- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

COMMUNICATION INTERFACE 

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 4:23-cv-497

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Communication Interface Technologies, LLC (“CIT” or “Plaintiff”), for its 

Complaint against Defendant, Honeywell International Inc. (“Honeywell” or “Defendant”), 

alleges the following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff CIT is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state 

of Delaware with a place of business at 3107 Boardwalk, Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401. 

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Honeywell is a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 

855 South Mint Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
- 2 -

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant sells and offers to sell products and 

services throughout the United States, including in this District, and introduces products and 

services into the stream of commerce and incorporates infringing technology knowing that they 

would be sold in this District and elsewhere in the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). On 

information and belief, Honeywell has committed acts of infringement in this District and 

maintains multiple established places of business in the state of Texas and in this District, 

specifically including 830 East Arapaho Road, Richardson, Texas, 75081. 

8. Upon information and belief, Honeywell is subject to this Court’s general and 

specific personal jurisdiction due at least to its/their substantial business in Texas and in this 

District, directly or through intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements 

alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses 

of conduct and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals 

and entities in the State of Texas.

BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT

The Invention

9. Eric Morgan Dowling and Mark Nicholas Anastasi are the inventors of U.S. 

patent nos. 6,574,239 (“the ’239 patent”), 8,266,296 (“the ’296 patent”), and 8,291,010 (“the 

’010 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’239 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. A true and 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
- 3 -

correct copy of the ’296 patent is attached as Exhibit 2. A true and correct copy of the ’010 

patent is attached as Exhibit 3.

10. The ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 patent resulted from the pioneering 

efforts of Dr. Dowling and Mr. Anastasi (hereinafter “the Inventors”) in the late 1990s, in the 

area of quickly resumed client-server communication sessions. (See Ex. 8, Dowling Decl., ¶¶ at 

15-19.) These efforts resulted in the development of methods and apparatuses for virtual 

connection of a remote unit to a server and methods and apparatuses for application-layer 

evaluation of communications received by a mobile device. (See id. at ¶¶ 17, 19, 21.)

11. At the time of these pioneering efforts, the most widely implemented technology 

that was in use involved client-server communication sessions that could be instantiated and torn 

down. (See id. at ¶ 15.) If communications between client and server were needed again, the 

widely implemented technology would simply instantiate a brand-new session between the same 

client and server. (See id.) Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) is an example of the earlier technology. 

Unlike Transport Layer Security (TLS), SSL did not allow session reactivation, and instead 

required a new session to be negotiated from scratch after an older session was deactivated (torn 

down).

12. Creating a new session required the renegotiation of a set of session keys that 

included computation of new cryptographic keys. (See id. at ¶ 15.) This process required 

significant start up times and computational resources. (See id.) The invention encompassed by 

the patents in suit, instead of tearing down an old session and instantiating a new session, places 

the old session into an inactive state, and then reactivates the old session to place it back into the 

active state using a much shorter renegotiation sequence that makes use of saved session 

parameters. (See id. at ¶ 26.) The saved session parameters include precomputed client-server 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
- 4 -

encryption keys that are used to quickly and efficiently reactivate the inactive sessions. Some 

embodiments allow the session layer connection between the client and server devices to be 

reactivated without the need to create a new session by negotiating new session parameters and 

session keys. (See Exhibit 1 at Figs. 1A, 2, 3:45-63, 8:34-9:14, 9:54-60.) Other embodiments 

additionally or alternatively allow the application layer session to be reactivated without the need 

for the user to enter his/her user authentication credentials at the time of each session 

reactivation.

13. The Inventors first conceived of the inventions claimed in the ’239 patent, the 

’296 patent, and the ’010 patent as a way to shorten the connection time of the dialup modems in 

use back in the 1990s. (See Ex. 8 at ¶ 16.) Each time a new dialup modem connection needed to 

be reestablished, there would be a several-second period (typically around 10-12 seconds) during 

which the user would hear audio modem tones and hissing sounds while the modems 

reconnected and negotiated a new data session. (See id.) The virtual session inventions allowed 

the modems to reconnect by remembering the previously negotiated modem parameters, thereby 

greatly shortening this renegotiation time to being almost unnoticeable. (See Ex. 1 at 13:42-43, 

17:50-58; Ex. 8 at ¶ 16.)

