The parties and the court
The case is Lexington Technologies, LLC v. Telegram Messenger Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00941 (E.D. Tex.). The complaint says Lexington is a Texas limited liability company located in Allen, Texas. It names three defendants and refers to them together as Telegram. Telegram Messenger Inc. is a British Virgin Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Telegram Messenger Inc. provides and operates Telegram products and services in the United States. Telegram Group Inc. is a British Virgin Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Dubai. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Telegram Group Inc. is the parent of Telegram Messenger Inc. and wholly owns it. Telegram FZ-LLC is a company organized under the laws of the United Arab Emirates, with offices in Dubai. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Telegram FZ-LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Telegram Group Inc. and develops and distributes Telegram products and services.
The complaint pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It says the action arises under the patent laws, including 35 U.S.C. 271, 281, 284, and 285. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c) because each defendant is a foreign company. In the alternative, it pleads personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), and alleges, on information and belief, that Telegram has never identified another state in which it is subject to general jurisdiction. The complaint says Telegram Group Inc. and Telegram Messenger Inc. acknowledged that they operate Telegram servers in Miami, Florida, citing a declaration filed August 17, 2026, in QR Switch, LLC v. Telegram Group Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00254 (E.D. Tex.). It also cites an October 8, 2026 filing in that case for allegations that Telegram keeps revenue data attributed to Texas and that opening an account includes providing a telephone number with a country and area code.
The patents and the accused platform
The complaint alleges Lexington is the sole owner of the seven patents, with the right to recover damages for past, present, and future infringement. U.S. Patent 9,912,671, titled Multiple data store authentication, issued March 6, 2018, from Application No. 15/362,236, filed November 28, 2016. The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 30. U.S. Patent 10,693,797, titled Blocking application traffic for resource conservation in a mobile device, issued June 23, 2020, from Application No. 16/395,483, filed April 26, 2019. The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 17. U.S. Patent 10,999,203, titled Offloading application traffic to a shared communication channel for signal optimization in a wireless network for traffic utilizing proprietary and non-proprietary protocols, issued May 4, 2021, from Application No. 16/883,299, filed May 26, 2020. The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 1.
The complaint also asserts four patents titled Multiple data store authentication. U.S. Patent 11,089,027 issued August 10, 2021, from Application No. 17/226,176, filed April 9, 2021, and the complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 24. U.S. Patent 11,295,360 issued April 5, 2022, from Application No. 17/471,301, filed September 10, 2021, and the complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 1. U.S. Patent 11,694,241 issued July 4, 2023, from Application No. 18/090,137, filed December 28, 2022, and the complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 23. U.S. Patent 11,915,281 issued February 27, 2024, from Application No. 18/207,904, filed June 9, 2023, and the complaint alleges direct infringement of at least claim 23.
The accused products are the Telegram communications platform, including its servers and applications. For the '671 patent the complaint points to data synchronization and notification delivery. For the '797 and '203 patents it points to notification delivery and connection management, and for the '797 patent it names the Telegram client applications for Android, iOS, Windows, Linux, macOS, and web browsers, including Telegram iOS client application version 12.9.4. For the '027 patent it points to authentication, notification delivery, and connection management. For the '360 patent it points to authentication, and for the '241 and '281 patents it points to authentication, data synchronization, and notification delivery.
Google Patents lists the '671 and '360 patents as expired for failure to pay maintenance fees, and lists the '027, '241, and '281 patents as expired at the end of the term. It lists April 21, 2025, as the anticipated expiration of the '671, '027, '360, and '281 patents and as the adjusted expiration of the '241 patent. Google Patents lists the '797 and '203 patents as active, with an anticipated expiration of June 11, 2034.
What the lead patents cover
Claim 30 of U.S. Patent 9,912,671 covers a method for authenticating access to one or more data stores. A server device receives a first notification message of an update in data at one or more data stores. That message comprises an indication of a presence of new data and does not include all information associated with the new data. The method determines whether an Internet Protocol connection exists between a mobile device and the server device. If a connection exists, the method generates a second notification message for the mobile device to inform it of the update. If no connection exists, the method causes an Internet Protocol connection manager on the mobile device to open an Internet Protocol connection to the server device to allow a synchronization operation.
Claim 17 of U.S. Patent 10,693,797 covers a method of communicating over a shared channel and an application specific channel. The application specific channel is a channel for an application on a mobile device to communicate with an application server. The method blocks the application specific channel to offload traffic to the shared channel when a screen of the mobile device is off, and the blocking includes suspending the application so that it cannot access the application server over the application specific channel. The method then receives a message directed to the application over the shared channel from a messaging server, allows the application to access the application server in response, including resuming the application for a period of time, and re-blocks the application specific channel after that period.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,999,203 covers a server with a memory and a processor. The processor communicates with a mobile device over a shared channel and an application specific channel. The application specific channel is a channel for an application on the mobile device to communicate with the server. The shared channel is a channel for the server and one or other servers to communicate with the mobile device through a messaging server. Traffic is offloaded from the application specific channel to the shared channel when the application specific channel is blocked in response to inactivity of the mobile device. While that channel is blocked, the server sends a message directed to the application over the shared channel through the messaging server. The message is in response to new data at the server and notifies the mobile device of the new data. The server then receives a connection from the application over the application specific channel and communicates with the mobile device over that channel for a period of time, after which the application specific channel is blocked.
What the complaint alleges
Each count alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). The complaint's illustration for claim 30 describes a notification that new data is present, such as a count of direct messages without their contents, an in-app notification when an Internet Protocol connection exists, and a push notification that wakes the application when it does not. For claim 17 and claim 1 of the '203 patent, the complaint maps the shared channel to push notifications and the application specific channel to in-app notifications. The complaint alleges literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
The complaint alleges that on October 1, 2026, Telegram received a FedEx letter from Lexington's licensing agent stating that "the Telegram platform infringes numerous patents in Lexington's portfolio" and that Telegram required a license. The letter offered access to a data room with claim charts for the asserted patents. The complaint alleges willful infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, and it says Lexington has complied with 35 U.S.C. 287 to the extent necessary to recover pre-suit damages. It also alleges that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Relief requested
The prayer asks for judgment of infringement and willful infringement, an accounting of damages and costs, a reasonable ongoing post-judgment royalty, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and a judgment that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 together with enhanced damages. Lexington demands a jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. Counsel are Patrick J. Conroy, Ryan P. Griffin, T. William Kennedy Jr., Jonathan H. Rastegar, Nathan L. Levenson, and Brandon G. Moore of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC in Dallas.
What it means
The same three defendants are named in No. 2:26-cv-00942, filed the same day, on five other patents aimed at content delivery, messaging, voice calling, and Live Location. Google Patents lists five of the seven patents in this case as expired. Under 35 U.S.C. 286, no recovery may be had for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint. The willfulness allegations are tied to the October 1, 2026 letter and to knowledge from service of the complaint. The '797 and '203 patents are the two in this case that Google Patents lists as active.
What to watch next
Watch for Telegram's answer or a Rule 12 motion, any motion to coordinate this case with No. 2:26-cv-00942, and any petition for inter partes review. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.
Related page: Lexington v. Telegram, No. 2:26-cv-00942.