Syslore Oy v. Grammarly Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Syslore Oy (Finland)
  • Defendant: Grammarly, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01142, D. Del., 08/27/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Grammarly Grammar Check" system infringes a patent related to a method and system for error-correcting user-submitted service requests.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns self-learning systems that identify and correct errors in user inputs by comparing them against a memory of previously successful requests.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this matter and does not reference prior litigation, licensing history, or related administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,458,143 - “METHOD OF AND A SYSTEM FOR ERROR CORRECTION OF SERVICE REQUESTS IN AN INFORMATION SYSTEM”

• Issued: June 4, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art information systems where a user must transmit a service request using a predetermined, correct syntax (Compl. ¶15; ’143 Patent, col. 1:37-41). If the user makes a typing error or does not know the correct syntax, the system cannot identify the requested service, leading to a failure and poor user-friendliness (’143 Patent, col. 1:41-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a "self-learning error correction capability" (’143 Patent, col. 2:4-5). The system maintains a memory that stores only service requests that have previously led to a successful outcome (Compl. ¶19; ’143 Patent, col. 2:5-10). When a new, potentially incorrect service request is received, the system can correct it by "utilizing the content of these stored service requests," for instance by finding the closest match in the memory of known-good requests (’143 Patent, col. 2:16-18; col. 3:36-42). This allows the system to automatically adapt as new services are added without manual updates (’143 Patent, col. 2:10-16).
• Technical Importance: The described approach was intended to improve the "user friendliness of an information system" by making it robust to common user input errors, ensuring the user could receive the desired service even after making a mistake (’143 Patent, col. 1:49-51, col. 1:65-col. 2:3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶21).
• Claim 8 describes an "error correction device" comprising:
  • a memory containing only service requests whose contents are correct
  • the device is arranged to correct a received service request by utilizing information stored in the memory
  • the device is arranged to receive and store, in the memory, service requests which have led to successful identification of a requested service
  • the device is arranged to correct the contents of a received service request by utilizing the service requests stored in the memory whose requested new services have been successfully identified
  • the device is arranged to transmit the corrected service request for further processing

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Grammarly Grammar Check" system (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is a system that "enables error correction" (Compl. ¶32). The infringement allegations are primarily based on the product's use "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶¶33-38). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the Accused Product's grammar and spelling correction algorithms operate, instead asserting in a conclusory manner that its functions map to the elements of the asserted patent claim (Compl. ¶¶33-38). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶32). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

’143 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "service request." The ’143 Patent provides examples such as requests to download logos or ringtones using keywords like "LOGO" or "TONE" (’143 Patent, col. 2:60-64). This raises the question of whether the term, in the context of the patent, can be construed to read on user-submitted text for grammatical analysis, as is the function of the Accused Product.
• Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the Accused Product meets the claim limitations without providing evidence of its underlying technical operation. A key question will be whether the Accused Product actually uses a "memory containing only service requests whose contents are correct" to perform corrections. It is plausible that a modern grammar correction system learns from a vast corpus of text that includes both correct and incorrect examples, which may create a technical mismatch with the specific mechanism required by Claim 8.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "service request"

Context and Importance

The construction of this term appears dispositive. The patent's viability against the Accused Product depends on whether a "service request" can encompass general user text submitted for grammar checking, or if it is limited to a more specific type of request for a discrete digital good or service.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not narrowly define the term, which a plaintiff may argue supports a broad, plain-and-ordinary meaning covering any user input seeking a system response.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples of service requests tied to specific keywords for discrete services, such as "LOGO GALAXY" to download a logo or "TONE SUPERE" for a ringtone (’143 Patent, col. 3:44-46). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term's scope to such transactional requests.

Term: "memory containing only service requests whose contents are correct"

Context and Importance

The word "only" is a critical limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the Accused Product's learning model or memory includes data derived from incorrect inputs (e.g., for purposes of identifying common errors), it may not meet this claim element.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "correct" simply means any request that ultimately resolved to a successful outcome, regardless of the intermediate data used.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "This memory will thus include only those service requests whose contents are correct, as they have all previously led to successful identification of the requested service" (’143 Patent, col. 2:7-10). This language suggests a memory that is affirmatively exclusive of incorrect or failed requests, potentially supporting a narrower interpretation that the accused system's memory must be similarly exclusive.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a claim for induced infringement, alleging Defendant encouraged acts that constituted infringement (Compl. ¶44). The pleading does not specify the factual basis for this encouragement, such as through user manuals or marketing materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶42). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willfulness rather than asserting pre-suit knowledge.

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

This case appears to center on two fundamental questions that will require judicial determination:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "service request," which the patent describes in the context of requesting discrete mobile services like logos and ringtones, be construed to cover sentences and phrases submitted to a sophisticated grammar and style-checking engine?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the Grammarly system, which likely relies on complex natural language processing models, actually function according to the specific, sequential method of Claim 8? In particular, discovery will likely focus on whether the Accused Product utilizes a "memory containing only" previously successful inputs to make corrections, or if its learning and correction mechanisms are fundamentally different from what the patent describes.