14. While developing their invention, the inventors contemplated virtual sessions 

would also be very useful in wireless applications (see, e.g., Ex. 1 at Fig. 2, 9:32-35, 13:4-8) to 

allow a client-side remote unit to maintain a virtual presence with a remote server. (See Ex. 8 at 

¶ 17.) The inventors taught that virtual sessions could be layered over wireless connections to 

allow remote units such as wireless Internet devices to be virtually connected to one or more 

server-side application programs running on one or more remote server systems without wasting 

wireless physical layer resources to maintain the one or more session layer connections. (See Ex. 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
- 5 -

1 at 9:28-60; Ex. 8 at ¶ 17.) The physical layer could be inactive, while the virtual session layer 

connections could be maintained without using wireless resources. (See Ex. 1 at 3:45-49, 8:56-

58, 9:7-10; Ex. 8 at ¶ 17.) When the client-side remote unit needed to communicate with the 

server, or when the server needed to send newly received information to the remote unit, the 

virtual session could be reactivated without the need to tediously set up and authenticate a new 

secure cryptographic session with the server. (See Ex. 1 at Fig. 1A, 9:53-60, 13:48-14:17; Ex. 8 

at ¶ 17.)

15. For example, the inventors developed methods for controlling virtual sessions 

between a server-side program and a client-side application program. (See Ex. 1 at 14:32-43.) 

When the virtual session is not needed, it is placed into an inactive state (like a sleep state). (See, 

e.g., Ex. 1 at 3:45-49, 10:6-11:22; Ex. 2 at 3:56-60.) In this state, no communication resources 

are used. (See Ex. 1 at 3:37-44, 17:36-45.) When a virtual session is needed again, for example 

when the server receives new information for the client-side application program, the server can, 

for example, send a message that causes the client-side application program to resume the virtual 

session with the server. (See Ex. 1 at 3:60-63.) This session resumption is accomplished using 

saved session parameters instead of going through the full session authentication and negotiation 

process, as was needed in the prior art. In modern day parlance, the client-side application 

program is typically called an “App.” 

Advantage Over the Prior Art

16. The patented inventions disclosed in the ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 

patent provide many advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of 

communications between remote units such as wireless computing and communications devices 

and remote servers. (See Ex. 1 at Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 2 at 3:48-4:39; Ex. 3 at 3:48-4:39.) One 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
- 6 -

advantage of the patented inventions is providing systems and methods to enable users such as 

remote workers or other types of users to stay connected to one or more central servers without 

the need to continuously remain connected via one or more physical channels. (See, e.g., Ex. 1 

at 3:37-40; Ex. 2 at 3:48-51; Ex. 3 at 3:48-51; Ex. 8 at ¶ 25.) A central aspect of the inventions 

is the concept of fast reconnect. (See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Abstract, 17:50-58; Ex. 2 at Abstract.) Users 

of remote devices can reconnect via a previously established communication session to a serverside application program, without the need to use the prior art’s long and tedious session 

establishment procedures each time a reconnect is needed after a session has been deactivated. 

(See Ex. 1 at 12:49-53, 17:36-42; Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 20, 25.)

17. Another advantage offered by the patented inventions is to allow a remote unit to 

maintain a private/secured session layer connection to support communication between a clientside application program and a server-side application program over long periods of session 

inactivity. (See Ex. 8 at ¶ 25.) This may be achieved, for example, by computing cryptographic 

session parameters (e.g., according to public key cryptography techniques) that can be used to 

quickly resume the session without the user needing to start a new authentication process from 

scratch. (See Ex. 1 at 3:2-5, 3:55-60, 4:22-25, 8:45-53, 10:2-15, 10:51-55, 10:57-62, 11:15-21, 

14:32-33, 18:61-66, 20:40-43, 20:50-55, 21-49-55, 22:1-7; Figs. 6, 7; Ex. 8 at ¶ 25.) This 

connection can be referred to as a sustained secure connection that persists, for example, when 

the user has turned off his or her user device or put it in airplane mode and then turned it back on 

again. In the prior art, the secure cryptographic session would need to be terminated under such 

conditions, and a new secure session between the client and the server would need to be 

established from scratch. The session layer connection can preferentially be used to support 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
- 7 -

various different kinds of application layer communications between the remote unit and the 

server-side application program. (See Ex. 1 at Figs. 1A, 2, 3:45-63, 8:34-9:14, 9:54-60.)

