DCT
3:22-cv-02046
Siteimprove Inc v. Monsido LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Siteimprove, Inc. (California) and Siteimprove A/S (Denmark)
- Defendant: Monsido, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02046, S.D. Cal., 12/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because the Defendant, Monsido, maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Digital Health Index" website analysis software infringes two utility patents and one design patent related to systems for scoring website quality and the associated graphical user interfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms that crawl and analyze websites to generate quantitative scores for metrics such as accessibility, search engine optimization (SEO), and overall quality assurance.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on September 14, 2022, alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. Defendant’s parent company responded on October 7, 2022, denying infringement. These events are cited by the Plaintiff to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-06 | Earliest Priority Date for '470 and '294 Patents |
| 2017-10-10 | Earliest Priority Date for '352 Patent |
| 2017-10-12 | Plaintiff's first use of "DIGITAL CERTAINTY INDEX" mark |
| 2020-04-01 | Alleged launch of Defendant's "Performance" replica product (approx. date) |
| 2021-02-23 | '352 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-03-30 | '470 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-04-06 | '294 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-07-20 | Defendant's tweet describing its Digital Health Index as "new" |
| 2022-09-14 | Plaintiff sends Cease and Desist letter to Defendant |
| 2022-10-07 | Defendant's parent company, CivicPlus, responds to C&D letter |
| 2022-12-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,963,470: "Website Scoring System" (Issued Mar. 30, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that assessing website quality is challenging due to issues like broken links, poor SEO, and accessibility problems, which can be difficult for website owners to track and quantify, especially on large or dynamic websites (Compl. ¶20; ’470 Patent, col. 1:13-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that automates website quality assessment by retrieving a site's content, analyzing it against various metrics, and generating distinct sub-scores for quality assurance (QA), SEO, and accessibility. These sub-scores are then combined to produce a single, comprehensive "quality score" (referred to in the specification as a Digital Certainty Index or DCI), which is presented to the user via an interface, providing a standardized and efficient way to measure and track website health (Compl. ¶21; ’470 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:62-7:6).
- Technical Importance: The technology offers a standardized metric that allows website operators to efficiently quantify overall site quality, identify specific reasons for the score, and receive real-time feedback to address issues as they arise (Compl. ¶21; ’470 Patent, col. 1:51-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶65).
- Essential elements of claim 14 include:
- A method for generating comprehensive scores assessing website quality based on automated analysis.
- Receiving identification of a website and retrieving its content.
- Automatically analyzing the content to determine three distinct sub-scores: (i) a search engine optimization (SEO) sub-score, (ii) an accessibility sub-score, and (iii) a quality assurance (QA) sub-score.
- The accessibility sub-score is specifically determined based on a combination of sub-scores for level A, level AA, and level AAA errors under the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
- Determining a single, overall "quality score" for the website based on a combination of the SEO, accessibility, and QA sub-scores.
- Transmitting the quality score to a client device for presentation in a user interface.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶64).
U.S. Patent No. 10,970,294: "Website Scoring System" (Issued Apr. 6, 2021)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '470 patent, the '294 patent addresses the same general problem of assessing website quality (Compl. ¶30). It further addresses the challenge of presenting diagnostic information in an actionable way to different members of a website management team.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that not only identifies features causing a "less-than-perfect" score but also sorts those features into subsets relevant to different user roles, specifically an "editor type of user role" and a "developer type of user role." This role-based diagnostic information is then presented concurrently on a single user interface screen, allowing for targeted and efficient problem-solving ('294 Patent, Claim 18; col. 14:45-56).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to streamline website maintenance by translating a general quality score into a role-specific, actionable task list, potentially improving the efficiency of website development and content teams (Compl. ¶73; ’294 Patent, col. 14:45-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶73).
- Essential elements of claim 18 include:
- A method for analyzing website content and recommending changes.
- Determining a quality score and identifying multiple features that resulted in that score being "less-than-perfect."
- Identifying a first subset of those features that "pertain to an editor type of user role."
- Identifying a second subset of those features that "pertain to a developer type of user role."
