Instaresponse LLC v. Cornerstone OnDemand Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: InstaResponse, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01878, D. Del., 10/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state, which establishes residency for patent venue purposes under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Cornerstone Learning" corporate training platform infringes a patent related to a computer-implemented method for students to evaluate teachers against predefined educational standards.
• Technical Context: The technology operates within the educational technology (EdTech) sector, focusing on systems that facilitate data-driven performance evaluation and accountability based on student feedback.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The action appears to be the first assertion of this patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299 - "TECHNOLOGIES FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING TEACHERS"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299, "TECHNOLOGIES FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING TEACHERS", issued May 24, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem where some teachers do not adhere to established educational standards, which can negatively affect student performance on standardized tests, and school supervisors lack an effective tool to monitor such adherence (Compl. ¶13; ’299 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a networked computer method designed to create a feedback loop between students, teachers, and administrators. The system allows a teacher to make an "educational standard" and associated "lesson plan" available to students. After the lesson, students use a client device to rate the teacher's performance against the standard. The system then aggregates these ratings, which are anonymous to the teacher but identifiable to an administrator, and can correlate them with test scores to provide analytical feedback (’299 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15). The overall architecture is depicted in the patent’s Figure 7, which shows client devices connected to a central computer system comprising a server and database (’299 Patent, Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to introduce objective, data-driven accountability into the educational process by directly capturing student perceptions of how well a teacher adheres to specific, predetermined learning standards (’299 Patent, col. 7:10-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶15, ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
  • A method comprising receiving an educational standard and lesson plan from a "teacher client."
  • Storing the standard and plan in a database that also stores a "student schedule."
  • Receiving a selection of the standard and plan from the teacher client and assigning them such that they are associated with the student schedule.
  • Receiving a login from a "student client" and, in response, presenting the standard and lesson plan to that student client.
  • Presenting a Likert rating scale to the student client for rating the teacher.
  • Receiving and storing the rating, which is "anonymous to said teacher client" but "not anonymous to an administrator client."
  • Correlating a "test score" with the stored rating.
  • Providing a notice to the "administrator client" based on the correlation.
• The complaint focuses its allegations on claim 7 and does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, though it does reserve the right to modify its infringement theories (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Cornerstone Learning product" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Product as an "online course platform where employees learn courses bases on their profiles or roles on an educational server" (Compl. ¶18). It is alleged to enable a method for "teacher evaluation based on correlations to test score with ratings associated with educational standards" (Compl. ¶17). The allegations suggest the product is used in a corporate training environment, applying the patent’s "teacher/student" paradigm to an "instructor/employee" context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’299 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the claim terms, which are described in the patent specification exclusively within an academic context (e.g., "teacher," "student," "school"), can be construed to read on the corporate training environment of the accused product (e.g., "course creator," "employee," "corporate learning platform"). The complaint applies the patent’s terminology directly to the accused product’s alleged corporate functions (Compl. ¶18, ¶19).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). This raises an evidentiary question as to whether the commercially available "Cornerstone Learning" product performs all the claimed steps as alleged, particularly the dual-anonymity function where a rating is anonymous to a "teacher" but not to an "administrator" (Compl. ¶26). Further, the mention that surveys can be "generated in EDX" raises a potential question of divided infringement if a third-party service is required to perform a claimed step (Compl. ¶26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "teacher client", "student client", "administrator client"

• Context and Importance: The construction of these terms is central to the dispute. The patent’s title and entire specification frame the invention in a traditional academic setting. The accused product, however, operates in a corporate e-learning context. Practitioners may focus on whether these terms are limited to their ordinary meaning in education or can be interpreted more broadly as functional roles (e.g., content creator, content consumer, system manager) applicable to any learning environment.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly restrict the "clients" to an academic institution. The terms are defined by their function within the claimed method (e.g., the "teacher client" is the source of the lesson plan).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses terms like "schools," "classrooms," "students," and "governmental bodies" to describe the invention's environment and purpose, potentially limiting the scope of the claims to that context (’299 Patent, col. 1:30-54, col. 4:39-48).

The Term: "educational standard"

• Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical for the same reason as the "client" terms. The infringement theory depends on construing a corporate "topic," "profile," or "role" as an "educational standard."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be defined functionally as any set of learning objectives against which teaching and learning are measured, regardless of the context.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links "educational standards" to "governmental bodies" and "standardized tests," suggesting a more formal, externally-defined benchmark typical of public or private education, not internal corporate training goals (’299 Patent, col. 1:51-53, col. 4:39-44).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. It alleges that Defendant's "manufacture, use, or sale of the Accused Product enables the method" (Compl. ¶29), but the formal infringement count is limited to direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶31).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages, which are requested in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 10, ¶f), but does not assert pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "teacher client", "student client", and "educational standard", which are described in the patent within a traditional academic context, be construed broadly enough to cover the roles and functions of a corporate e-learning and employee training system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused commercial product actually performs every step of the claimed method, particularly the specific dual-anonymity limitation where feedback is shielded from the "teacher" but revealed to the "administrator," especially since the allegations rely on "internal testing"?