DCT
3:15-cv-00164
Aatrix Software Inc v. Greenshades Software Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aatrix Software, Inc. (North Dakota)
- Defendant: Greenshades Software, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. (with Briggs and Morgan, P.A. as Of Counsel)
- Case Identification: 3:15-cv-00164, M.D. Fla., 05/15/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant's principal place of business is located in Jacksonville, Florida, within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tax form software products infringe patents related to systems and methods for creating, populating, and filing electronic forms that replicate paper originals.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns software for generating electronic versions of official forms (e.g., tax forms), populating them with data from external applications like payroll systems, and facilitating electronic filing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff notified Defendant of its patents and infringement concerns. It also states that the parties entered into an agreement permitting Plaintiff to examine and analyze Defendant’s software. The '393 Patent is a continuation of the application that led to the '615 Patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-26 | Priority Date for '615 and '393 Patents |
| 2007-01-30 | U.S. Patent 7,171,615 Issued |
| 2014-11-17 | Date of a letter from Defendant's counsel mentioned in the complaint |
| 2015-01-15 | Notice of Allowance issued for '393 Patent application |
| 2015-03-17 | U.S. Patent 8,984,393 Issued |
| 2015-05-15 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,171,615 - "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Filing Forms"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,615, "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Filing Forms", issued January 30, 2007. (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the process of creating "on screen" computer forms as a "fairly time consuming process" for programmers, who had to write code to define the placement and properties of all text entry boxes. ('615 Patent, col. 1:18-22). Prior solutions using graphic images or Adobe's PDF format were noted to "generate significantly larger files." ('615 Patent, col. 1:49-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a data processing system that separates the form's structure from the user's data. It uses a "form file" to model the visual layout and calculation rules of an original paper form, a separate "data file" (the Aatrix Universal File or "AUF") to import data from an external application, and a "form viewer" program to merge the two, perform calculations, and allow the user to review, edit, and file the resulting electronic form. ('615 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-29).
- Technical Importance: This system allowed forms to be "developed completely independent of programmers," enabling non-coders to create and update a large library of government forms that were smaller, more accurate, and cross-platform compatible. ('615 Patent, col. 1:60-62, 2:16-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted; this analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) includes these essential elements:
- A "form file" that models the physical representation and rules of an original paper form.
- A "form file creation program" that imports a background image of an original form and allows a user to adjust it to create the form file.
- A "data file" containing data from a user application to populate the form.
- A "form viewer program" that operates on the form file and data file to perform calculations, allow user review and changes, and create viewable forms and reports.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,984,393 - "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Filing Forms"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,984,393, "Method and Apparatus for Creating and Filing Forms", issued March 17, 2015. (Compl. ¶16).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Sharing a specification with the '615 patent, the '393 patent addresses the same problem of inefficient, programmer-dependent methods for creating electronic forms for payroll and tax software. ('393 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for creating and using a viewable electronic form. The method comprises steps of: converting a paper form into a "form file" that models the original and contains data fields; importing data from an end-user application to populate those fields; performing calculations on the imported data; allowing the user to review and change the data; and outputting the final viewable form. ('393 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:33-50).
- Technical Importance: The described method facilitates the rapid, cross-platform development of government-compliant forms that can be supported by various accounting applications through a published standard file format, decoupling form creation from application development. ('393 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted; this analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) includes these essential steps:
- Executing a program to convert a paper form into a "form file" comprising a model of the paper form with calculations, rules, and a data field.
- Importing data from an end user application into a data file and populating the data field.
- Performing calculations on the imported data.
- Allowing a user to review and change the imported data.
- Outputting the viewable form.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the Greenshades Tax Filing Center ("TFC") and the Greenshades Payroll Tax Service ("PTS"). (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The TFC is described as an "installed software package" that was acquired and analyzed by the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶5-6).
- The PTS is described as "software accessed and used over the Internet," functioning as a web service hosted on servers. (Compl. ¶5, ¶12).
- Plaintiff alleges that the PTS software "contains the same material structures as the TFC software," with the primary difference being the web-based delivery model of the PTS. (Compl. ¶8). The functionality of both products, inferred from the context of the complaint, involves the creation and filing of tax forms. (Compl. ¶5).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement without detailing a specific infringement theory or mapping accused product features to claim limitations. The following tables are based on inferences of Plaintiff's likely infringement theory, drawn from the general descriptions of the accused products.
