DCT
2:18-cv-05959
Allconnect Inc v. Kandela LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Allconnect, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Kandela, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat; Morris, Manning & Martin, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-05959, C.D. Cal., 07/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Kandela resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of patent infringement in the district, and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s call center and its computer-implemented search system for home and business services infringe patents related to recommending third-party products and identifying their availability at specific locations.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the consumer services sector, aiming to simplify the process of selecting and purchasing utility services like internet, TV, and phone by aggregating provider information and matching it to consumer needs and locations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent 8,433,617 is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to U.S. Patent 8,346,624, indicating a direct developmental lineage between the two asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-09 | Priority Date for ’624 Patent |
| 2009-12-09 | Priority Date for ’617 Patent |
| 2013-01-01 | ’624 Patent Issued |
| 2013-04-30 | ’617 Patent Issued |
| 2018-07-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,346,624 - “Systems and Methods for Recommending Third Party Products and Services,” issued January 1, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the process for a consumer to research, compare, and order home services (like utilities, internet, or TV) from multiple providers as "tedious and time-consuming" because it requires contacting each provider individually and manually comparing disparate information (’624 Patent, col. 1:29-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented system that aggregates information from various third-party service providers into specialized databases (’624 Patent, col. 3:55-63; Compl. ¶17). As depicted in a system overview, the system uses a "Facilitation Engine" to process user location and preferences, filter available services, and generate a ranked list of recommendations based on factors including product performance data, thereby centralizing and simplifying the selection process for the consumer (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1; ’624 Patent, col. 4:13-30).
- Technical Importance: The system claims to provide an improvement over prior methods by using advanced data analytics on aggregated data to generate optimized and personalized recommendations, a capability not available to consumers merely calling individual providers (’624 Patent, col. 4:40-50; Compl. ¶¶ 16, 19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A computer-implemented method for offering recommendations for third party products.
- Receiving information relating to third party products, which includes availability information and product performance data.
- Receiving user-related parameters, including user preferences and location information.
- Identifying eligible products by comparing the availability information to the user's location information.
- Ranking the eligible products based on the user-related parameters and the received product information, including the performance data.
- Providing the user with information about at least one of the one or more ranked products.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,433,617 - “Systems and Methods for Identifying Third Party Products and Services Available at a Geographical Location,” issued April 30, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’624 Patent, this patent tackles a more specific problem: accurately determining "serviceability," or whether a particular service is technically feasible at a specific physical property. This is challenging due to non-standard address formats and the need to match a service's technical requirements (e.g., "coaxial cable required") with a location's physical capabilities (e.g., "existing home security system") (’617 Patent, col. 2:5-19; Compl. ¶25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to parse and normalize non-standard address data to enable effective processing (’617 Patent, col. 17:1-42). It then compares two distinct sets of data: the "capabilities required" by a service and the "capabilities available" at a specific property, which are stored in a specialized database schema (Compl. p. 10, Fig. 14). The result is "serviceability information" that identifies the subset of services that are actually compatible with the location (’617 Patent, col. 29:59-col. 30:17).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to solve a key logistical challenge in the service aggregation industry by creating a system that can automatically resolve technical compatibility issues, reducing the need for extensive manual verification with the resident and increasing the accuracy of service offerings (Compl. ¶25; ’617 Patent, col. 2:20-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A computer-implemented method for identifying available products and services.
- Receiving location information for a specific property.
- Identifying services offered to that geographic location.
- Receiving service information that includes "capabilities required information."
- Receiving "capabilities available information" corresponding to the specific property's pre-existing physical capabilities.
- Comparing the "capabilities required" to the "capabilities available" to identify a matching subset of services.