18. Another advantage offered by some embodiments of the patented inventions of 

the patents in suit is to allow a user using a remote unit to maintain a private/secured logon type 

session between a client-side application program and a server-side application program over 

longer periods of time, without the need for the user to repeatedly reenter his or her logon 

credentials such as username and password. This is achieved by computing cryptographic 

session parameters (e.g., according to public key cryptography techniques) that can be used to 

quickly resume the session without the user needing to start a new authentication process from 

scratch. (See Ex. 1 at 3:2-5, 3:55-60, 4:22-25, 8:45-53, 10:2-15, 10:51-55, 10:57-62, 11:15-21, 

14:32-33, 18:61-66, 20:40-43, 20:50-55, 21-49-55, 22:1-7, Figs. 6, 7; Ex. 8 at ¶ 25.) This can be 

referred to as a sustained secure connection that persists, for example, when the user has turned 

off his or her user device or put it in airplane mode and then turned it back on again. In the prior 

art, the secure cryptographic session would need to be terminated under such conditions, and a 

new secure session between the client and the server would need to be manually established in 

which the user would need to present his or her user credentials to establish a new session.

19. Another advantage offered by the patented inventions of the patents in suit is that 

the invention contemplated that the remote unit 100 of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of the ’239 patent would 

be able to wirelessly connect (207) (Ex. 1 at Fig. 2) to a plurality of different server-side 

application programs (220) (Ex. 1 at Fig. 2). (See also Ex. 1 at 7:21-25, 7:50-52, 14:62-64.) 

Typically, a smart phone device will have many different downloaded Apps, and each App will 

communicate with its own corresponding remote server-side application program. Furthermore, 

as disclosed in the ’239 patent (Ex. 1 at 7:41-44), each such connection between each App on the 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
- 8 -

remote unit and each different server-side application program could be connected by its own 

virtual session, using a separate set of saved session parameters including cryptographic session 

reauthentication parameters for fast/accelerated session reconnect. The prior art required all the 

different sessions to be tediously and manually established and torn down each time they were 

separately needed. (See Ex. 1 at 7:56-8:10, 17:50-54, 18:40-48, 19:57-60; Ex. 8 at ¶ 20.)

20. Yet another advantage offered by various embodiments of the patented inventions 

of the patents-in-suit is that any given server-side application program can use a table to maintain 

multiple virtual sessions with a plurality of remote units using a database of pre-computed and 

prestored cryptographic session keys. (See Ex. 1 at 8:61-9:4, 10:57-59, 11:12-21; Ex. 8 at ¶¶ 20-

21.) That is, the server-side application program can manage a large number of secure 

cryptographic virtual sessions with a large number of different client-side wireless remote units 

that have downloaded the corresponding client-side App. (See, e.g., Ex. 1 at Fig. 2, 9:61-10:13.) 

The prior art required these different sessions to be tediously and manually established and torn 

down each time they were separately needed.

21. Yet another advantage offered by various embodiments of the patented inventions 

of the patents-in-suit is that the virtual session can be reactivated based on either the remote unit 

requesting data or the server sending data. (See Ex. 1 at Figs. 3, 7, 13:21-28, 13:48-54, 13:59-

14:3.) The prior art did not provide any means to use fast virtual session reconnection 

techniques to make the client/server experience seamless over extended periods of usage. (See

Ex. 8 at ¶ 20.) Instead, techniques like SSL would require new sessions to be set up and torn 

down over and over again.

22. Yet another advantage offered by various embodiments of the patented inventions 

of the patents-in-suit is the ability of the server-side application program to send an unsolicited 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
- 9 -

message to the client-side application running on the wireless remote unit to cause one or more 

virtual sessions to be reestablished. (See Ex. 1 at 3:61-63, 13:48-14:17, 24:61-64.) This message 

makes special use of saved cryptographic authentication parameters and information needed to 

identify the relevant client-side application program (App) that runs on the remote unit. (See Ex. 

1 at Figs. 7, 8.) The specification not only describes specific exemplary embodiments that make 

use of caller ID type packets to send the outbound notification message, but the specification also

describes many more general alternative embodiments directed toward wireless applications. 

(See Ex. 1 at 6:45-51, 13:65-14:17, 22:39-55, 22:64-23:6, 23:29-32, 23:39-64, 24:31-25:8, and 

25:20-26.)

23. Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of 

various embodiments of the patented inventions, the ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 

patent present significant commercial value for companies like Defendants. Indeed, Defendants

coordinate their products and services using its mobile Apps, providing convenience and 

efficiency for its customers, enhancing the customer engagement and experience of its 

customers, and increasing the efficiency of its own operations, in addition to other benefits.

Pending Litigation

24. The ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 patent are currently being asserted 

by CIT in the Eastern District of Texas in Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. 

International Dairy Queen, Inc. (4:23-cv-00019-SDJ) and Communication Interface 

Technologies, LLC v. Lego System A/S (4:23-cv-00142-SDJ).

Prior Litigation

25. The ’239 patent was previously litigated in the Eastern District of Texas (2-04-

CV-00108, 2-03-CV-00465) and in the Northern District of Texas (3-04-CV-00281). These 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
- 10 -

cases settled before any claim construction hearings were conducted, although in one case a joint 

claim construction and prehearing statement was submitted by the parties. See Dkt. 130, East 

Texas Technology Partners, L.P. v. Toshiba America, Inc., et al., No. 2:03-CV-465(TJW) (E.D. 

Tex. Jan. 5, 2005). The ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 patent were recently asserted 

by CIT in six cases in the Central District of California, all of which have been dismissed.

26. The ’239 patent, the ’296 patent, and the ’010 patent were also asserted in the past 

by CIT in several other cases in the Eastern District of Texas which have all been dismissed. See

e.g., Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. PepsiCo., Inc. (4:20-cv-00286); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (4:20-cv-00287); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc. (4:20-cv-00288); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Yum! Brands, Inc. (4:20-cv-00289); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. FedEx Corp. (4:20-cv-00305); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., et al. (4:20-cv-00306); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. (4:20-cv-00307); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. American Messaging Services, LLC (4:20-cv-00308); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Farmers Group, Inc. (4:20-cv-00526); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (4:20-cv-00527); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. (4:20-cv-00528); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (4:20-cv00529); Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Albertson’s, LLC et al. (4:20-cv-00550); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Aldi, Inc. et al. (4:20-cv-00551); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. The Allstate Corporation et al. (4:20-cv-00552); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. Tractor Supply Company (4:20-cv-00805); Communication 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
- 11 -

Interface Technologies, LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation et al. (4:20-cv-00804); Communication 

Interface Technologies, LLC v. Foot Locker, Inc. (4:20-cv-00802); Communication Interface 

Technologies, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (4:20-cv-00800); Communication Interface Technologies, 

LLC v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America et al. (4:20-cv-00842); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Applebee’s Restaurants LLC (4:21-cv-00778); 

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Choice Hotel’s International, Inc. (4:21-cv00780); and Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

(4:21-cv-00782), among others.

COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,574,239

27. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 26 are 

incorporated into this First Claim for Relief.

28. On June 3, 2003, the ’239 patent, entitled VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A 

REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office and the ’239 patent expired on or about October 7, 2018.

29. CIT is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’239 

patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to 

any remedies for infringement of them.

30. As set forth above, the inventions of the ’239 patent resolve technical problems 

related to client-server computing architecture. (See Ex. 8 at ¶ 21.)

31. The claims of the ’239 patent do not merely recite the performance of some 

business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on 

the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’239 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are 

rooted in computerized client-server computing architecture technology and overcome problems 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
- 12 -

specifically arising in the realm of computerized client-server computing architecture 

technologies. (See id. at ¶¶ 19, 21-26.)

32. As set forth above, the claims of the ’239 patent recite an invention that is not 

merely the routine or conventional use of computers. (See id. at ¶¶ 22-24.) Instead, the 

invention makes use of specific client-server computer architecture functionalities. The ’239 

patent claims thus specify how computing devices and remote servers are manipulated to yield a 

desired result. 

33. The technology claimed in the ’239 patent does not preempt all ways of using 

client-server computing architectures or the use of all communication session technologies, or 

any other well-known or prior art technology.

34. Each claim of the ’239 patent recites a combination of elements sufficient to 

ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible 

concept.

35. As of the date of this filing, there are more than 180 licensees to the ’239 patent. 

36. Upon information and belief, Honeywell has directly infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 

271(a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ’239 patent by 

making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing and/or providing and/or causing to be used 

products, specifically one or more mobile device applications, which by way of example include 

the Honeywell SmartConfig App: “Honeywell SmartConfig” (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). 