'615 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) a form file that models the physical representation of an original paper form and establishes the calculations and rule conditions... | The TFC and PTS software systems are alleged to use a file or data structure that defines the layout and logic of tax forms. | ¶5, ¶10 | col. 3:5-13 |
| (b) a form file creation program that imports a background image from an original form, allows a user to adjust and... creates the form file; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | -- | col. 3:32-46 |
| (c) a data file containing data from a user application for populating the viewable form; and | The TFC and PTS products are alleged to be tax filing software, which implies they import data to populate forms. | ¶5, ¶12 | col. 3:15-22 |
| (d) a form viewer program operating on the form file and the data file, to perform calculations, allow the user... to review and change... | The TFC and PTS products provide a user interface to display, interact with, and file the populated tax forms. | ¶6, ¶12 | col. 3:23-29 |
'393 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) executing the program to convert a paper form into a form file... comprising a model of the paper form, establishing calculations and rule conditions... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | -- | col. 19:36-42 |
| (b) importing data exported from an end user application into a data file and populating the data field... with the imported data; | The TFC and PTS products are alleged to be tax filing software, which implies a step of importing user data to populate forms. | ¶5, ¶17 | col. 19:43-45 |
| (c) performing the calculations on the imported data in the data field; | As tax software, TFC and PTS would necessarily perform calculations on the imported data to complete the forms. | ¶5, ¶17 | col. 9:12-28 |
| (d) allowing the user on the digital computer to review and change the imported data; and | The TFC and PTS products provide a user interface for reviewing and interacting with form data before filing. | ¶6, ¶17 | col. 9:33-39 |
| (e) outputting the viewable form. | The TFC and PTS products allegedly enable the output of completed forms for filing or printing. | ¶5, ¶17 | col. 13:29-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. A central point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence from its analysis (Compl. ¶6-7) to demonstrate how the accused TFC and PTS systems actually operate and map that operation to the specific claim limitations.
- Scope Questions: A likely dispute will concern the scope of the term "form file." The question is whether the data structures used by Defendant's software meet the patent's definition of a file that "models the physical representation of an original paper form" ('615 Patent, col. 3:5-8), or if the accused system uses a fundamentally different architecture.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no facts regarding Defendant's process for creating its form templates. This raises the question of whether Defendant's process involves a "form file creation program that imports a background image" ('615 Patent, claim 1(b)) or a method of "convert[ing] a paper form into a form file" ('393 Patent, claim 1(a)), as required by the respective independent claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "form file"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is foundational to the claimed invention. It defines the data object that separates a form's layout and logic from the user's data. The case's outcome may depend on whether the accused software's architectural components fall within the adjudicated scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the form file "directs the program in producing a replica of the original form" and models not only the "physical representation" but also the "calculations and rule conditions." ('615 Patent, col. 3:5-11). This language could support a construction covering any data structure that stores form layout and logic, regardless of its creation method.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of creating the form file specifies a process of "scanning, or otherwise digitally capturing an image of the original form and saving it as a background image." ('615 Patent, col. 3:42-46). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "form file" to be derived from a digitized image of a physical paper document.
The Term: "data file"
Context and Importance: This term, also central to the claims, defines the container for user data that is separate from the "form file." The architectural distinction between these two files is a core inventive concept. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the way the accused products handle user data constitutes infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '615 Patent broadly recites "a data file containing data from a user application for populating the viewable form." ('615 Patent, col. 20:3-4). This could be argued to encompass any method of receiving data, such as via an API call or a temporary data stream, not just a persistent file.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the data file as the "Aatrix Universal File (AUF)" and describes it as an "ASCII text file" that contains "only the data for a selected reporting period based on the guidelines programmed into the forms." ('615 Patent, col. 3:15-22; col. 10:59-62). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, structured file that is pre-filtered according to the specific form's requirements.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. For the '615 Patent, it alleges on "information and belief" that Defendant has known of the patent since its issue date and that Plaintiff also provided actual notice. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). For the '393 Patent, it alleges knowledge since its issue date and also alleges pre-suit notice based on Plaintiff providing Defendant with a copy of the patent's Notice of Allowance. (Compl. ¶15, ¶18, ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency vs. Pleading Standards: A threshold issue is whether the complaint's conclusory allegations can survive a motion to dismiss. Beyond that, a central question for the litigation is evidentiary: can Aatrix produce technical evidence, not present in its complaint, to demonstrate that the specific architecture and operational steps of the Greenshades TFC and PTS products meet each limitation of the asserted claims?
- Architectural Equivalence: A key technical dispute will likely be one of architectural mapping. Does the Greenshades software employ the patented two-file structure—a "form file" for layout and logic, separate from a "data file" for user-specific information—or does it utilize a different, non-infringing architecture for rendering and populating forms?
- The Scope of "Creation": A critical question, particularly for claim 1 of the '615 patent, will be the scope of the creation process. The case may turn on whether Greenshades's internal software development process for its form templates involves the claimed steps of using a "background image" of a paper form, or if the claim term can be construed more broadly to cover modern, image-free methods of software-based form design.