Bruce Clay Inc v. Surfer Spka Z Ograniczon Odpowiedzialnoci

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bruce Clay, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Surfer spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością (Poland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hanson Bridgett LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-06591, C.D. Cal., 08/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a foreign corporation, has transacted business and committed acts of infringement in the district by offering for sale and selling its products to California residents via its website, thereby purposefully availing itself of the jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s search engine optimization (SEO) software infringes a patent related to methods for analyzing top-ranking web pages to compute content optimization metrics.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated tools for SEO that provide data-driven recommendations to content creators by reverse-engineering the attributes of web pages that currently rank highest in search engine results.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement. Plaintiff alleges sending a notice letter via Polish counsel on September 1, 2020, followed by a more detailed letter from U.S. counsel, including a claim chart, on October 10, 2022. This history is foundational to the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-04-06	’961 Patent Priority Date
2019-06-01	Alleged Launch of Accused "Content Editor" Feature (approx.)
2020-06-30	’961 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-01	Plaintiff's Counsel Allegedly Sends First Notice Letter to Defendant
2022-10-10	Plaintiff's Counsel Allegedly Sends Second Notice Letter with Claim Chart
2023-08-11	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,698,961 - "Search Engine Parameter Optimization"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,698,961, "Search Engine Parameter Optimization", issued June 30, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty content creators face in optimizing their work to rank highly in organic search results, due to a lack of understanding of the specific factors that a particular search engine's algorithm "rewards" (ʼ961 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates the analysis of what makes top-ranking web pages successful for a given search query. It fetches the URLs of these top pages, parses their content (e.g., HTML tags), and performs a statistical analysis to compute a "web search parameter metric." This metric is then presented to a user to guide the creation of new content, thereby optimizing the new document at the time of creation based on data from successful competitors (’961 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:39-44).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a data-driven, query-specific, and search-engine-specific approach to content optimization, moving beyond generalized SEO advice (’961 Patent, col. 4:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts direct and indirect infringement of at least one claim of the '961 Patent, focusing its narrative and allegations on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 25).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A system comprising a search parameter usage unit that computes a "web search parameter metric" for optimizing a new document, where the metric is based on an analysis of "top-ranked web pages."
  • The metric is computed by a process involving several distinct units:
    • A search parameter acquisition unit to fetch a search term from a user.
    • A compiling unit to automatically compile URLs of highly-ranked web content returned for that search term.
    • A parser unit to parse the content of those URLs into a "plurality of tag structures."
    • A user interface to display the computed metric.
  • The search parameter usage unit uses the user's search term to perform a "statistical analysis" on the parsed tag structures to determine the metric.
• The complaint’s reference to "at least one claim" suggests the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims, may be reserved (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Surfer SEO Product," and specifically its "Content Editor" feature (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is marketed as an "SEO workflow to boost your organic traffic, increase your visibility, and improve your rank" (Compl. ¶16).
• The Content Editor feature allegedly allows a user to provide a query, and "‘[b]ased on top ranking pages, and Surfer’s original algorithms, it generates a list of words and phrases you to include to rank well’" (Compl. ¶18).
• It provides real-time feedback and a user display showing metrics for "Content Structure" (e.g., target counts for words, headings, paragraphs) and "Terms to Use" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 21). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's materials showing a user interface providing recommended ranges for content structure elements like word count and number of headings (Compl. ¶19). A second screenshot shows a feature that "extracts prominent words and phrases for your main query" for the user to include in their content (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

