Safe IP LLC v. Copyleaks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Safe IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Copyleaks, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00918, D. Del., 07/11/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts substantial business in the state, and where alleged acts of infringement occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s plagiarism detection systems and services infringe a patent related to using internet search results to determine the commonality of text elements found between documents.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a method for objectively assessing the novelty of shared text between two documents by querying its frequency on the internet, a field relevant to academic institutions and content creators concerned with originality.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff owns the patent-in-suit by assignment. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-10-17	’375 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-26	’375 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-11	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,043,375 - SEARCHING THE INTERNET FOR COMMON ELEMENTS IN A DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO DETECT PLAGIARISM, issued May 26, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a shortcoming in prior art plagiarism detection tools, which could identify textual similarities between two documents but required a "subjective" determination to distinguish actual plagiarism from benign correlations. Benign correlations could arise from legitimate sources such as the use of common third-party source code, widely taught algorithms, or code generated by development tools (’375 Patent, col. 3:33-4:24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to aid this determination by adding a layer of objective data. For an element of text found to be common between two documents, the system searches the internet to determine the element's frequency of occurrence, or "hit count" (’375 Patent, Abstract). A high number of hits suggests the element is a common term, while a very low or zero hit count suggests a "significant chance that the correlation of the programs is due to copying" (’375 Patent, col. 6:55-59). The system then presents these findings, for example in a spreadsheet, to a user for analysis (’375 Patent, Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a quantitative, data-driven approach to help differentiate between coincidental textual overlap and potential plagiarism, thereby aiming to reduce false positives in automated similarity reports (’375 Patent, col. 4:21-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus) are foundational.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method comprising the core steps of:
  • Reading an "element" from a "matching element database," where the element is text determined to exist in both a first and second file.
  • Sending the element to a search engine.
  • Receiving a "number of the hits" from the search engine.
  • Displaying the element and its hit count to a user "as an indication of whether or not the correlation is due to plagiarism." (’375 Patent, col. 11:36-54).
• Independent Claim 11 recites an apparatus with a memory and a processor configured to perform the same essential steps as method claim 1 (’375 Patent, col. 12:45-66).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert the remaining dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "one or more plagiarism detection system systems" and related services offered for sale by Copyleaks (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products are used for plagiarism detection and are offered for sale throughout Texas and the judicial district of Delaware (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or features of the accused Copyleaks products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "attached exemplary claim chart" as support for its infringement allegations; however, no such chart was filed as an exhibit with the complaint (Compl. ¶9). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Copyleaks’ plagiarism detection systems directly infringe by performing the methods claimed in the ’375 Patent (Compl. ¶8). The central theory appears to be that the accused systems identify common text between documents, query a search engine to determine the frequency of that text online, and present that frequency information to the end-user as part of a plagiarism analysis report. A notable discrepancy exists in the prayer for relief, which requests judgment based on infringement via "camera systems for monitoring a driver," language that appears unrelated to the patent-in-suit and may be a drafting error (Compl. ¶V.a).

Identified Points of Contention:

• Evidentiary Question: A central question will be whether discovery can produce evidence that the accused Copyleaks system performs the specific sequence of claimed steps. Does the system, after identifying a textual match between two documents, then automatically send that specific text as a query to an external internet search engine and receive back a numerical "hit count"?
• Technical Question: Assuming the system does perform a search, what evidence does the complaint provide that the results are displayed "as an indication of whether or not the correlation is due to plagiarism" as required by the claims? The dispute may focus on whether simply showing a number of search results next to a matched phrase, within the context of a plagiarism tool, meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "matching element database"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in both independent claims, defines the source of the text element to be searched. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the accused system's internal data structures for handling textual similarities fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition. A party could argue the term should be read broadly to cover any organized data structure, whether stored persistently or transiently in memory, that contains text found to be common between files (’375 Patent, col. 7:18-22).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term requires a more formal, persistent database file, as depicted separately in the system architecture (e.g., "Matching Element Database 910" in Fig. 9) and referenced as a distinct entity in the process flowchart (e.g., step 1202 in Fig. 12).

The Term: "displaying... as an indication of whether or not the correlation is due to plagiarism"

• Context and Importance: This limitation describes the purpose and context of the final output presented to the user. The infringement analysis for this element will be critical, as it links the technical act of displaying a number to the ultimate purpose of plagiarism detection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the number of hits helps determine if terms are "commonly used or not," which in turn informs the plagiarism analysis (’375 Patent, col. 4:42-45). An argument could be made that displaying a hit count within a plagiarism report inherently serves this "indicative" function, even without explicit labels.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific about the purpose of the display. The patent’s description of how to interpret the results (e.g., "elements that have large number of hits are definitely common terms" versus "elements that have 0 hits can be determined to not be the result of third party source code") could support an argument that the "display" must provide this interpretive context, not just a raw number (’375 Patent, col. 9:5-12).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Copyleaks encourages and instructs customers on how to use its products to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶10). The contributory infringement claim adds a conclusory allegation that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’375 Patent and its infringement "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11). The complaint reserves the right to amend and allege pre-suit knowledge if revealed in discovery (Compl. p. 3, fn. 1).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidence and operational reality: Can Plaintiff, through discovery, bridge the factual gap in its complaint and demonstrate that the accused Copyleaks system technically operates in the manner required by the claims—specifically, by taking a matched text element, querying it against a public internet search engine, and displaying the resulting numerical hit count?
• A key legal and factual question will be one of functional framing: Does the accused system's user interface merely present search frequency data, or does it frame that data in a way that satisfies the claim limitation of "displaying... as an indication of whether or not the correlation is due to plagiarism"? The case may turn on whether the inherent context of a plagiarism report is sufficient to meet this requirement.
• Finally, a procedural question may arise regarding the complaint’s sufficiency and accuracy, given the absence of the referenced claim chart and the inclusion of seemingly erroneous language in the prayer for relief regarding "camera systems," which may necessitate an amendment.