(See, Honeywell SmartConfig App via Google Play, 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Honeywell+International,+Inc.&hl=en_US&gl

=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).) 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
- 13 -

37. Upon information and belief, the exemplary versions herein and previous versions 

of the Accused Instrumentalities distributed prior to expiration of the patents in suit operated 

materially in the same manner.

38. Upon information and belief, at relevant times, the Accused Instrumentalities 

perform a method in which wireless push notification messages are sent over TLS sessions, and 

the remote server and the client-side application establish a separate TLS connection for 

traditional client-server communications. Earlier versions of the Honeywell SmartConfig App

were developed and published in and before 2018 based on the version history. (See “About this 

app” at 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.honeywell.morley.smartconfig&hl=en_US&g

l=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).) 

39. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim 

chart detailing how one or more of the Accused Instrumentalities infringe claim 7 of the ’239 

patent.

40. This infringement analysis is necessarily preliminary, as it is provided in advance 

of any discovery provided by Honeywell with respect to the ’239 patent.

41. CIT reserves all rights to amend, supplement and modify this preliminary 

infringement analysis. 

42. Nothing in the attached chart should be construed as any express or implied 

contention or admission regarding the construction of any term or phrase of the claims of the 

’239 patent.

43. The Accused Instrumentality infringed at least one claim of the ’239 patent during 

the pendency of the ’239 patent.

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
- 14 -

44. CIT has been harmed by Honeywell’s infringing activities regarding the ’239 

patent.

COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,296

45. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 44 are 

incorporated into this Second Claim for Relief.

46. On September 11, 2012, the ’296 patent, entitled APPLICATION-LAYER 

EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY A MOBILE DEVICE was duly and 

legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the ’296 patent expired on 

or about March 30, 2019.

47. CIT is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’296 

patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to 

any remedies for infringement of them.

48. As set forth above, the inventions of the ’296 patent resolve technical problems 

related to client-server computing architecture. (See Ex. 8 at ¶ 21.)

49. The claims of the ’296 patent do not merely recite the performance of some 

business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on 

the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’296 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are 

rooted in computerized client-server computing architecture technology and overcome problems 

specifically arising in the realm of computerized client-server computing architecture 

technologies. (See id. at ¶¶ 19, 21-26.) 

50. As set forth above, the claims of the ’296 patent recite an invention that is not 

merely the routine or conventional use of computers. (See id. at ¶¶ 22-24.) Instead, the 

invention makes use of specific client-server computer architecture functionalities. The ’296 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
- 15 -

patent claims thus specify how computing devices and remote servers are manipulated to yield a 

desired result.

51. The technology claimed in the ’296 patent does not preempt all ways of using 

client-server computing architectures or the use of all communication session technologies, or 

any other well-known or prior art technology.

52. Each claim of the ’296 patent recites a combination of elements sufficient to 

ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible 

concept.

53. As of the date of this filing, there are more than 180 licensees to the ’296 patent.

54. Upon information and belief, Honeywell has directly infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 

271(a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ’296 patent by 

making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing and/or providing and/or causing to be used 

products, specifically one or more mobile device applications, which by way of example include 

the Honeywell SmartConfig App: “Honeywell SmartConfig” (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). 

(See, Honeywell SmartConfig App via Google Play, 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Honeywell+International,+Inc.&hl=en_US&gl

=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).) 

55. Upon information and belief, the exemplary versions herein and previous versions 

of the Accused Instrumentalities distributed prior to expiration of the patents in suit operated 

materially in the same manner. 

56. Upon information and belief, at relevant times, the Accused Instrumentalities 

perform a method in which wireless push notification messages are sent over TLS sessions, and 

the remote server and the client-side application establish a separate TLS connection for 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
- 16 -

traditional client-server communications. Earlier versions of the Honeywell SmartConfig App 

were developed and published in and before 2018 based on the version history. (See “About this 

app” at 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.honeywell.morley.smartconfig&hl=en_US&g

l=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).) 

57. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim 

chart detailing how one or more of the Accused Instrumentalities infringe claim 1 of the ’296 

patent.

58. This infringement analysis is necessarily preliminary, as it is provided in advance 

of any discovery provided by Honeywell with respect to the ’296 patent.

59. CIT reserves all rights to amend, supplement and modify this preliminary 

infringement analysis. 

60. Nothing in the attached chart should be construed as any express or implied 

contention or admission regarding the construction of any term or phrase of the claims of the 

’296 patent.