• The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit B) that was allegedly sent to the Defendant and attached to the complaint, but the exhibit is not available in the public filing (Compl. ¶20). The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’961 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a search parameter usage unit that determines...to compute at least one web search parameter metric...based on top-ranked web pages...	The Surfer SEO Product analyzes "top ranking pages" using its algorithms to generate optimization metrics and recommendations for users.	¶18	col. 8:41-44
a search parameter acquisition unit that identifies and fetches the search parameter from a user input device;	The user initiates the process by providing a "main query" or keywords to the Content Editor feature.	¶17, ¶21	col. 5:7-10
a compiling unit that compiles, without user interference, multiple Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) that are returned upon submission of the web search query...associated with highly-ranked web content;	The accused product automatically analyzes "top ranking pages" after a user submits a query, which implies the compilation of URLs for those pages.	¶18	col. 5:32-38
a parser unit that upon fetching the highly-ranked web content...parses each one of said highly-ranked web content as a plurality of tag structures...;	To provide metrics on "Content Structure" such as word and heading counts, the system must parse the underlying structure of the competitor pages.	¶19	col. 5:61-66
a user interface displaying a display menu having at least one display area displaying the at least one web search parameter metric;	The complaint provides a screenshot of the Surfer "Content Structure" interface, which displays recommended ranges for words, headings, and other elements.	¶19	col. 7:47-54
wherein said search parameter usage unit utilizes the search parameter to perform a statistical analysis of information in each of the tag structures to determine the at least one web search parameter metric.	The product's "original algorithms" analyze competitor pages to generate a list of terms to include and calculate recommended ranges for structural elements, which constitutes the alleged statistical analysis.	¶18, ¶19	col. 8:59-9:3

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The definition of "web search parameter metric" will be central. The question is whether the recommended ranges (e.g., "16-35" headings) and keyword lists provided by Surfer's product meet the definition of the "metric" as claimed in the patent, which is described as being determined via a "statistical analysis."
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will concern the nature of Surfer's "original algorithms" (Compl. ¶18). The court will need to determine if this algorithm performs the specific function of a "statistical analysis of information in each of the tag structures" as required by the claim, or if it operates in a technically distinct manner that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "web search parameter metric"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the invention's output. The infringement case depends on whether the numerical guidance and keyword recommendations generated by the accused product fall within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, defining the metric as the result of a "statistical analysis" used to "adapt and optimize a new web document" (’961 Patent, col. 16:21-23; col. 2:50-52). This could be argued to cover any data-driven numerical target derived from analyzing top pages.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's exemplary embodiments show the metric as a specific percentage (e.g., 12.5%) or a raw count against a goal (e.g., "1 | 1-3") (’961 Patent, Fig. 4; Fig. 5). A defendant could argue the term should be limited to these more specific representations rather than any form of editorial guidance.

The Term: "statistical analysis"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core process for generating the "metric." Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will hinge on whether Surfer's proprietary algorithms perform an analysis that meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of examples, including "regression, standard deviation, mean, etc." (’961 Patent, col. 6:17-19), suggesting the term is meant to be inclusive of common statistical methods.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the analysis to be performed on "information in each of the tag structures" (’961 Patent, col. 16:21-23). This could be argued to narrow the term to direct statistical counts of HTML elements, potentially excluding more complex or abstract methods like semantic or natural language processing analyses that are not explicitly tied to parsing "tag structures."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe by Defendant making the Surfer SEO product available and providing "links and directions to use the Content Editor feature in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 18). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting the product is especially made for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶27).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint specifically alleges Defendant was notified of the ’961 Patent and the alleged infringement via a letter from counsel on September 1, 2020, and received a detailed claim chart in a subsequent letter on October 10, 2022, nearly a year prior to the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23, 28).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "web search parameter metric", which the patent illustrates with specific percentages and counts, be construed broadly enough to read on the recommended content ranges and keyword lists generated by the accused product?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does discovery on Surfer's "original algorithms" reveal a process that performs the claimed "statistical analysis of...tag structures," or will it show a fundamentally different method for generating SEO advice that falls outside the patent's claims?
• Given the allegations of repeated, detailed pre-suit notice over a multi-year period, a central question for damages will be willfulness: did Defendant's continued offering of the accused product after receiving a notice letter and a detailed claim chart constitute "egregious" conduct sufficient to justify an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?