DCT
1:24-cv-00257
Keysoft Inc v. Salesforce Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Keysoft, Inc. (Japan)
- Defendant: Salesforce, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00257, D. Del., 02/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Salesforce is a Delaware corporation and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) applications infringe a patent related to systems for utilizing personal and purchasing information to identify potential customers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for cross-referencing customer purchase histories from one context (e.g., a first commodity) to identify them as likely customers for a different but related context (e.g., a second commodity).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventor met with an employee of Salesforce's Japanese subsidiary on March 10, 2015, and provided a printed copy of the patent-in-suit, which may be used to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-05 | ’315 Patent Priority Date (PCT/JP02/11502) |
| 2009-01-01 | Alleged commercial launch of Salesforce CRM applications (at least as early as) |
| 2012-09-18 | ’315 Patent Issued |
| 2015-03-10 | Alleged actual notice of ’315 Patent provided to Salesforce |
| 2024-02-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,271,315, Personal Information Utilization Systems and Personal Information Utilization Program For Commodity Based Identification, Issued Sep. 18, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a commercial "inconvenience" where different service providers (e.g., a real estate vendor, a furniture vendor, a bedding vendor) do not share customer information. This results in missed opportunities and "miss-timing" of marketing efforts, as they cannot identify prospective customers at the ideal moment, such as when a person purchases a new house and is therefore likely to need furniture and bedding (’315 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system where "personal information" and "commodity provision information" (i.e., data about goods or services provided to a person) are stored (’315 Patent, Abstract). A second provider, seeking new customers, can query the system using information about a second commodity as a "key." The system checks this query against the stored information on a first commodity, identifies individuals who are a match (e.g., people who recently bought a house), and provides their personal information to the second provider for targeted marketing (’315 Patent, col. 2:53-65; Fig. 7). This is intended to improve the "quality of service for customers by sharing and utilizing personal information on customers among variety of industries" (’315 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The described approach represents an early model for data-driven, cross-industry marketing, aiming to predict consumer needs based on past transactional data from disparate sources (’315 Patent, col. 1:42-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system) and 2 (a non-transitory computer-readable medium) (Compl. ¶33).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A system with a personal information storage means, a communication means, and a processor.
- The storage means stores personal information for multiple people and "first commodity provision information" from a "first commodity provider."
- The processor is configured to:
- Receive "second commodity provision information" from a "second commodity provider" that is different from the first.
- Check the second information against the first.
- Identify a person associated with the first information by using the second information as a key where they "at least partially coincide."
- Read out at least a portion of the identified person's personal information.
- Transmit that personal information to the second provider's terminal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Salesforce's CRM applications, including but not limited to Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, and Marketing Cloud (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these CRM applications are a "solution for storing and managing prospect and customer information, like contact info, accounts, leads, and sales opportunities — all in one central location" (Compl. ¶18). This stored information can include purchase histories, inquiries, and communications (Compl. ¶20).
- The system allegedly allows users to filter contact databases to find prospects and "deliver insights into what customers are talking about" by "checking and comparing the respective customer information to identify similarities in purchases and interests" (Compl. ¶21). Upon identifying such similarities, the system provides the customer information to the user to "help develop, manage and marketing campaigns" (Compl. ¶22).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element infringement analysis mapping specific product functions to claim limitations. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the general product descriptions provided in the complaint.
