Engajer Inc v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Engajer Inc. (Delaware, with principal place of business in Florida)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington); OpenAI, L.P. (Delaware); Soul Machines, Inc. (Delaware); Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se (Signed by Authorized Representative)
• Case Identification: 9:25-cv-80339, S.D. Fla., 03/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each Defendant transacts business, sells or distributes infringing products, and has committed acts of infringement within the Southern District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ AI-powered interactive content systems, video platforms, and chatbot interfaces infringe a patent related to a system for generating and presenting personalized, interactive video content.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to web-based platforms that allow a content creator (e.g., a salesperson) to build interactive, branching presentations with rich media for a target audience (e.g., a customer).
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of U.S. Application Ser. No. 14/164,085, which is now abandoned. The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,956,965 - "Interactive System for Generating and Presenting Personalized Video Content," Issued March 23, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a deficiency in traditional Client Relationship Management (CRM) systems, which lack effective tools for tracking the nuances of sales interactions and identifying successful marketing techniques that could be emulated by others in an organization (’965 Patent, col. 1:35-49). It notes that top-performing sales associates may keep their methods confidential to maintain a competitive edge, preventing wider organizational learning (’965 Patent, col. 1:43-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a web-based system where a "selling entity" uses a webpage with user interface (UI) components to build an "Interactive Marketing Presentation" (IMP). This IMP is constructed from multiple segments (or "nodes") containing rich media like video, which are linked together to create a branching, interactive path. (’965 Patent, col. 2:1-12). The configuration data for the IMP is sent to a server and stored in a database, and a "purchasing entity" can then view and navigate the presentation based on their inputs, with their interaction data being captured for analysis. (’965 Patent, col. 2:51-68).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to systematize and scale personalized marketing by allowing creators to easily assemble complex interactive experiences and, crucially, to gather granular data on how users engage with that content. (’965 Patent, col. 3:9-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶ 10). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • (a) providing a webpage to an Internet browser of a selling entity... wherein the webpage includes an amount of instructions that render a plurality of User Interface (UI) components on the Internet browser of the selling entity,
  • and wherein the plurality of UI components is used to configure an Interactive Marketing Presentation (IMP),
  • wherein the UI components are used to generate a visual representation of the IMP that is displayed to the selling entity that shows how segments of the IMP are linked to each other,
  • and wherein when the IMP is presented on a display to a user segments of the IMP are presented to the user in response to user input in accordance with how the segments are shown linked to each other in the visual representation,
  • wherein the visual representation of the IMP is not displayed to the user; and
  • (b) receiving configuration information of the IMP onto the software application, wherein the webpage supplies the configuration information to the software application via the network.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of the patent generally.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Defendants' AI-powered interactive content systems, video-based engagement platforms, and AI chatbot interfaces" (Compl. ¶ 8). It does not name any specific products from any of the four defendants.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any specific accused product. It alleges in a conclusory manner that these general categories of products infringe the patented technology (Compl. ¶ 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or any specific factual allegations mapping features of an accused product to the patent's claim limitations. The infringement theory is articulated only at a high level of generality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'965 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "AI chatbot interfaces" and "interactive content systems" meet the specific definition of an "Interactive Marketing Presentation (IMP)" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a structure of pre-configured, linked segments rather than, for example, a real-time generative AI response system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest that the accused systems employ the specific two-sided architecture required by claim 1, which distinguishes between a "visual representation" for the "selling entity" (the creator) and the final "IMP" for the "user" (the consumer), with the explicit limitation that the former is "not displayed to the user."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"Interactive Marketing Presentation (IMP)"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the patent's scope is limited to structured, node-based presentations as depicted in the embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover modern, generative AI-driven conversations. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is central to whether the accused "AI chatbot interfaces" can infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary states the IMP "receives user input that determines how the presentation is presented to the purchasing entity," which could be argued to encompass any interactive system that adapts to user input (’965 Patent, col. 1:60-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict the IMP as a collection of discrete "segments" or "nodes" that are linked together in a tree-like structure by the selling entity during a configuration phase (’965 Patent, col. 2:30-50; Fig. 3). This suggests a pre-defined, branching logic, not a dynamically generated one.

"visual representation of the IMP"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because of the claim's negative limitation that this "visual representation" is "not displayed to the user." This distinguishes the creator's configuration tool from the end-user's experience. The case may turn on whether the accused systems have an analogous creator-facing tool that is distinct from the user-facing interface.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not require a specific form for the "visual representation," only that it "shows how segments of the IMP are linked to each other" (’965 Patent, col. 17:58-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 provides a specific example of the "visual representation," showing graphical blocks for each segment connected by explicit links (’965 Patent, Fig. 3). An argument could be made that the term should be construed in light of this specific embodiment, requiring a graphical, node-based map of the presentation's structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific counts for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that "Defendants have willfully engaged in such infringing activities despite knowledge of the Engajer Patent" (Compl. ¶ 8) and requests enhanced damages (Compl. ¶ 11). However, it pleads no specific facts to support the allegation of knowledge, such as prior correspondence, product teardowns, or public statements.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "Interactive Marketing Presentation," which the patent describes as a system of pre-configured, linked media segments, be construed to cover the accused general-purpose, generative AI chatbot and interactive content platforms?
2. A key evidentiary and technical question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused systems employ the specific two-sided architecture required by the claims. This will require evidence of a distinct, creator-facing "visual representation" tool that shows how content segments are linked, and which, as the claim requires, is "not displayed to the user" interacting with the final content.
3. A threshold pleading question will be whether the complaint's broad and conclusory allegations against entire categories of products, without identifying any specific instrumentality or mapping its features to the patent claims, are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under current federal pleading standards.