Telesocial Sues Verizon in Marshall on Six Patents for Calls Placed From Social Network and Collaboration Apps.

The case

The case is Telesocial LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00954 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint, filed October 22, 2026, runs 117 pages with 63 exhibits. It is signed by Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater, Texas, and also lists Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka and Aaron M. Frankel of Brown Rudnick LLP.

The complaint describes Telesocial as a Delaware limited liability company based in San Francisco, California. It says Telesocial Inc., the original applicant and assignee of record of each asserted patent, converted into Telesocial LLC on September 21, 2026 under Delaware law, and that the patent rights stayed with the converted entity. USPTO assignment records list Telesocial Inc. as the assignee of all six patents. Entries recorded September 14 and 15, 2026 include corrective assignments for the '588, '950 and '562 patents that correct the assignee's name and state of incorporation, and a confirmatory assignment from the inventors, executed September 10, 2026, covering all six. Verizon Communications Inc. is described as a Delaware corporation based in New York, New York, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless as a Delaware general partnership based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), citing a Verizon place of business in Marshall, Texas and Verizon Company Store locations in the district.

The six patents

All six patents share the title Telecommunication Service Employing an Electronic Information Repository Storing Social Network User Information, Developer Information, and Mobile Network Operator Information, and the complaint attaches them as Exhibits 1 through 6. They are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,124,588, 9,130,950, 9,578,480, 10,743,152, 11,388,562 and 12,245,110. The asserted claims are claim 10 of the '588 patent, claim 1 of the '950 patent, claim 11 of the '480 patent, and claim 1 of each of the '152, '562 and '110 patents.

Claim 10 of the '588 patent covers a method carried out by a softswitch: it receives a request to start real time communication involving a social network user, then sends a message to a mobile network operator (MNO) gateway that carries the user's device identifier plus additional data identifying the social network application where the request began. The user must have a plan with the MNO. Claim 11 of the '480 patent covers the same softswitch method, except the additional data is used by the MNO for accounting purposes in billing the communication.

Claim 1 of the '950 patent covers the other end of that exchange: an MNO gateway with a communication interface that receives such a message, including the device identifier and data identifying the social network application, and functionality that uses the additional data to administer the user's plan with the MNO.

Claim 1 of the '152 patent covers a method in which a message from a first social network user starts a real time call, an information repository holds the device identifier of the intended recipient, stored after a registration process that authenticates the recipient, the system queries the repository for that identifier, and it sends the identifier to an MNO gateway that uses it to carry out the call. Claim 1 of the '562 patent covers the same approach for the caller's own device identifier. Claim 1 of the '110 patent covers storing a device identifier for a particular device of an authenticated social network user, retrieving it when a message about a real time call involving that user arrives, and passing it to an MNO gateway that uses it to carry out the call.

What Verizon services are accused

The complaint accuses what it calls the Accused Technologies: Verizon Mobile for Microsoft Teams; Verizon Calling with Microsoft Teams; Verizon VoIP for Operator Connect, which connects Microsoft Teams Phone to Verizon's network; Webex Calling and Webex Suite as offered by Verizon; multi-device calling on a subscriber's Verizon number, including Wi-Fi Calling on connected devices, One Talk and Business Digital MobileConnect; Push to Talk Plus; and RCS messaging, together with the network systems that support them. Its theory is that these services associate a user's identity on a third party application with a device identifier, such as a Verizon telephone number, and use that identifier in Verizon's network to set up voice and video calls. It illustrates its infringement allegations with Verizon Mobile for Microsoft Teams and alleges, on information and belief, that each of the other accused services works in the same or a substantially similar way.

As an example, the complaint alleges that in Verizon Mobile for Microsoft Teams, Verizon uses the Teams user's device identifier in its MNO gateway to start a call, with the identifier serving as the destination address in call signaling so that the network rings the correct SIM based device. For the '588 patent, it alleges that Verizon directs and controls Microsoft and session border controllers from certified vendors that run the accused softswitch functionality, and in the alternative that those parties directly infringe and Verizon induces them.

The counts and the knowledge allegations

The complaint pleads twelve counts, two for each patent: direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and indirect infringement, which it pleads as inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c).

For willfulness, the complaint alleges that Telesocial Inc. and Verizon signed a mutual nondisclosure agreement in August 2009 to discuss a partnership, that Telesocial told Verizon in 2011 presentations that it had patents pending, and that Verizon declined a partnership and began offering the accused services. It says Telesocial Inc. also met in 2010 with Vodafone, which then owned 45 percent of Verizon Wireless. It further alleges that on October 28, 2020, a USPTO examiner cited Telesocial's parent application publication against a later Verizon application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,444,987, and that Verizon therefore knew of the patent family by that date.

The relief sought

Telesocial asks for a judgment of direct, induced and contributory infringement, a finding of willfulness, a preliminary and permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, increased damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, a finding that the case is exceptional with costs and attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, an accounting, and interest. It demands a jury.