DCT
3:20-cv-00483
Netsoc LLC v. LinkedIn Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Case Name: NetSoc, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Netsoc LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: LinkedIn Corp (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 3:20-cv-00483, S.D.N.Y., 12/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social networking platform, including its recruiter and professional-finding services, infringes patents related to systems for connecting users with issue-solvers based on categories, location, and ratings.
- Technical Context: The technology involves online social and professional networking platforms, a dominant market for recruitment, professional services, and business-to-business connections.
- Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a large patent family that claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 2003, indicating a long development and prosecution history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-03 | Earliest Priority Date for ’107 & ’344 Patents |
| 2009-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,565,344 Issued |
| 2018-05-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 Issued |
| 2018-12-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 - Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues (Issued May 22, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the logistical and social challenges individuals and families face when relocating to a new, unfamiliar geographic area, such as finding services, assimilating into the community, and resolving various "life issues" (’107 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a social network service that functions as a matchmaking system. A user can select a category of issue and be presented with a list of "participants" (e.g., other users, professionals) who can potentially help. The system then displays information about these participants, allows the user to send a blind inquiry, and uses a rating system based on participant responsiveness to reorder or rank the results for future searches (’107 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The system aims to create trusted connections and provide personalized assistance for complex life problems by leveraging a network of individuals beyond a user's immediate contacts, curated by system-tracked performance metrics (’107 Patent, col. 10:5-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1-11, with a focus on independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 6 is a system claim requiring:
- A computer system with a memory and processors.
- Maintaining a list of participants.
- Presenting a user with an interface to select a category.
- In response to a selection, displaying information about multiple matching participants while shielding their contact information.
- Displaying this information based at least in part on a "rating" of the individual participants.
- Enabling the user to send a blind inquiry message to participants.
- Tracking the "response time" of participants who receive the message.
- "Updating the rating" associated with participants based at least in part on the tracked response time.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).
U.S. Patent No. 7,565,344 - Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues (Issued July 21, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '107 patent, the invention addresses the difficulty of finding reliable, geographically relevant help for life issues, particularly for individuals unfamiliar with a location (’344 Patent, col. 1:60-64).
- The Patented Solution: This patent describes a system that acts as a blind intermediary. A user submits an inquiry specifying a category and a geographic location of interest to the system. The system then "programmatically" selects one or more participants based on that criteria and forwards the inquiry to them, without revealing the participants' identity to the user upfront. The selected participants can then respond to the user, providing their own biographical information (’344 Patent, col. 2:1-11; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for users to solicit assistance from qualified, local individuals without needing to know who those individuals are in advance, thereby creating a "blind" introduction service for problem-solving (’344 Patent, col. 3:13-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1-14, with a focus on independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 10 is a system claim requiring a combination of processors and memory that operate to:
- Maintain a list of participants with associated biographical and geographic information.
- Enable a user to communicate with a selected participant who is unknown to the user but familiar with a geographic region of interest.
- This is achieved by: presenting categories for selection; receiving the selection and an electronic inquiry specifying a location; "programmatically making a selection" of at least one participant based on the category and location; and sending the inquiry to the selected participant(s) "without identifying" them to the user.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses the LinkedIn.com website and associated services, including LinkedIn Talent Solutions (such as Recruiter and Recruiter Lite) and LinkedIn ProFinder (Compl. ¶10, ¶16, ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that LinkedIn Talent Solutions products are used by recruiters to search for, filter, and contact potential job candidates. These services allegedly provide an interface with categories (e.g., location, industry), display candidate profiles based on a relevance algorithm, and allow recruiters to send "InMail" messages to candidates while tracking response analytics (Compl. ¶10, pp. 8-19). The complaint presents a screenshot from a LinkedIn marketing video showing an "Inmail Response Analytics" dashboard that tracks "Accepted" and "Declined" responses (Compl. ¶16, p. 16).
