Cedarwood Ventures Inc v. Cellco Partnership

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedarwood Ventures, Inc. (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01204, W.D. Tex., 05/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement within the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically citing a company store in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "Driving Mode Auto-Reply" feature within Defendant's "Verizon Messages" mobile application infringes three patents related to systems that automatically send reply messages based on a smartphone's connection status to a peripheral device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the public safety problem of distracted driving by enabling a smartphone to automatically manage incoming communications when it infers the user is occupied, for example, by detecting a connection to an in-car Bluetooth system.
• Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of the same patent family and claim priority to a 2013 provisional application. The complaint notes that the inventors of the asserted patents developed a commercial application called "Text Deflector" that allegedly practices the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-18	Earliest Priority Date for '826, '248, and '643 Patents
2018-05-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,979,826 Issued
2020-11-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,841,248 Issued
2022-11-29	U.S. Patent No. 11,516,643 Issued
2026-05-06	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,979,826 - Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,979,826, "Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages," issued May 22, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the societal problem of distracted driving caused by drivers reading or composing electronic messages Compl. ¶¶12-13 It also notes that prior art auto-response systems were suboptimal because they lacked the flexibility and intelligence to determine which response to use in different situations '248 Patent, col. 2:9-18
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a handheld computerized device, such as a smartphone, automatically sends customized reply messages based on its connection to specific peripheral devices Compl. ¶15 For example, the system can detect a connection to an in-car Bluetooth speakerphone and automatically send a "driving" message, while a connection to a different peripheral like a headset could trigger an "exercising" message '248 Patent, Fig. 1 '248 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for automated, context-aware management of incoming communications, offering a more nuanced solution to prevent distractions than simple manual "do not disturb" modes Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 6 Compl. ¶36 The complaint provides the following as the elements of the asserted claim Compl. ¶37:
  • A handheld computerized device, comprising: at least one processor, Bluetooth transceiver, graphical user interface, handheld computerized device memory, at least one wireless cellular network transceiver, and reply software;
  • said handheld computerized device further comprising any of a smartphone or tablet computer device;
  • said handheld computerized device configured to individually identify at least one Bluetooth peripheral device having a Bluetooth peripheral device identification code when said at least one Bluetooth peripheral device is Bluetooth connected to said handheld computerized device;
  • said reply software, said graphical user interface, and said at least one processor configured to assign at least one Bluetooth peripheral device linked automatic reply to at least one Bluetooth peripheral device identification code, and store said at least one Bluetooth peripheral device linked automatic reply in said handheld computerized device memory;
  • said handheld computerized device and said reply software configured so that when said at least one Bluetooth peripheral device is Bluetooth connected..., said reply software determines said at least one Bluetooth peripheral device identification code, said Bluetooth peripheral device's identification code not being a telephone number, and uses said at least one Bluetooth peripheral device identification code to select and retrieve at least one Bluetooth peripheral linked automatic reply...;
  • and said handheld computerized device and said reply software configured to use a selected and retrieved at least one peripheral connection linked automatic reply to automatically respond to an incoming message obtained from said at least one wireless cellular network transceiver.

U.S. Patent No. 10,841,248 - Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,841,248, "Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages," issued November 17, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art automatic response systems as lacking sufficient flexibility and intelligence to determine the appropriate response for a given situation '248 Patent, col. 2:9-18
• The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by using the connection status of one or more peripheral devices to automatically select and send a situation-specific response '248 Patent, abstract The system associates a peripheral's unique "identification code" with a pre-configured reply message, allowing the handheld device to distinguish between contexts, such as driving versus exercising, and reply accordingly '248 Patent, col. 6:7-18
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for a mobile device to infer a user's context based on connected peripherals and automate communications management, a key feature for reducing distractions '248 Patent, col. 2:36-49

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 16 for direct infringement and independent claim 1 for indirect infringement Compl. ¶¶44-45 The essential elements of device claim 16 are Compl. ¶46:
  • A handheld computerized device, comprising: at least one processor, handheld computerized device memory, at least one wireless cellular network transceiver, and reply software;
  • configured to individually identify at least one peripheral device having a peripheral device identification code as a result of determining a connection status;
  • reply software and processor configured to assign and store a peripheral device linked automatic reply to a peripheral device identification code;
  • reply software configured to determine the peripheral's identification code (not being a telephone number) when connected, and use the code to select and retrieve the linked automatic reply;
  • reply software configured to use the selected reply to respond to an incoming message;
  • and wherein said peripheral device is different from a device transmitting said incoming message.

