Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. GetResponse Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: GetResponse, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O’KELLY & ERNST, LLC; RABICOFF LAW LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02218, D. Del., 12/03/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to the synchronized start of interactive applications for multiple users.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of enabling large numbers of users on a network to begin an interactive program, such as a game, at the same time.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The claim of willfulness is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the present lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-12-04	’889 Patent Priority Date
2004-10-19	’889 Patent Issued
2019-12-03	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,806,889, "Interactive applications," issued October 19, 2004.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional interactive systems where it can take a significant amount of time for each user interface to download the necessary application data. If a user attempts to join a scheduled event shortly before it begins, they may not have enough time to download the data and will miss the start of the application (’889 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-step process to solve this problem. First, it transmits the "application data" (e.g., the rules and code for a game) to users' devices ahead of time. Second, at the scheduled moment, it transmits a separate "real time start signal" to all user interfaces, which enables the interactive application to begin "substantially simultaneously at each user interface" (’889 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-8). This decouples the data download from the synchronized start time, ensuring all participants can begin together. Figure 3 illustrates this, showing a "BEFORE Real Time Start" phase and an "AFTER Real Time Start" phase initiated at a specific time (’889 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This method was designed to facilitate large-scale, simultaneous participation in interactive events, such as live quiz games or betting applications broadcast over television networks, by ensuring a fair and synchronized start for all users (’889 Patent, col. 1:37-41; col. 2:37-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '889 Patent Claims" contained in an exhibit, but does not specify which claims are asserted in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 3 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 3 (Method):
  • transmitting application data to the remote user interfaces, associated with the interactive application, the interactive application relating to a television program which is broadcast while the interactive application is running;
  • transmitting electronic program guide data to the user interfaces, the electronic program guide data indicating the scheduled start time of the television program; and
  • transmitting a real time start signal to the user interface, the real time start signal causing the interactive applications to begin at a time after the scheduled start time and at the same time, at each user interface that selected the interactive application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims of the '889 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "the GetResponse products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11). These are referred to as the "Exemplary GetResponse Products."

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '889 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '889 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific features, operation, or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations, including claim charts, are incorporated by reference from an "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint states that these charts compare the "Exemplary '889 Patent Claims to the Exemplary GetResponse Products" and allege that the products "satisfy all elements" of those claims (Compl. ¶17). Without the exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent's focus and the general nature of the defendant, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the defendant’s marketing automation services constitute an "interactive application relating to a television program" as recited in claim 3. The court may need to determine if the patent's claims, which are described in the context of interactive television and games (’889 Patent, col. 1:10-16), can be construed to cover modern web-based marketing platforms.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over whether the accused products perform the claimed two-step process. Specifically, what evidence will show that the products transmit "application data" separately from, and prior to, a distinct "real time start signal" that causes a simultaneous start of an application across multiple user interfaces, as opposed to simply scheduling the delivery of content like an email.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "interactive application"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of the patent. Its construction will determine whether the patent is limited to the types of applications described in the specification (games, quizzes) or can cover a broader range of software, such as the defendant's marketing platform. Practitioners may focus on this term because the alleged infringement appears to depend on applying a term rooted in one technical context (interactive TV) to another (email marketing).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any software that involves user interaction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses "interactive application" in the context of "interactive games," "pool betting game," and "quiz game" that are often associated with a "broadcast TV programme" (’889 Patent, col. 1:9-12; col. 2:37-52). This context could support a narrower construction limited to entertainment or broadcast-related applications.

• The Term: "real time start signal"

• Context and Importance: This signal is the triggering mechanism for the claimed simultaneous start. The dispute may turn on whether scheduling a task (e.g., an email campaign) for a specific time is equivalent to the patent's concept of transmitting a distinct, synchronizing signal to active user interfaces.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could allow for it to cover any data transmission that initiates a pre-loaded process at a specific time.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the signal as being transmitted from a "central controller" to cause all participating devices "to initiate the application at the same time" after the application data has already been downloaded (’889 Patent, col. 6:10-23). This may imply a specific broadcast-style command sent to synchronize active sessions, rather than a pre-scheduled, asynchronous content delivery.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that GetResponse sells its products to customers for use in an infringing manner and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on this infringing use (Compl. ¶¶14-16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on post-suit conduct. It pleads that the filing of the complaint provided Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "interactive application" and "real time start signal", which are described in the patent's specification in the context of synchronous, multi-user television games, be construed to cover the features and functions of a modern marketing automation platform?
• A second central issue will be evidentiary: as the complaint's specific infringement theory is contained within an unprovided exhibit, a key question for the litigation will be what factual evidence the plaintiff can present to demonstrate that the accused products technically perform the specific, ordered steps of the asserted method claims, particularly the separate transmission of application data followed by a distinct, synchronizing start signal.