- Transmitting information to a client device that causes it to present a "single user interface screen" that concurrently displays text indicating the problematic features alongside user-selectable graphical elements for filtering the features by user role.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶72).
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D911,352, "Display Screen with Graphical User Interface for Presenting Website Analytics," issued February 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶31).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a graphical user interface. The design comprises a dashboard layout featuring several prominent circular gauges for different website metrics, a line graph showing score progress, and lists of analytical data points and recommended actions (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36).
- Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for "the ornamental design for a display screen with graphical user interface... as shown and described" (Compl. ¶35).
- Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the Defendant's Digital Health Index software is accused of infringing the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 84). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation (Compl. Fig. at ¶82).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant Monsido's "Digital Health Index" (DHI) software, a SaaS product (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 53).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The DHI software is alleged to be a tool that "measures the overall health of your website against your industry standards" by analyzing it for "Quality Assurance, Accessibility, and SEO score compliance" (Compl. ¶53). The complaint alleges it generates scores out of 100 and provides breakdowns of sub-characteristics used to generate those scores (Compl. ¶53). The complaint presents a screenshot from Monsido's website showing an "Accessibility" score with a numerical value and a breakdown of A, AA, and AAA level issues (Compl. Fig. at ¶52). Another screenshot shows an "SEO Score" interface that lists "Most common opportunities found," such as "Images missing ALT" and "Missing META description" (Compl. Fig. at ¶54).
- The complaint frames the DHI software as a "copycat" product, alleging that Monsido's business strategy involves replicating Plaintiff's product portfolio and undercutting it on price (Compl. ¶¶ 49-51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'470 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for generating comprehensive scores assessing website quality based on automated analysis of websites... comprising: | Defendant's DHI software is alleged to be a method that automatically analyzes websites to assess quality (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 53). | ¶¶ 53, 66 | col. 1:41-44 |
| determining, by the computer system, (i) a search engine optimization (SEO) sub-score for the website, (ii) an accessibility sub-score for the website, and (iii) a QA sub-score for the website... | The DHI software is alleged to measure "Quality Assurance, Accessibility, and SEO score compliance" (Compl. ¶53). | ¶53 | col. 7:16-24 |
| wherein the accessibility sub-score is determined based on a combination of: a level A... a level AA... and a level AAA accessibility sub-score... | The complaint provides a screenshot of the accused DHI software that explicitly breaks down an accessibility score by A, AA, and AAA levels (Compl. Fig. at ¶52). | ¶52 | col. 14:5-30 |
| determining, by the computer system, a quality score for the website based on a combination of the SEO sub-score, the accessibility sub-score, and the QA sub-score; and | The DHI is described as a tool that "measures the overall health of your website" (Compl. ¶53), which is alleged to be the claimed "quality score." | ¶53 | col. 8:38-47 |
| transmitting, by the computer system, the quality score to a client computing device for presentation in a user interface. | The user interfaces shown in the complaint's screenshots are the alleged result of the system transmitting the score for presentation (Compl. Figs. at ¶¶ 52, 54). | ¶¶ 52, 54 | col. 8:48-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does Monsido's marketing term "Digital Health Index" map directly to the claimed "quality score," which the patent defines as a specific combination of three sub-scores? The infringement analysis may turn on whether Monsido's system actually computes a single, unified score from the three enumerated components.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system determines its overall score "based on a combination" of the three sub-scores, as opposed to merely presenting the sub-scores adjacent to one another on a dashboard? The visual evidence provided shows individual sub-scores but not the final combined score.