U.S. Patent No. 11,516,643 - Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages (Multi-Patent Capsule)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,516,643, "Connection Specific Selection of Automated Response Messages," issued November 29, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, this patent is directed to a handheld computerized device that automatically responds to incoming cellular messages. The claimed system specifically involves analyzing a Bluetooth peripheral's identification code to "determine that said Bluetooth peripheral device is a vehicle associated Bluetooth peripheral device" and, while connected, sending a stored automatic reply message Compl. ¶54
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶53
• Accused Features: The "Driving Mode Auto-Reply" feature of the Verizon Messages app, which is allegedly triggered upon connection to a vehicular Bluetooth device Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶54

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the Accused Products as "all mobile devices sold by Verizon with the Verizon Messages App aka Message+ with Driving Mode Auto-Reply" Compl. ¶31

Functionality and Market Context

The relevant functionality is the "Driving Mode Auto-Reply" feature within the Verizon Messages application Compl. ¶31 When this mode is active, incoming message notifications are muted, and an automatic reply can be sent to the sender Compl. ¶32 The complaint alleges that this mode can be "automatically... triggered when connected to a vehicular Bluetooth device" Compl. ¶33 A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the settings interface for toggling "Driving Mode" and "Auto-Reply" within the app Compl. ¶34 The complaint alleges these products are sold for use on common mobile operating systems (Android 4.2 and later, or iOS 7 and later) by a major national telecommunications carrier Compl. ¶8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of claims from the '826, '248, and '643 patents and references forthcoming claim charts in Exhibits D, E, and F, respectively, which are not included with the initial filing Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶54 The core narrative theory of infringement is consistent across all three asserted patents.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which are smartphones running the Verizon Messages app, constitute the claimed "handheld computerized device" Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶37 The "reply software" element is allegedly met by the Verizon Messages app itself Compl. ¶31 The infringement theory posits that when a user's smartphone connects to a "vehicular Bluetooth device," the app's "Driving Mode Auto-Reply" is triggered Compl. ¶33 This act of connecting to a specific peripheral, which is identified by the system, and then using that connection to select and send a pre-configured, customizable auto-reply message, is alleged to satisfy the limitations of the asserted claims Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory may raise a question of claim scope regarding how the system identifies the peripheral. The claims of the '826 and '248 patents require using a "peripheral device identification code" to select a reply Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶46 Claim 1 of the '643 patent requires the system to "analyze" the code to "determine" that the peripheral is "vehicle associated" Compl. ¶54 A dispute may arise over whether the accused app performs these specific analytical functions or if it simply triggers a generic response based on a user's manual pre-selection of a Bluetooth device, which may not meet the claim's requirements for analysis and determination by the system itself.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused feature actually uses a specific hardware "identification code" (such as a Bluetooth MAC address) as the basis for selecting a reply message. The complaint alleges the feature is triggered by a connection to a "vehicular Bluetooth device" Compl. ¶33, but it does not detail the underlying mechanism, leaving open the question of whether the system's operation matches the specific technical steps recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "peripheral device identification code" (from asserted claims of the '826 and '248 patents)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether the accused system uses a specific technical "code" as claimed, or a more general connection status. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine the type of evidence needed to prove that the accused software performs the "select and retrieve" step as claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related '248 Patent notes that the code could be a "computer coded embedded identifier, or other smartphone detectable peripheral device code, or alternatively may even be the electrical connection" itself '248 Patent, col. 3:1-8 This language may support an argument that the term is not limited to a specific type of hardware address.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves provide limitations, stating the code is "not being a telephone number" '248 Patent, claim 16 The specification also provides concrete examples, such as Bluetooth device identifiers, and discusses using information from specific Bluetooth profiles '248 Patent, col. 5:1-13 '248 Patent, col. 5:14-31 This may support a narrower construction tied to specific hardware or protocol-based identifiers.

• The Term: "determine that said Bluetooth peripheral device is a vehicle associated Bluetooth peripheral device" (from asserted claim 1 of the '643 patent)

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to require an active step of analysis and classification by the device, not just a reaction to a connection. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system makes such a "determination" or if the "vehicle associated" context is supplied entirely by the user.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that if the system's software allows a user to label a device as "My Car's Bluetooth," any subsequent action based on that user-defined label constitutes a "determination" by the system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the related '248 patent discusses a more technical method of determination, such as by "making use of suitable Bluetooth profile information" like the Hands-Free Profile (HFP) that is "often used by automobile installed hands-free (HF) devices" '248 Patent, col. 5:14-20 This suggests the patent contemplates an automated analysis of the peripheral's technical characteristics, not just reliance on a user's label.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Verizon induces infringement of at least method claim 1 of the '248 Patent by "inducing others to practice the claimed methods... via the use of the Accused Products" Compl. ¶45
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The stated basis for this allegation is Defendant's knowledge of the patents and infringement "since at least the filing of this action," suggesting the claim is based on continued post-suit infringement Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶56

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

This dispute appears to center on the precise operational details of the accused "Driving Mode Auto-Reply" feature. The outcome may depend on the answers to a few central questions:

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the accused Verizon Messages app function by using a peripheral's specific hardware "identification code" to look up and select a corresponding reply message, as required by the claims, or does it employ a more general trigger based on a user's pre-selection of a device, potentially creating a mismatch with the claimed invention?
• A related evidentiary question will be one of analytical function: For the '643 patent, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused system itself "analyzes" a Bluetooth code to "determine" that a peripheral is "vehicle associated," as the claim recites, versus merely acting on a label or setting manually provided by the user?
• Finally, the case will present a question of claim construction: How broadly or narrowly will the court define terms like "peripheral device identification code" and the act of "determination," which will be critical in deciding whether the accused feature's functionality falls within the scope of the patent claims?