- LinkedIn ProFinder is described as a marketplace for finding freelance professionals. A user submits a request detailing the service needed and their location. The system then allegedly matches the request to a "curated list" of local professionals and sends them the user's inquiry, allowing them to respond with proposals (Compl. ¶27, ¶31). The complaint includes a screenshot showing an email notification sent to a professional, stating "Someone is looking for a Social Media Consultant near Thousand Oaks, California" (Compl. ¶35, p. 35).
- The complaint alleges these services are central to LinkedIn's business model for professional networking and recruitment (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’107 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer system comprising: a memory to store a list... one or more processors that execute instructions to: maintain the list... | LinkedIn allegedly uses a computer system of servers and databases to store and maintain data for its millions of users, referred to as participants. The complaint provides a photo of LinkedIn's "Open19" server rack as evidence (p. 4). | ¶10, pp. 3-7 | col. 2:31-41 |
| present a user with an interface from which the user makes a selection of a category from a plurality of categories; | The LinkedIn Recruiter interface allegedly presents users with filters for categories like location, industry, and company, which a user can select. The complaint provides screenshots of this filtering interface (p. 9). | ¶10, pp. 8-9 | col. 2:1-3 |
| in response to receiving the selection... present, for the user, some of the information associated with each of multiple participants... while shielding contact information... | After a user selects categories, LinkedIn allegedly displays a list of matching candidate profiles but shields their direct contact information (e.g., email address). | ¶10, pp. 10-11 | col. 8:1-15 |
| wherein displaying some of the information... is based at least in part on a rating of individual participants... | LinkedIn allegedly uses a proprietary relevance algorithm to rank search results. The complaint cites a LinkedIn help page stating this "relevance is based on a variety of factors" to "optimize your search results." | ¶10, p. 12 | col. 6:55-58 |
| enabling the user to send an inquiry message to one or more of the multiple participants, while shielding the contact information... | The "InMail" feature allegedly allows a user (recruiter) to send messages to participants (candidates) without knowing their direct email, thereby shielding contact information. | ¶10, pp. 13-15 | col. 4:13-17 |
| tracking a response time of each of the one or more participants who received the message from the user; and | The complaint alleges LinkedIn tracks the response time for each InMail message sent. It provides screenshots from a product video showing timestamps on responses (e.g., "Nov 16 - 9:08AM") (p. 16). | ¶10, pp. 15-16 | col. 9:22-26 |
| updating the rating associated with each of the one or more participants based at least in part on the tracked response time. | The complaint alleges that a participant's rating is updated based on their response time and activity. It points to LinkedIn's "Inmail Response Analytics" dashboard and "Activity Type" filters as evidence of this functionality (p. 19). | ¶10, pp. 16-19 | col. 9:26-34 |
’344 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for establishing a social connection... comprising: a combination of one or more processors and memory that operate to: maintain a list comprising a plurality of participants... wherein the information... includes biographical information... identifying a geographic region... | LinkedIn allegedly maintains a database of user profiles containing biographical information, including their geographic location. The complaint provides a screenshot of LinkedIn ProFinder showing freelancers with associated locations (p. 23). | ¶16, pp. 21-25 | col. 1:60-64 |
| enabling a user to communicate with a selected participant that (i) is not known to the user, and (ii) is familiar with a geographic region of interest to the user... is performed by: presenting the user with a plurality of categories... | The LinkedIn ProFinder service allegedly allows a user to select service categories (e.g., "Healthcare Consulting") to find an unknown professional in a specific area. | ¶16, pp. 26-28 | col. 2:1-3 |
| receiving the selection of the category by the user; in conjunction with the selection... receiving an electronic communication from the user for an unidentified respondent, wherein the... inquiry specifying a particular location... | The user allegedly submits a request by selecting a category and specifying a location (e.g., zip code) and details of the project. The complaint provides a screenshot of the ProFinder inquiry form where a user enters "Houston Texas area" and zip code "77001" (p. 30). | ¶16, pp. 28-31 | col. 2:3-9 |
| after receiving the selection... programmatically making a selection of at least one participant for receiving the electronic communication based at least in part on... the geographic region identified by the biographic information of the at least one participant... | LinkedIn ProFinder allegedly "programmatically makes a selection of one or more participants" from its "curated list" based on the user's selected category and location. The complaint cites a help page stating, "we'll introduce you to the best local professionals from our curated list" (p. 27). | ¶16, pp. 31-35 | col. 2:6-9 |
