DCT

9:07-cv-80286

Perfect Web Tech Inc v. Infousa Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:07-cv-80286, S.D. Fla., 03/29/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including acts of infringement and injury to the Plaintiff, occurred in the district where Plaintiff resides.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for managing and guaranteeing the delivery of bulk e-mail distributions.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses performance and reliability issues in the commercial bulk e-mail industry by creating a system to ensure a minimum number of e-mails are successfully delivered.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent was subject to a Certificate of Correction to amend its title from a generic placeholder to "Method for Managing Bulk E-Mail Distribution." The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-13 ’400 Patent Priority Date
2003-10-07 ’400 Patent Issue Date
2007-03-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,631,400, "Method for Managing Bulk E-Mail Distribution," issued October 7, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art bulk e-mail systems were inefficient because they could not account for outdated e-mail addresses, which led to failed deliveries, and could not control for the timing of delivery, which could cause a marketing e-mail to be "buried" and unread. (’400 Patent, col. 2:1-21). These systems also lacked a mechanism to report on delivery effectiveness or re-transmit e-mails to ensure a campaign reached a sufficient audience. (’400 Patent, col. 2:12-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a marketer can define a target audience and a "prescribed minimum quantity" of successfully delivered e-mails. The system transmits an initial set of e-mails, calculates how many were successfully received, and if the number falls short of the prescribed minimum, it automatically repeats the process by transmitting to a new subset of recipients until the delivery quota is met. (’400 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:22-41). The process, illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 3, creates a feedback loop to guarantee a certain level of campaign performance. (’400 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to introduce a guaranteed performance metric into bulk e-mail marketing, shifting the service from a simple transmission utility to a results-oriented platform. (’400 Patent, col. 7:54-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which ones (Compl. ¶8). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 (method) and 11 (machine-readable storage).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • (A) matching a target recipient profile with a group of target recipients;
    • (B) transmitting a set of bulk e-mails to the target recipients in the matched group;
    • (C) calculating a quantity of e-mails in the set of bulk e-mails which have been successfully received by the target recipients; and
    • (D) repeating steps (A)-(C) if the calculated quantity does not exceed a prescribed minimum quantity, until the minimum is exceeded.
  • Independent claim 11 recites functionally identical steps embodied in a machine-readable storage medium.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service. It alleges that the corporate entity, infoUSA Inc., engages in infringing activities (Compl. ¶8). Consequently, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only a conclusory allegation of infringement and does not map any accused functionality to the claim elements (Compl. ¶8). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Due to the lack of specific infringement allegations, any points of contention are necessarily speculative. However, based on the claim language, future disputes may focus on:
    • Technical Questions: Does the defendant's system perform the specific iterative process claimed? A key evidentiary question will be whether any accused system (1) calculates a quantity of "successfully received" e-mails against a (2) "prescribed minimum quantity," and (3) automatically "repeats" transmission to a new subset of users to meet that specific, pre-set quota.
    • Scope Questions: What is the scope of "successfully received"? Does it mean simply not bounced, or does it require a higher level of delivery confirmation? The interpretation of this term will be critical in determining whether the condition for the "repeating" step is ever met.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "successfully received" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the core inventive step of repeating the transmission. Its definition determines when, or if, the iterative loop of the claim is performed. The dispute will center on what level of delivery confirmation is required to count an e-mail as "successfully received."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term, which may support a plain and ordinary meaning, such as an e-mail that is accepted by the recipient's server and not returned as undeliverable. (’400 Patent, col. 7:17-21).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The doctrine of claim differentiation may be invoked. Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation for calculating the quantity of "e-mails opened by said target recipients." (’400 Patent, col. 8:50-54). A party may argue that because "opened" is a separate, added limitation, "successfully received" in claim 1 must mean something less than opened, reinforcing a broader interpretation based on server delivery logs.

  • The Term: "repeating steps (A)-(C) until said calculated quantity exceeds said prescribed minimum quantity" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the invention’s core feedback loop. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case will likely turn on whether the accused system performs this specific automated, iterative process, or merely allows for manual, ad-hoc re-sends that do not meet the claim's requirements.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any system that re-sends e-mails to compensate for under-delivery to meet a customer's quota performs the "repeating" step, regardless of the level of automation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 3 describe a specific, conditional process: determining a shortfall against a pre-set quantity, selecting a "new subset of target recipients," and transmitting to them to compensate. (’400 Patent, col. 7:29-42; Fig. 3, steps 140, 142). This language may support a narrower construction requiring an automated process triggered by a specific calculated shortfall, rather than an entirely new, manually initiated e-mail campaign.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a bare allegation of indirect infringement without pleading any specific supporting facts, such as acts of inducement or knowledge of infringing use by third parties (Compl. ¶8).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "willful, intentional, and with full knowledge," but provides no factual basis for this assertion, such as pre-suit notice of the patent (’400 Patent, Compl. ¶9).

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

Given the complaint's lack of specificity, the case presents foundational questions of fact and claim scope that must be resolved.

  1. A threshold issue will be one of evidence: what discovery reveals about the technical operation of infoUSA's bulk e-mail systems will be paramount, as the complaint itself offers no insight into the accused functionality.

  2. The central legal question will be one of functional operation: does any accused system practice the specific, automated feedback loop of Claim 1? The case will likely turn on whether infoUSA's methods involve calculating a delivery shortfall against a pre-defined minimum quantity and automatically re-transmitting to a new user subset to meet that quota, or if its processes for ensuring deliverability are technically and legally distinct from the claimed method.