InstaResponse, LLC v Moodle USA, LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: InstaResponse, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Moodle USA, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01879, D. Del., 10/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Moodle learning platform infringes a patent related to a system for students to evaluate teachers against educational standards.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of online learning management systems (LMS), which are used by educational institutions to create, distribute, and manage educational content and assess student and teacher performance.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPR) involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem where some teachers use lesson plans but do not adhere to established educational standards, which can result in their students receiving lower scores on standardized tests ('299 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system, centered on an "evaluation server," that provides educational standards to students for a given lesson. Students can then rate the teacher's performance against those standards. These ratings are stored in a database, are anonymous to the teacher, but are explicitly not anonymous to an administrator, who can also receive notices correlating the student ratings with test scores ('299 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:24-41). The system aims to create a feedback loop for evaluating teacher effectiveness.
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to provide a structured, data-driven framework for benchmarking teacher performance and ensuring accountability for adherence to educational standards ('299 Patent, col. 7:10-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (Compl. ¶14).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 7 include:
  • Receiving and storing an educational standard and a lesson plan from a teacher client on an evaluation server.
  • Assigning the standard and lesson plan to a student schedule.
  • Receiving a student login and presenting the standard and lesson plan to the student.
  • Presenting a Likert rating scale to the student.
  • Receiving a rating from the student.
  • Storing the rating such that it is anonymous to the teacher client but not anonymous to an administrator client (by revealing student identity to the administrator).
  • Correlating a test score with the rating.
  • Providing a notice to the administrator client based on the correlation.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim of the '299 Patent" and specifically "at least Claim 7," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims as the case develops (Compl. ¶15, ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Moodle learning platform" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is an online course platform that allows teachers to build lessons based on educational standards (Compl. ¶17). It is described as enabling a "method for teacher evaluation based on correlations to test score with ratings associated with educational standards" (Compl. ¶16).
• Functionality described includes creating user accounts for students (Compl. ¶21), allowing students to submit feedback and ratings on courses (Compl. ¶23), generating surveys that are anonymous to the teacher but visible to an administrator (Compl. ¶25), and allowing for the correlation of scores with student performance (Compl. ¶26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not attach it or include any screenshots or diagrams in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶16). The infringement theory is outlined in narrative form.

’299 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Moodle learning platform" (Compl. ¶16). A potential issue is whether this platform, which may be a distributed software system, constitutes a single "evaluation server" as recited in the claims.
• Technical Questions: A central dispute may arise over the dual-anonymity limitation. The complaint alleges an administrator "has control" and is "able to see the feedback" (Compl. ¶25), but the claim requires the server to perform the specific function of "revealing said student identity to said administrator client." The question is whether having "control" to view feedback is the same as the server actively "revealing" the identity associated with a rating.
• Actor Questions: The claim requires the "evaluation server" to perform the "correlating" step. The complaint, however, alleges that "a teacher can correlate the score" (Compl. ¶26, emphasis added). This raises the question of whether the accused system performs the claimed step, or if it merely provides a tool for a different actor (the teacher) to do so.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"anonymous to said teacher client...[and] not anonymous to an administrator client"

Context and Importance

This dual-state anonymity is a core feature of the claimed invention and appears to be a primary point of differentiation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation hinges on whether the Moodle platform's administrative "control" over feedback (Compl. ¶25) meets the claim's specific requirement that the server "reveal[s] said student identity to said administrator client."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition that would broaden the term beyond its plain meaning. A party might argue that any system architecture that allows an administrator to access student-identified feedback, while shielding it from the teacher, falls within the scope.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explains that making the ratings non-anonymous to the administration serves to "discourage inappropriate ratings and to address any issues that may arise from the ratings" ('299 Patent, col. 6:51-55). This purpose could be used to argue for a narrower construction tied to a specific, active process of revealing identity for administrative oversight, rather than just passive accessibility of data.

"evaluation server"

Context and Importance

The claim is written from the perspective of an "evaluation server" performing all key method steps. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Accused Product is a modern software platform, which may be architected as a distributed system rather than a monolithic server. The case may turn on whether "evaluation server" is construed to cover such distributed systems.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server in functional terms, stating it "runs a software application operably coupled to database" ('299 Patent, col. 13:38-40) and can be accessed over a network like the internet (col. 13:34-36), which could support an interpretation covering any combination of hardware and software that performs the recited functions.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 7 depicts a "COMPUTER SYSTEM 704" containing a "SERVER 706" and a "DATABASE 708" as distinct but coupled components. A party might argue this figure suggests a more centralized architecture, potentially limiting the scope of what constitutes the "evaluation server."

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶31). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, as supported by the prayer for relief's request for enhanced damages (Compl. p. 10, ¶f).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: does the Moodle platform's alleged administrative "control" over student feedback (Compl. ¶25) perform the specific function of "revealing said student identity to said administrator client," as required by Claim 7, or is there a technical mismatch between the general ability to view data and the specific revealing function claimed?
• A second key issue will be one of actor attribution: does the accused "evaluation server" perform the "correlating" step as the claim requires, or does the complaint’s own allegation that "a teacher can correlate the score" (Compl. ¶26) fatally undermine its infringement theory by attributing a claimed step to the wrong actor?
• Finally, the case may involve a question of definitional scope: can the term "evaluation server," as described in the 2012-priority-date patent, be construed to read on a modern, potentially distributed learning platform, or is its meaning limited to a more centralized server architecture as arguably depicted in the patent's figures?