DCT
4:15-cv-05585
24 7ai Inc v. LivePerson Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: 24/7 Customer, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: LivePerson, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O’Melveny & Myers LLP
- Case Identification: 4:15-cv-05585, N.D. Cal., 12/07/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business, provides services, and committed acts of patent infringement in the Northern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s live-interaction and customer engagement platforms infringe eight patents related to online customer service technologies, including collaborative browsing, intelligent communication routing, and automated agent scripting.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of online customer relationship management (CRM) and digital contact centers, a market focused on enhancing customer service and sales through real-time, data-driven online interactions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not specify any significant procedural events such as prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-08-25 | ’209 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-12-29 | ’876 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-03-20 | ’209 Patent Issued |
| 2002-05-01 | ’757 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-05-30 | ’553, ’719, ’715 Patents Priority Date |
| 2003-12-18 | ’586, ’552 Patents Priority Date |
| 2004-09-28 | ’876 Patent Issued |
| 2005-11-29 | ’553 Patent Issued |
| 2005-12-13 | ’719 Patent Issued |
| 2006-04-11 | ’586 Patent Issued |
| 2007-05-08 | ’757 Patent Issued |
| 2007-07-17 | ’715 Patent Issued |
| 2010-07-06 | ’552 Patent Issued |
| 2015-12-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,205,209 - “Network that Provides Applications Collaboration”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and high cost for multiple users on diverse types of devices (e.g., personal computers, wireless PDAs) to collaborate on a single software application, as it often requires specialized software and hardware for each user (’209 Patent, col. 1:11-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a network-centric system that manages the collaboration. A central network node receives a request for a collaborative session, identifies the types of devices ("endpoints") being used by the participants, and then selects and delivers device-appropriate versions of the collaborative application to each user, enabling seamless interaction without requiring specialized user-side software (’209 Patent, col. 2:40-54; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to centralize the complexity of multi-device collaboration, making it more accessible and cost-effective by shifting the technical burden from the end-user to the network provider (’209 Patent, col. 5:1-7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations in Count I appear to map to independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’209 Patent includes these essential elements:
- Receiving an identity of a called party and an identity of a collaborative application from a calling party, where the parties participate at first and second endpoints.
- Determining a first endpoint type and a second endpoint type.
- Selecting a first version of the collaborative application based on the first endpoint type and a second version of the application based on the second endpoint type, where the first and second versions differ.
- Retrieving and making available the first version of the application to the calling party and the second version to the called party.
U.S. Patent No. 6,798,876 - “Method and Apparatus for Intelligent Routing of Incoming Calls to Representatives in a Call Center”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional call center routing, based on general criteria like the number dialed (DNIS), is often inadequate for matching a customer’s specific need with the representative best equipped to satisfy that need (’876 Patent, col. 1:43-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that intelligently routes incoming calls by creating detailed profiles for both the caller and the customer service representatives. It compares the caller’s profile (e.g., purchase history, past issues) with representative profiles (e.g., skill sets, success rates) to rank the representatives and route the call to the one most likely to successfully handle the interaction. The system then updates both profiles post-call based on the outcome (’876 Patent, col. 2:10-23; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from simple queue-based call distribution to data-driven, skills-based routing, intended to improve first-call resolution and overall customer satisfaction (’876 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations in Count II appear to map to independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent includes these essential elements:
- Identifying the caller of an incoming call.
- Retrieving a profile on the caller.
- Comparing the caller profile with stored customer service representative profiles to determine which representatives are more qualified.
- Ranking the customer service representatives that can best meet the caller's needs.
- Routing the incoming call to a selected highest ranked customer service representative.
- Automatically updating, at the completion of the call, the caller profile and the selected representative's profile with information regarding the success of the call.
U.S. Patent No. 7,027,586 - “Intelligently Routing Customer Communications”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’586 Patent discloses a system for routing customer communications by first identifying the "modality" of the communication (e.g., phone, internet) (Compl. ¶46; ’586 Patent, col. 2:15-21). It then selects an "agent model" for each agent based on that modality and compares the customer's profile to these models to find the best match (Compl. ¶46).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶46).
- Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant's routing functions that direct visitors to agents based on criteria including the visitor's device (desktop, mobile, app) and communication preference (chat, phone) (Compl. ¶45).
U.S. Patent No. 7,751,552 - “Intelligently Routing Customer Communications”
- Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the technology in the ’586 Patent, the ’552 Patent claims a method for routing communications by selecting agent models based on an identified modality, determining the best-matched agent based on information from the requester, and establishing a connection (Compl. ¶55). This patent appears to focus on the determination and connection steps subsequent to model selection.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
- Accused Features: The accused features are the routing capabilities of Defendant's platforms, which allegedly select agent models, determine a best match for a visitor, and connect the two based on various criteria (Compl. ¶54).
