Zeno Holdings LLC v. Insightly Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zeno Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Insightly, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01036, D. Del., 06/04/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and conducts substantial business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Insightly CRM mobile application infringes patents related to automatically prompting users to log call details upon the conclusion of a communication event.
• Technical Context: The technology is in the domain of mobile Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software, which aims to improve the efficiency of professionals who must document customer interactions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated February 27, 2019, which included claim charts. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,118,773 - "Automated Prompting Techniques Implemented Via Mobile Devices and Systems"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for automated techniques to facilitate tasks like note-taking (notation) on mobile communication devices, which can be cumbersome to perform manually during or after a call (’773 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method implemented on a mobile device that automatically detects when a communication event, such as a phone call, has ended. Upon detecting the end-of-call event, and determining that certain pre-set "threshold criteria" have been met, the device automatically displays a user interface message prompting the user to initiate a procedure, such as recording notes or creating a calendar entry related to the just-completed call (’773 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-40).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to streamline the workflow for mobile professionals (e.g., sales staff, consultants) by automating the data entry process immediately following a client interaction, thereby improving data capture accuracy and user efficiency.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶12).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Identifying a set of threshold criteria for displaying a prompt.
  • Determining if an end-of-call (EOC) event has been detected.
  • Determining if the threshold criteria have been satisfied.
  • If both the EOC event is detected and criteria are satisfied, automatically displaying a user interface message.
  • In response to user input authorizing it, initiating a procedure that includes generating digital content, accessing call details, creating an electronic data file associating the content with the call details, and saving the file.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but standard practice allows for amending such contentions.

U.S. Patent No. 8,750,836 - "Automated Prompting Techniques Implemented Via Mobile Devices and Systems"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of recording and organizing personal notes related to telephone conversations on mobile devices, which can be difficult for users to manage in real-time (’836 Patent, Abstract).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system on a mobile device that enables a user to define threshold criteria, detects the end of a phone call, and, if the criteria are met, automatically prompts the user to initiate a procedure like recording a voice note. The system can then process this input, for example by transcribing audio to text and creating an electronic record of the call (’836 Patent, col. 2:14-50).
• Technical Importance: By automating the prompt to log call information, the technology reduces the cognitive load on the user and lowers the barrier to consistently maintaining detailed interaction records.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶26).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Enabling a user to identify a set of threshold criteria.
  • Detecting the initiation of a phone call and a subsequent end-of-call (EOC) event.
  • Determining if the identified threshold criteria have been satisfied.
  • If the EOC is detected and criteria are satisfied, automatically displaying a user interface message prompting the user.
  • In response to user authorization, initiating a procedure that includes generating a portion of digital content from user input.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Insightly CRM mobile application for Android and iOS (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality is the "call logging" feature within the Insightly CRM app (Compl. ¶14).
• When a user enables this feature in the app’s settings, the application automatically presents a "Log this call?" prompt on the screen after the user concludes a phone call (Compl. ¶¶15, 16). If the user accepts, the app allows them to enter notes and save a task record that is automatically populated with details from the call, such as the contact’s name and the time of the call (Compl. ¶¶18, 20). The user can manually type notes into a description field (Compl. ¶19).
• The complaint alleges Insightly CRM is a "leading cloud-based application" used by over 1.5 million users globally (Compl. p.4). A screenshot in the complaint shows a support article demonstrating how to enable the call logging feature (Compl. p.5, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’773 Patent Infringement Allegations

’836 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Do the claims’ requirement for "threshold criteria" read on the accused product's simple on/off toggle? The patent specifications for both the ’773 and ’836 patents describe more complex, user-configurable criteria, such as call duration, specific contacts, and time-of-day rules (’836 Patent, col. 25:1-40). The litigation may focus on whether a binary toggle meets the claimed limitation or if the claim scope is narrowed by the specification's more detailed examples.
• Technical Questions: What is the scope of "generating...a portion of digital content"? The patent specifications heavily describe a primary embodiment where the user provides voice input that is then transcribed into text (’836 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65). The complaint's infringement theory is based on the user typing text into a field (Compl. ¶19). A key question for the court will be whether typed input falls within the scope of this claim element in light of the patent's focus on voice recording and transcription.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "threshold criteria" (appears in both asserted patents)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. Plaintiff’s theory relies on the accused product’s on/off switch for call logging meeting this limitation. The definition will determine whether a simple binary setting suffices or if more complex, multi-faceted rules are required by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the factual match between the claim and the accused product appears to hinge on its interpretation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require the criteria to be complex or multi-faceted. An argument could be made that an enabled/disabled state is a form of threshold (e.g., a binary condition that must be met).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both patents provide numerous, more detailed examples of "threshold criteria," including "time related criteria," "day/date related criteria," "contact related criteria," "call duration criteria," and "call frequency criteria" (’836 Patent, col. 31:20-42). A party could argue these specific embodiments define and limit the scope of the broader term to something more complex than a simple feature toggle.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing customers with online support instructions, documentation, and "intuitive user interfaces" that instruct and encourage them to use the accused call logging feature in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶45-46).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Defendant received a notice letter, including claim charts, on February 28, 2019, but did not alter its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶3, 41-43). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement is objectively reckless and that it has not produced an opinion of counsel to suggest a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity (Compl. ¶¶49, 51).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "threshold criteria," which the patent specifications illustrate with complex, user-defined rules like call duration and contact-specific triggers, be construed to cover the simple on/off toggle for the accused call logging feature?
• A key technical question will be one of mode of operation: does a user typing text notes into a data field, as done in the accused Insightly app, meet the claim limitation of "generating...a portion of digital content," when the patent specifications for the asserted patents heavily emphasize an embodiment centered on voice recording and subsequent automatic transcription?
• A central question for damages will be one of willfulness: given the specific allegation of pre-suit notice with claim charts, the court will have to determine whether Insightly’s continued conduct was objectively reckless, a finding that will likely depend on the ultimate strength of its non-infringement or invalidity arguments.