61. The Accused Instrumentality infringed at least one claim of the ’296 patent during 

the pendency of the ’296 patent.

62. CIT has been harmed by Honeywell’s infringing activities regarding the ’296 

patent.

COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,291,010

63. The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 62 are 

incorporated into this Third Claim for Relief.

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
- 17 -

64. On October 16, 2012, the ’010 patent, entitled VIRTUAL CONNECTION OF A 

REMOTE UNIT TO A SERVER was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office and the ’010 patent expired on or about March 30, 2019. 

65. CIT is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’010 

patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to 

any remedies for infringement of them.

66. As set forth above, the inventions of the ’010 patent resolve technical problems 

related to client-server computing architecture. (See Ex. 8 at ¶ 21.)

67. The claims of the ’010 patent do not merely recite the performance of some 

business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on 

the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’010 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are 

rooted in computerized client-server computing architecture technology and overcome problems 

specifically arising in the realm of computerized client-server computing architecture 

technologies. (See id. at ¶¶ 19, 21-26.)

68. As set forth above, the claims of the ’010 patent recite an invention that is not 

merely the routine or conventional use of computers. (See id. at ¶¶ 22-24.) Instead, the invention 

makes use of specific client-server computer architecture functionalities. The ’010 patent claims 

thus specify how computing devices and remote servers are manipulated to yield a desired result. 

69. The technology claimed in the ’010 patent does not preempt all ways of using 

client-server computing architectures or the use of all communication session technologies, or 

any other well-known or prior art technology.

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
- 18 -

70. Each claim of the ’010 patent recites a combination of elements sufficient to 

ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an ineligible 

concept.

71. As of the date of this filing, there are more than 180 licensees to the ’010 patent.

72. Upon information and belief, Honeywell has directly infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 

271(a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the ’010 patent by 

making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing and/or providing and/or causing to be used 

products, specifically one or more mobile device applications, which by way of example include 

the Honeywell SmartConfig App: “Honeywell SmartConfig” (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). 

(See, Honeywell SmartConfig App via Google Play, 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Honeywell+International,+Inc.&hl=en_US&gl

=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).) 

73. Upon information and belief, the exemplary versions herein and previous versions 

of the Accused Instrumentalities distributed prior to expiration of the patents in suit operated 

materially in the same manner. 

74. Upon information and belief, at relevant times, the Accused Instrumentalities 

perform a method in which wireless push notification messages are sent over TLS sessions, and 

the remote server and the client-side application establish a separate TLS connection for 

traditional client-server communications. Earlier versions of the Honeywell SmartConfig App 

were developed and published in and before 2018 based on the version history. (See “About this 

app” at 

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.honeywell.morley.smartconfig&hl=en_US&g

l=US (last accessed and downloaded May 22, 2023).)

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18
- 19 -

75. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6, and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim 

chart detailing how one or more of the Accused Instrumentalities infringe claim 1 of the ’010 

patent.

76. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, and incorporated herein by reference, is a claim 

chart detailing how one or more of the Accused Instrumentalities infringe claim 17 of the ’010 

patent.

77. These infringement analyses are necessarily preliminary, as they are provided in 

advance of any discovery provided by Honeywell with respect to the ’010 patent.

78. CIT reserves all rights to amend, supplement and modify this preliminary 

infringement analysis. 

79. Nothing in the attached charts should be construed as any express or implied 

contention or admission regarding the construction of any term or phrase of the claims of the 

’010 patent.

80. The Accused Instrumentality infringed at least one claim of the ’010 patent during 

the pendency of the ’010 patent.

81. CIT has been harmed by Honeywell’s infringing activities regarding the ’010 

patent.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, CIT demands judgment for itself and against Honeywell as follows:

A. An adjudication that Honeywell has infringed the patents in suit; 

B. An award of damages to be paid by Honeywell adequate to compensate CIT for 

Honeywell’s past infringement of the patents in suit, including interest, costs, expenses 

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19
- 20 -

and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not 

presented at trial;

C. A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of CIT’s 

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

D. An award to CIT of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just and 

proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

CIT hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Dated: May 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BEATY LEGAL PLLC

/s/ Trevor Beaty

Trevor Beaty 

trevor@beatylegal.com

514 North Elm Street

Sherman, Texas 75090

Telephone: (903) 287-5121

Facsimile: (903) 287-5145

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Communication Interface Technologies, LLC

Case 4:23-cv-00497 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 20