U.S. Patent No. 6,970,553 - “Integrated Chat Client with Calling Party Choice”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’553 Patent describes a method for converting a voice call attempt into an alternative communication medium like electronic chat (Compl. ¶64). The system receives a telephone call request, checks for the availability of an electronic chat client associated with the called party, and prompts the caller with the choice to chat instead of completing the voice call (Compl. ¶64).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
- Accused Features: Defendant’s “IVR Deflection” feature is accused, which provides users in a phone-based IVR system the option to switch to a chat session by receiving an SMS text message with a link (Compl. ¶63).
U.S. Patent No. 6,975,719 - “Integrated Chat Client with Called Party Choice”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’719 Patent claims a method for prompting a called party to choose between a voice call and an electronic chat (Compl. ¶74). The system checks the accessibility of the calling party's chat client and, if available, prompts the called party to choose whether to talk or chat (Compl. ¶74).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claim 1 of the ’719 Patent as issued (Compl. ¶74).
- Accused Features: Defendant's platforms are accused of prompting users with a choice to connect via chat or voice, which allegedly involves checking chat client accessibility (Compl. ¶73).
U.S. Patent No. 7,245,715 - “Integrated Chat Client with Receiving Party Choice”
- Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the technology in the ’719 Patent, the ’715 Patent describes a similar method where a receiving party is prompted to choose between talking or chatting (Compl. ¶84). The system checks the accessibility of the sending party's chat client and prompts the receiving party with the choice if chat is available (Compl. ¶84).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claim 1 of the ’715 Patent as issued (Compl. ¶84).
- Accused Features: Defendant's multichannel invitation features are accused, which prompt website visitors to connect with an agent via chat or voice (Compl. ¶83).
U.S. Patent No. 7,215,757 - “System and Method to Provide Automated Scripting for Customer Service Representatives”
- Technology Synopsis: The ’757 Patent discloses a system for providing automated, dynamic scripts to customer service agents during a live communication (Compl. ¶93). The system obtains identifying information about a party, obtains content related to that party (e.g., account data), generates a script based on that content, and displays it to the agent while the communication is in progress (Compl. ¶93).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint’s allegations appear to map to the method described in independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
- Accused Features: Defendant’s platforms are accused of providing agents with “canned responses” or “predefined content” that can be generated to incorporate visitor information using macros (Compl. ¶92).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s “live-interaction platforms,” specifically identified as the “LivePerson platform” and “LiveEngage platform” (Compl. ¶9, ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these platforms provide technology for businesses to engage with customers online (Compl. ¶3, ¶9). Key accused features include a “Cobrowsing” feature allowing an agent and a visitor to simultaneously view and interact with the same webpage (Compl. ¶17); intelligent routing of customer chat requests to representatives based on visitor profiles and representative skills (Compl. ¶36); an “IVR Deflection” feature that offers callers in a phone system the option to switch to a chat session (Compl. ¶63); and the ability to provide agents with scripted or "canned" responses that can be customized with visitor information (Compl. ¶92).
- The complaint positions these platforms as direct competitors to Plaintiff’s own customer service software products (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’209 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving an identity of a called party and an identity of a collaborative application from a calling part... | The complaint alleges that Defendant's platforms initiate a "Cobrowsing" session between a service agent (called party) and a website visitor (calling party). | ¶17, ¶27-28 | col. 5:37-48 |
| (b) determining a first endpoint type and a second endpoint type; | The complaint alleges the agent and visitor use different interfaces to view and interact with the same webpage. The complaint provides an image showing two distinct user interfaces for the agent and visitor during a cobrowsing session. | ¶21, ¶28, p. 5 | col. 4:30-44 |
| (c) selecting a first version of the collaborative application based on the first endpoint type and a second version of the collaborative application based on the second endpoint type... | The system is alleged to select and make available these different interfaces (versions) based on whether the user is an agent or a visitor (endpoint types). | ¶28 | col. 5:1-12 |
| (d) retrieving and making available the first version of the application to the calling party and the second version of the application to the called party. | The system allegedly makes the agent interface available to the agent and the visitor interface available to the visitor to enable the collaborative cobrowsing session. | ¶28 | col. 5:13-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "endpoint type" as used in the patent, which provides examples of physically distinct devices like a telephone and a PDA (’209 Patent, col. 4:36-44), can be construed to cover different user roles (agent vs. visitor) accessing a web application through similar devices (e.g., two personal computers). A related question is whether different user interfaces within the same web application constitute distinct "versions of the collaborative application" as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system actively "determines" an endpoint type and "selects" a version, as opposed to simply rendering a role-based view (agent vs. customer) within a single, unified web application? The image provided in the complaint shows different views for the agent and visitor during a cobrowsing session, which may support the allegation of different application versions being provided (Compl. p. 5).