| sending the inquiry to one or more participants of the selection without identifying the one or more participants to the user; | The system allegedly sends the user's inquiry to the selected professionals without first identifying those professionals to the user. | ¶16, p. 36 | col. 2:5-6 |
| enabling any of the one or more participants to provide a response to the inquiry... wherein each response includes information about the participant sending the response; | The selected professionals allegedly receive the inquiry and can submit a proposal in response. The complaint alleges this response includes access to the professional's full LinkedIn profile. | ¶16, pp. 37-38 | col. 4:40-43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the '344 patent may be whether the term "programmatically making a selection of at least one participant for receiving the electronic communication" is met by LinkedIn ProFinder's alleged process of notifying a "shortlisted" group, from which individuals then choose whether to respond. The court may need to decide if the system "selects the recipient" or merely "selects potential recipients."
- Technical Questions: For the '107 patent, a key technical question is whether LinkedIn's multifaceted "relevance" algorithm, which the complaint alleges considers "a variety of factors," performs the specific function of "updating the rating... based at least in part on the tracked response time." The analysis may turn on the degree to which "response time" is a direct input that "updates" the "rating," versus being one of many signals in a more complex ranking model.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rating" ('107 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the '107 patent depends on construing LinkedIn's proprietary search "relevance" score as the claimed "rating." The viability of the claim hinges on whether this complex, multi-factor algorithm meets the definition of a "rating" that is specifically "updated" by "response time."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using "feedback or a quality rating of the participant" to select participants, suggesting "rating" could encompass a general quality or performance score (’107 Patent, col. 6:55-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly links the "updating" of the "rating" to the "tracked response time." This may support a narrower construction where the rating must be a score more directly and causally tied to responsiveness, rather than a general-purpose relevance score influenced by many other factors.
The Term: "programmatically making a selection of at least one participant for receiving the electronic communication" ('344 Patent, Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused ProFinder system allegedly sends an inquiry to a group of shortlisted candidates, who then decide whether to respond. The dispute may focus on whether the "selection" is the creation of the shortlist or the identification of the final recipient. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction determines the point at which infringement occurs, if at all.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "the service selects a recipient/participant for the user" after receiving the inquiry, which could support the view that selecting a curated list to notify is sufficient (’344 Patent, col. 2:7-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires selecting a participant "for receiving the electronic communication." This could be argued to mean the system must select the actual, final recipient, not just a pool of potential recipients who are merely invited to receive the communication.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LinkedIn induces and contributes to infringement by actively encouraging and instructing customers on how to use its LinkedIn Talent Solutions and ProFinder services in a way that allegedly practices the patented methods (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that LinkedIn has known of the patents-in-suit and the technology they cover since at least their respective issue dates, and that its continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional definition: does LinkedIn's proprietary, multi-factor "relevance" algorithm constitute the specific "rating... based at least in part on the tracked response time" recited in the '107 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed feedback mechanism and the accused system's complex ranking operation?
- A key question of agency and action will be: in the ProFinder system, does the platform's act of creating a "shortlisted" group of professionals who are notified of an inquiry satisfy the '344 patent's requirement that the system "programmatically mak[e] a selection of at least one participant for receiving the electronic communication," or does this claimed step require the system to select the final, actual recipient(s)?
- A third pivotal question relates to damages and priority: given the 2003 priority date, the case may explore the state of the art in social networking from that early era, which could influence claim construction and the potential scope of damages should infringement be found.