'294 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...determine a score that indicates a quality of the website... the score being determined to have a less-than-perfect value... | The DHI software allegedly generates scores like "82.01% SEO Compliance," which is a less-than-perfect value (Compl. Fig. at ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 13:4-15 |
| determine a first feature... and a second feature of the website that resulted in the score being determined to have the less-than-perfect value... | The accused DHI interface allegedly identifies "Most common opportunities found," such as "Images missing ALT" and "Missing META description," which are the claimed features (Compl. Fig. at ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 13:16-25 |
| identify, by the computer system, a first subset of the multiple different features that pertain to an editor type of user role, | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶74 | col. 13:26-31 |
| identify, by the computer system, a second subset of the multiple different features that pertain to a developer type of user role, and | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶74 | col. 13:32-37 |
| ...present a single user interface screen that identifies the multiple different features of the website, including the first feature and the second feature... | The complaint includes a screenshot of the DHI's "Search Engine Optimization" screen, which allegedly presents the score and a list of identified issues concurrently (Compl. Fig. at ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 13:45-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused DHI software actually performs the role-based filtering required by the claim. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement but provides no specific facts or visual evidence showing that Monsido's product identifies and separates issues for an "editor type" versus a "developer type" of user.
- Scope Questions: Does the term "single user interface screen" read on the accused product's dashboard, which may use tabs or other navigation elements? The claim requires concurrent presentation of multiple, specific pieces of information, and the exact layout of the accused product will be scrutinized against this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '470 Patent
- The Term: "a quality score for the website based on a combination of the SEO sub-score, the accessibility sub-score, and the QA sub-score" (Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: The definition of "combination" is critical. Infringement requires showing that Monsido's software does more than just display three separate scores; it must create a single, unified "quality score" derived from them. Practitioners may focus on this term because the evidence in the complaint shows individual scores, but the link to a final, combined score is less explicit.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "DCI" as an "overall score" that "combines three main component scores," which could be interpreted more broadly than a strict mathematical calculation (e.g., a conceptual grouping on a dashboard) (’470 Patent, col. 7:16-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed example of a "general calculation technique" using a weighted-sum formula (Score N = SC1weight + SC2weight...) and a specific DCI calculation flowchart (FIG. 8). This may support an argument that "combination" is limited to a specific mathematical aggregation as disclosed in the preferred embodiments (’470 Patent, Fig. 2, Fig. 8).
For the '294 Patent
- The Term: "editor type of user role" / "developer type of user role" (Claim 18)
- Context and Importance: These terms are the lynchpin of the '294 patent infringement claim. The case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can prove that the accused DHI software actually categorizes website issues according to these specific user roles. Practitioners may focus on these terms because they represent a significant claim limitation for which the complaint currently lacks direct factual support.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples of issues that would logically fall to different roles. For instance, FIG. 13A shows tabs for "Editor," "Webmaster," and "Developer," suggesting the terms cover common functional divisions in a web team (’294 Patent, Fig. 13A; col. 14:45-56). This could support an argument that any system sorting issues by function (e.g., content vs. code) meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly uses the terms "editor," "webmaster," and "developer" in its description of the preferred embodiment. A defendant could argue that the terms require the accused product to use these explicit labels or have features that are unambiguously and exclusively tied to the specific tasks of those roles, not just a general functional grouping (’294 Patent, col. 14:45-56).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of direct "and/or" indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 72). However, the factual allegations focus entirely on the direct infringement by Defendant's DHI software itself, rather than providing specific facts to support inducement or contributory infringement theories (e.g., by Defendant's customers).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint bases this on two grounds: (1) alleged "blatant copying" of Plaintiff's software as evidence of pre-suit knowledge, and (2) Defendant's continued infringement after receiving Plaintiff's September 14, 2022 cease-and-desist letter, which provided actual notice of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 75, 86).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the complaint, and subsequent discovery, show that Monsido’s DHI software performs the specific functions required by the claims? For the ’470 patent, this centers on whether it computes a single, unified quality score from the three sub-scores. For the ’294 patent, the critical question is whether it sorts website issues into subsets specifically pertaining to an "editor type" and a "developer type" of user role, a point on which the complaint currently lacks specific evidence.
- A central issue for the design patent will be one of visual comparison: Is the overall ornamental appearance of Monsido’s accused user interface "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '352 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint suggests a strong similarity in layout, use of circular gauges, and presentation of data, which will be a focal point of that analysis.
- A third question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe key claim terms? The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether terms like "combination" ('470 patent) and "editor type of user role" ('294 patent) are interpreted broadly based on their general meaning or narrowly based on the specific embodiments disclosed in the patent specifications.