’876 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifying the caller... retrieving a profile on the caller; | The system allegedly routes visitors based on a wide range of visitor information, such as nationality, search keywords, IP address, and browsing history, which constitutes a visitor profile. | ¶36 | col. 5:14-16 |
| comparing the caller profile with stored customer service representative profiles... | The system allegedly compares this visitor information to representative profiles, which include assigned "skills" like "Sales," "Service," and "Tech support." | ¶36-37 | col. 5:14-19 |
| ranking the customer service representatives that can best meet the caller's needs; | The complaint alleges that this comparison results in a selection of a representative based on criteria like "appropriate skill," "availability," and "prior interactions." | ¶36-37 | col. 5:20-23 |
| routing the incoming call to a selected highest ranked customer service representative; | Based on the comparison, the visitor is routed to the selected representative. | ¶36-37 | col. 5:20-23 |
| automatically updating...the caller profile and the selected...representative profile with information regarding the success of the call. | The complaint alleges that at the conclusion of a chat, visitor and representative profiles are updated with transcripts, survey results, and other information regarding the outcome. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 5:35-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Does the process of selecting an agent based on matching a "skill" tag or checking "availability" constitute "ranking" as required by the claim? The court may need to determine if "ranking" implies a quantitative, ordered list of all available agents or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any logic-based selection process.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that profiles are updated with transcripts and survey results (Compl. ¶36). A factual question may be whether this update constitutes an analysis of the "success of the call" used to refine future routing decisions, as contemplated by the patent, or if it is merely for record-keeping purposes.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: ’209 Patent
- The Term: "endpoint type"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory depends on the agent and visitor interfaces qualifying as being for different "endpoint types". If the term is construed to mean only physically distinct hardware categories (e.g., phone vs. computer), the infringement allegation may be weakened, as an agent and visitor could both be using standard web browsers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly limit the term to hardware. Practitioners may argue that any two endpoints requiring different user interfaces or software versions to collaborate could be considered different "endpoint types".
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s explicit examples of endpoint types are an analog telephone, a PDA/laptop computer, and a personal computer, all of which are distinct hardware platforms (’209 Patent, col. 4:36-44). The term's meaning may be interpreted as being limited by these examples.
Patent: ’876 Patent
- The Term: "ranking"
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether Defendant’s system, which routes visitors based on criteria like "appropriate skill" and "availability" (Compl. ¶36), performs the claimed step of "ranking". The definition of this term will determine whether a simple matching or filtering logic meets the claim limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the method of ranking. One could argue any system that evaluates and selects agents based on merit (e.g., possessing a required skill) is inherently performing a type of ranking.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and summary describe a system that "ranks the customer service representatives that can best meet the customer needs" and routes to the "highest ranked" one, which suggests a quantitative, ordered comparison rather than a simple binary check for a skill or availability (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-20). The specification also discusses using a "statistical modeling module" to perform analysis, which may further narrow the scope of the term (’876 Patent, col. 3:51-66).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant knowingly encourages infringement through "advertisements, user manuals, online support pages, and the LivePerson Customer Center," as well as tutorials and training (e.g., Compl. ¶29, ¶38). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused features are material to practicing the inventions, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are especially made or adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶30, ¶39).
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for alleged "willful, wanton, and deliberate" infringement (Compl. p. 22, ¶2). The factual basis for knowledge supporting inducement and contributory infringement is alleged to arise "at least as early as the date of service of [24]7’s Complaint," indicating the willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct (e.g., Compl. ¶29, ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "endpoint type" and "version of the collaborative application" from the ’209 Patent, which are exemplified with distinct hardware devices, be construed to cover role-based user interface differences within a single web-based platform?
- Another central question will be one of functional operation: does the accused platforms' method of routing customers by matching criteria such as agent "skills" and "availability" perform the specific function of "ranking" representatives and routing to the "highest ranked" agent, as required by the ’876 Patent?
- A broader theme across the case may be one of technological evolution: whether patents drafted in the context of early-2000s telecommunications infrastructure (e.g., PSTN, call centers, distinct PDAs) can be interpreted to cover the functionalities of modern, integrated, and web-native customer engagement platforms.