to "transmit information into and/or out of a user context" '502 Patent, col. 3:14-21 This may support an argument that any process performing this general role qualifies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the "agent client" to execute in a "separate Mach context from the agent server" '502 Patent, claim 25(f)(3) The complaint's theory places this process in the root session. A defendant may argue that the specific functions of the accused "LogMeIn" process do not fully align with all functions described for the "KVM Agent Client" in the specification, particularly regarding its direct communication with the "agent server."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant providing its customers with extensive instructions, technical support, and product documentation that allegedly guide users to operate the GoTo Remote Suite in a manner that directly infringes the asserted method claims Compl. ¶¶75, 77-78 Compl. ¶¶97, 99-100 Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are especially adapted for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶¶83, 87
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least August 2022 Compl. ¶113 This knowledge is allegedly derived from extensive publicity surrounding Plaintiffs' prior litigation against TeamViewer, which the complaint identifies as a "key competitor" of Defendant, and a subsequent jury verdict finding infringement of the same patents Compl. ¶¶58, 61, 63 The complaint posits that Defendant either knew of the infringement or was willfully blind to it Compl. ¶63

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "Mach context," which is described in the patent with examples like a "User Context" and a "Protocol Translator" context, be construed to encompass the alleged distinction between a "user session" and the "root session" in the accused software's operation on macOS? The case may turn on how broadly the court defines the boundaries of this foundational architectural element.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the accused software's data flow-which allegedly involves interactions between a "LogMeIn" process, an "LMIGUIAgent" process, and the operating system's "WindowServer"-functionally equate to the claimed method of an "agent client" and an "agent server" communicating via a "computer system communication facility," or does the involvement of the "WindowServer" introduce a fundamental operational difference from what the claims require?
• A central question for willfulness and damages will be pre-suit knowledge: Can Plaintiffs establish that public reporting about litigation against a competitor (TeamViewer) is sufficient to prove that Defendant knew of, or was willfully blind to, the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement, thereby meeting the standard for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284?