Safe IP LLC v. Proctorio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Safe IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Proctorio, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00920, D. Del., 07/11/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s incorporation in Delaware and its business activities within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s plagiarism detection systems and services infringe a patent related to using internet search results to evaluate the commonality of text elements.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of automated plagiarism detection, specifically aiming to differentiate between illicit copying and benign textual similarities by assessing how frequently a given text element appears on the internet.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of the lawsuit's filing date, forming the basis for allegations of post-suit indirect and willful infringement. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend these allegations if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.

Case Timeline

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"

• Patent Identification: 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: Prior art plagiarism detection systems could identify textual correlations between two documents but relied on "subjective determinations" to decide if the correlation constituted actual plagiarism. The patent notes that correlations can arise for innocent reasons, such as the use of common third-party source code, widely used algorithms, or code generated by automated tools (’375 Patent, col. 4:33-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to provide an objective measure of commonality. It takes an "element" (such as a line of code or a phrase) that is common to two documents and uses an internet search engine to determine the number of "hits" for that element. A high number of hits suggests the element is common and its appearance is not due to copying, 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 displays the element alongside its hit count for a user to evaluate (’375 Patent, Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: The technology seeks to add a layer of objective data to plagiarism analysis by leveraging the vast corpus of the internet to contextualize the uniqueness of a given piece of text (’375 Patent, col. 6:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-15, which include method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium claims (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1 and 11 are asserted.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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, which searches a plurality of sources for hits.
  • Receiving the number of 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."
• The complaint does not specifically identify any dependent claims for assertion but makes a general allegation against claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "one or more plagiarism detection system systems" that Defendant offers for sale, sells, and manufactures (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly characterizes the accused products as "plagiarism detection system systemS" and related services that "provide question and answer services across the Internet" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint does not describe the specific technical operation of the accused systems. The prayer for relief also refers to "camera systems for monitoring a driver," a functionality not directly addressed in the infringement allegations related to the '375 patent (Compl. ¶ V.a).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "attached exemplary claim chart" to support its allegations, but this exhibit was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶9). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

'375 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping features of the accused Proctorio systems to the elements of the asserted claims. A central question will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused systems perform the highly specific workflow recited in Claim 1: identifying a common text element, querying a public internet search engine with that element, and displaying a raw hit count to the user.
• Scope Questions: The prayer for relief seeks judgment related to "camera systems for monitoring a driver" (Compl. ¶ V.a). This raises the question of how, if at all, such a system relates to the claimed invention, which is directed to detecting plagiarism in text documents. This discrepancy may indicate a drafting error or a yet-unexplained theory of infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "search engine"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the scope of the core infringing act. The patent specification explicitly provides "the Yahoo!® search engine" and "the Google™ search engine" as examples (’375 Patent, col. 8:1-6). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to public, third-party internet search engines or could also read on proprietary, internal search tools that index a large but closed corpus of documents.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "search engine" without explicit limitation to a public or third-party service (’375 Patent, cl. 1). The patent also mentions searching a "plurality of sources," which could arguably include sources beyond the public internet.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s only concrete examples are public internet search engines (’375 Patent, col. 8:1-6). The patent's title and description repeatedly refer to searching "the Internet" (’375 Patent, Title; col. 6:43), which may support an interpretation limiting the "search engine" to one that queries the public web.

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

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the required output of the claimed method. The dispute will likely center on what it means to display something "as an indication" of plagiarism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it contains functional language that could be a point of non-infringement if the accused system presents data without the claimed purpose.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that merely displaying the element and its hit count, as shown in the spreadsheet of Figure 11, inherently serves as an "indication" for the user to interpret, without requiring an explicit label from the system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that the system must do more than just present data; it must frame the data in the context of a plagiarism determination. The patent states that elements with many hits "can usually be explained" as common terms, while those with few hits present a "significant chance" of copying, suggesting the display is meant to directly inform this specific judgment (’375 Patent, col. 4:33-41; col. 6:55-59).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages and instructs customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11). The allegations are stated in general terms, without reference to specific instructional materials or marketing documents.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the '375 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11). This supports a claim for post-suit willfulness only.

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: Does the accused Proctorio system actually perform the specific, sequential method claimed—namely, taking a common text element found in two documents, querying an external search engine to obtain a raw popularity "hit count," and displaying that count to the user to help assess plagiarism? The complaint's lack of factual detail makes this the primary issue for discovery.
2. A key issue of claim construction will be the definition of "search engine". The case may turn on whether this term is limited to the public internet search engines exemplified in the patent or can be construed more broadly to cover proprietary search systems operating over different document corpora.
3. A threshold question of pleading sufficiency arises from the complaint's sparse factual content and the apparent disconnect between the patent's technology (textual plagiarism) and the reference to "camera systems for monitoring a driver" in the prayer for relief. The court may need to resolve whether the infringement theory is plausible as pled and what the actual scope of the accused instrumentality is.