InstaResponse, LLC v Instructure, Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: InstaResponse, LLC (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Instructure, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01880, D. Del., 10/06/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Canvas Learning Management System infringes a patent related to computer-implemented methods for students to evaluate teacher performance against educational standards.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the educational software sector, providing a framework for collecting and analyzing student feedback on teacher adherence to predefined lesson plans and standards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings 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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299, issued May 24, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a problem where some teachers do not adhere to prescribed educational standards when teaching, 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 computer-implemented method and system that facilitates a feedback loop between students, teachers, and administrators. A server makes educational standards and associated lesson plans available to students, who then use a rating system to evaluate the teacher's performance in teaching according to those standards. The system can then correlate these ratings with other data, such as test scores, and provide analytical information to administrators ('299 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a structured, data-driven mechanism for evaluating teacher effectiveness and accountability based directly on student perceptions of standards-based instruction ('299 Patent, col. 7:10-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 ('299 Patent, col. 17:43 - col. 18:40; Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
  • Receiving an educational standard and a lesson plan from a teacher client.
  • Storing the standard and lesson plan in a database that also stores a student schedule.
  • Receiving a standard selection and lesson plan selection from the teacher client.
  • Assigning the selected standard to the selected lesson plan and associating them with the student schedule.
  • Receiving a login from a student client.
  • Presenting the standard and lesson plan to the student client based on their schedule.
  • Presenting a Likert rating scale to the student.
  • Receiving a rating from the student based on the Likert scale.
  • Storing the rating such that it is anonymous to the teacher but not anonymous to an administrator.
  • Correlating a test score with the rating.
  • Providing a notice to the administrator client based on the correlation.
• The complaint states that the provided infringement analysis is preliminary and reserves the right to modify its theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Canvas Learning Management System" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is described as an online course platform that allows teachers to create lessons based on educational standards and make them available to students (Compl. ¶18). Students can log into the system, view their schedule, and submit feedback or ratings for their courses (Compl. ¶22, ¶23, ¶24). The complaint alleges the system enables a "method for teacher evaluation based on correlations to test score with ratings associated with educational standards" (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 7 of the ’299 Patent. It references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B," which was not filed with the complaint. The following table summarizes the narrative infringement allegations from the complaint body.

'299 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 7 requires "receiving... an educational standard selection and a lesson plan selection from said teacher client" (col. 17:51-53). The complaint alleges this is met because "a database stores different topics... associated with different educational standards" (Compl. ¶20). This raises the question of whether the passive association of topics with standards in a database meets the claim’s requirement for an active step of receiving a selection from a teacher client.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the server to perform the step of "correlating... a test score with said rating" (col. 18:32-33). The complaint alleges that "the server correlates the completed survey with a specific course and a class or a subject" (Compl. ¶27). What evidence the complaint provides that the Accused Product performs the specific function of correlating a test score with a student's subjective rating, as opposed to merely associating a survey with a course, may be a point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "educational standard"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed method. Its construction will determine the breadth of subject matter (e.g., formal government-mandated curricula versus informal teacher-created objectives) that can serve as the basis for the claimed evaluation process.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "standard can outline what a student needs to know, understand and be able to do" ('299 Patent, col. 4:51-52), which could support a general, functional definition not tied to a specific source.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the standard as a "predefined standard of education, such as a list of educational topics/concepts/ideas, as disclosed by a supervisor, an educational organization and/or a governmental body" ('299 Patent, col. 4:38-43). This language could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to more formal, externally-defined standards.

• The Term: "correlating, by said evaluation server, a test score with said rating"

• Context and Importance: This functional step links the subjective student ratings to an objective metric (test scores) and is a critical part of the claimed analytical process. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Accused Product's data association features perform this specific type of correlation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using "analyzed ratings" as a potential explanation for why a group of students "scores poorly on testing" even though the "teacher has covered the tested material," which implies an analytical link between ratings and scores ('299 Patent, col. 7:42-49). This might support a more inferential definition of "correlating."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires a specific action of "correlating... a test score with said rating... wherein said test score is stored in said database" ('299 Patent, col. 18:32-36). This could be interpreted to require a direct computational operation linking two specific data fields (the rating and the score) within the system's database, a potentially higher standard than the complaint’s allegation of correlating a "survey with a specific course" (Compl. ¶27).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or willful infringement. It alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation forms the basis for a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement, as requested in the prayer for relief (Prayer for Relief, ¶f).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the Accused Product’s functionality for associating a student survey with a course perform the specific step of "correlating... a test score with said rating" as required by Claim 7, or is there a material difference in the technical operation?
• A central issue of claim construction will be one of definitional scope: can the term "educational standard" be broadly construed to cover any learning objective, or is it limited by the specification to more formal standards originating from educational or governmental bodies?
• The infringement analysis may also turn on the interpretation of active system steps: for example, does the accused system's storage of topics that are "associated with" standards meet the claim limitation requiring the server to actively "receiv[e]... an educational standard selection and a lesson plan selection from said teacher client"?