- Generating "serviceability information" based on this subset to assist the user in ordering services.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the Kandela call center and its reliance on a "computer-implemented search for various home/business services including TV, internet, and phone" (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 42).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide recommendations for third-party services to users based on geographical location and other parameters (Compl. ¶33). The system is alleged to offer searches based on street address and to provide what the complaint characterizes as "performance data," such as broadband internet speed and pricing (Compl. ¶34). It is also alleged to process information about capabilities required by home service providers to identify services available at a given location (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45). The complaint positions Kandela as a direct competitor to Allconnect in the home and business service search industry (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’8,346,624 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving information relating to third party products and services, wherein the information...includes availability information...and...product performance data indicative of performance results... | The Kandela system offers search for third-party services and provides "performance data," such as internet speed and pricing. | ¶¶33-34 | col. 5:62-col. 6:5 |
| receiving one or more user-related parameters, wherein the one or more user-related parameters include preferences of the user and location information corresponding to a geographical location... | The Kandela system offers searches based on a user's street address. | ¶¶33-34 | col. 5:28-36 |
| identifying from the third party products and services one or more eligible third party products and services available to the user by comparing the availability information...to the location information... | The system identifies available services based on the user's provided location (street address). | ¶33 | col. 8:5-15 |
| ranking the one or more eligible third party products and services based on the one or more user-related parameters and based on the information relating to the third party products and services... | The system ranks eligible products for the user. | ¶33 | col. 10:1-8 |
| providing the user with information relating to at least one of the one or more ranked eligible third party products and services. | The system provides the user with information about the ranked services. | ¶33 | col. 8:31-48 |
- ’8,433,617 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving location information corresponding to a particular geographic location associated with a user, wherein the particular geographic location is associated with a specific property... | The Kandela system offers searches based on a user's street address. | ¶¶43-44 | col. 15:30-41 |
| receiving service information associated with the one or more services offered...the service information including capabilities required information indicative of physical capabilities required by properties... | The system processes "capabilities required information" from home service providers. | ¶¶43-44 | col. 23:38-44 |
| receiving capabilities available information at the computer processor from one or more electronic databases corresponding to pre-existing physical capabilities of the specific property... | The system identifies services based on physical capabilities available at the location. | ¶45 | col. 24:1-12 |
| comparing...the received capabilities required information...to the received capabilities available information of the specific property...to identify a subset of the one or more services that includes capabilities required information that matches... | The system identifies one or more services based on a comparison between capabilities required and physical capabilities available at the location. | ¶45 | col. 26:25-50 |
| generating serviceability information comprising information related to the identified subset...whereby the serviceability information is used to assist the user in ordering services... | The system generates and provides information to the user about the services that are identified as available at their location. | ¶43 | col. 26:51-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that "broadband internet speed and pricing" constitute "product performance data" under the ’624 Patent (Compl. ¶34). A central question may be whether this term, which the patent specification exemplifies with metrics like "user reviews" and "popularity growth" (’624 Patent, col. 10:30-38), can be construed to cover basic service attributes like speed and price.
- Technical Questions: For the ’617 Patent, the infringement theory hinges on a specific, two-sided comparison of "capabilities required" by a service versus "capabilities available" at a property (Compl. ¶45). An evidentiary question will be whether the complaint provides sufficient evidence that the accused call center system performs this specific matching function, or if it determines availability through a more general geographic lookup that does not distinguish between these two types of capability data.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’624 Patent:
- The Term: "product performance data indicative of performance results for each product and service"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed ranking step. The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that data used by Kandela, such as "internet speed and pricing," falls within this definition (Compl. ¶34). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether Kandela’s alleged use of basic service attributes for ranking meets the claim limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general phrase "performance results," which could plausibly be argued to encompass objective metrics like speed or cost-effectiveness.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "performance data," such as "consumer experience information, on-going promotions or sales information...product or service rating information, product or service popularity, [and] product or service reviews" (’624 Patent, col. 23:39-45). A party could argue these examples limit the term to user-generated or market-trend metrics, rather than inherent product specifications.
For the ’617 Patent:
- The Term: "serviceability information"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the final output of the patented method's core "comparing" step. The infringement case depends on showing that Kandela not only determines service availability but generates this specific type of information as a result of the claimed comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction is tied directly to the novelty of the claimed technical process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "Serviceability" broadly as the "determination of particular product and service providers that provide services to a given geographic location" (’617 Patent, col. 5:10-14). This could support an argument that any system output identifying available services meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires that the "serviceability information" is generated by "comparing...capabilities required information...to...capabilities available information." This language suggests the term is not just a list of available services, but a specific output derived from the novel matching process, a potentially narrower construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Kandela's infringement has been and continues to be deliberate and willful (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 47). The basis for this allegation includes Kandela's alleged actual knowledge of the patents, which Plaintiff claims arises from Allconnect's products being "well-known and publicized," receiving press coverage, and being marketed with patent notices. The complaint further alleges that because Kandela is a direct competitor, it had "reason to investigate Allconnect's patents" and that any lack of knowledge constituted willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following key questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "product performance data" in the ’624 patent, exemplified in the specification by subjective or market-based metrics like "user reviews" and "popularity," be construed to cover objective service attributes like "internet speed and pricing" as alleged in the complaint?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Kandela system perform the specific, two-sided comparison recited in the ’617 patent—matching "capabilities required" by a service against "capabilities available" at a property—or does it determine availability using a more conventional geographic lookup, creating a potential mismatch with the claimed technical method?