’315 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A personal information utilization system comprising: a personal information storage means; a communication means; and a processor... | The accused Salesforce CRM applications (Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud) are alleged to be the infringing system. | ¶15, ¶39 | col. 14:15-21 |
| said personal information storage means storing personal information of a plurality of information disclosing persons and storing first commodity provision information pertaining to a first commodity provided to at least one of the plurality... by a first commodity provider | The CRM applications store customer and prospect information, including contact info, accounts, leads, purchase histories, and inquiries, in a centralized database. | ¶18, ¶20 | col. 14:21-28 |
| receiving second commodity provision information from a second commodity provider that is different than the first commodity provider... the second commodity provision information including at least one of an attribute of the first commodity... | A Salesforce user (the "second provider") allegedly provides search/filter criteria (the "second commodity provision information") to find prospects within the CRM database. | ¶21 | col. 14:29-37 |
| checking said received second commodity provision information against the first commodity provision information; | The CRM system allegedly checks and compares customer information to identify similarities in purchases and interests based on the user's query. | ¶21 | col. 14:38-40 |
| identifying, as a result of said checking, at least one specific information disclosing person... said identifying by using the second commodity provision information as a key such that the second commodity provision information at least partially coincides... | Upon finding similarities, the system allegedly retrieves the identity of the associated customers or prospects who match the query. | ¶22 | col. 14:41-49 |
| reading out at least a portion of the personal information of said at least one specifically identified information disclosing person from said personal information storage means; and transmitting said read out at least a portion of the personal information... | The system allegedly provides the identified customer information to the user to help develop and manage marketing campaigns. | ¶22 | col. 14:50-55 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement occurs within a single Salesforce customer's CRM instance. A question arises whether a user (e.g., a salesperson) within a company can be a "second commodity provider" that is "different than the first commodity provider" (the company itself, which owns the stored data), given the patent's focus on sharing data "among variety of industries" (’315 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Questions: What specific Salesforce functionality constitutes "receiving second commodity provision information"? The complaint suggests a user's search query fulfills this limitation (Compl. ¶21). A factual dispute may arise over whether a search query meets the claim's definition of "commodity provision information," which is tied to an "attribute of the first commodity or information pertinent to providing the first commodity" (’315 Patent, col. 14:35-37).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "commodity provision information"
- Context and Importance: This non-standard term is the core of the invention, defining the data being stored and searched. Its construction will determine whether a user's search query within a CRM system can be considered the "second commodity provision information" and whether the stored customer purchase data is the "first commodity provision information" as required by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the term means "information pertinent to commodity service," including "attribute information on commodity (service) and information on a provider of commodity (service)" (’315 Patent, col. 2:18-22). The inclusion of "service" and the general phrasing could support a broad reading that includes more than just records of physical goods.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary examples involve linking discrete, historical purchase events (a house, a blanket, furniture) (’315 Patent, col. 1:30-41, col. 2:23-24). The defendant may argue that the term requires a record of a specific, completed transaction provided to a consumer, not merely abstract search criteria entered by a user.
The Term: "first commodity provider" / "second commodity provider that is different than the first commodity provider"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory appears to rely on a single company's use of its own CRM data. The definition of "different" providers is therefore critical. If it requires separate legal entities, the plaintiff's theory as applied to a single Salesforce customer may face challenges.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the providers must be from different companies. One could argue different departments or even different employees within a single enterprise could be considered "different" providers in a functional sense.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's stated object is to "improve quality of service for customers by sharing and utilizing personal information on customers among variety of industries" (’315 Patent, Abstract). The background repeatedly emphasizes sharing data "among a plurality of providers" to solve a problem that arises when vendors in different industries cannot coordinate (’315 Patent, col. 1:25-46). This context strongly suggests the invention was conceived for interoperability between distinct commercial entities.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Salesforce actively induces its clients to infringe (Compl. ¶41). The factual basis for this allegation would likely rely on Salesforce's product documentation, user manuals, and marketing materials that instruct customers on how to use the allegedly infringing search and filtering functionalities.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and ongoing conduct (Compl. ¶40, ¶42). The primary factual basis for pre-suit knowledge is a meeting alleged to have occurred on March 10, 2015, where the inventor, Mr. Kagiwada, claims to have provided a representative of Salesforce's Japanese subsidiary with a printed copy of the ’315 Patent (Compl. ¶25-27, ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "commodity provision information", which the patent illustrates with historical transaction data like the sale of a blanket, be construed to cover a user's real-time search query within a CRM system?
A second central issue will be the interpretation of "different" providers: Does the claim language, read in light of a specification focused on sharing data "among variety of industries," require the "first" and "second" commodity providers to be distinct legal entities, or can they be different users or departments within the same company using its own data?
A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: The facts surrounding the alleged March 2015 meeting between the inventor and a Salesforce subsidiary employee will be heavily litigated to determine if Salesforce had the requisite knowledge to support the claim for willful infringement.