DCT
1:17-cv-11642
Altova GmbH v. Syncro Soft SRL
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Altova GmbH (Austria) and Altova, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Syncro Soft SRL (Romania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-11642, D. Mass., 02/14/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any U.S. judicial district because the defendant is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s OXYGEN XML Editor software infringes a patent related to the automated analysis and correction of errors in extensible markup language (XML) documents.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of software development tools, specifically integrated development environments (IDEs) for programmers working with XML, a widely used data-structuring language.
- Key Procedural History: The First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint filed on August 31, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was formally put on notice of the patent-in-suit via a courtesy copy of the original complaint delivered on September 5, 2017, an event relevant to the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-15 | ’456 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-11-22 | ’456 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-08-31 | Original Complaint Filing Date |
| 2017-09-05 | Alleged Notice of Infringement to Defendant |
| 2018-01-12 | Service of Original Complaint via Hague Convention |
| 2018-02-14 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,501,456 - AUTOMATIC FIX FOR EXTENSIBLE MARKUP LANGUAGE ERRORS
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,501,456, AUTOMATIC FIX FOR EXTENSIBLE MARKUP LANGUAGE ERRORS, issued November 22, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a key inefficiency in software development: while XML editors can report syntax or validation errors, it is "up to the developer to decipher the errors and correct the errors, wasting precious development time" (’456 Patent, col. 1:16-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method where a system not only detects an error in a markup language document but also programmatically analyzes its cause, "comput[es] a set of possible actions to remedy the error," and presents these proposed solutions to the user for one-click implementation (’456 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-43). The core of the solution is the automated generation and presentation of corrective actions, moving beyond simple error flagging.
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to automate a manual, cognitive step in the coding workflow, thereby increasing developer productivity and reducing time spent on routine debugging tasks (’456 Patent, col. 4:55-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- In a computing system, detecting an error location in a markup language document.
- Displaying the location and the error.
- Analyzing the error and its underlying causes.
- Computing a set of possible actions to remedy the error.
- Displaying information about the error and its causes, which comprises a link to the error in the file, a link to a definition in a schema file, and a link to a W3C specification.
- Displaying the computed set of possible actions.
- Receiving a user selection of one of the actions.
- Replacing the error location with the selected action.
- The complaint notes that Plaintiff "reserves the right to discover and pursue all such additional infringing software" and may pursue other claims (’Compl. ¶35, ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Product Identification: OXYGEN XML Editor version 19.0 (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Product as an XML editor that includes "Quick Fix support" to help users resolve errors that appear in XML documents, such as "missing required attributes or invalid elements" (Compl. ¶15, p. 5). This functionality is allegedly available in both "Text mode and Author mode" (Compl. p. 5). When a user hovers over or places a cursor on a highlighted error, the software can present "Quick Fix proposals" in a tooltip or a drop-down menu (Compl. ¶15, p. 5). The complaint alleges the Accused Product is sold to customers in the U.S. (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [b] detecting a location causing an error in a markup language document; | The Accused Product provides "validation functions that allow you to easily identify errors and their location." | ¶17 | col. 6:42-45 |
| [c] displaying the location and the error in the markup language document on the display unit; | The Accused Product "shows [the user] if the [XML] document is invalid and where errors are found" using indicators like a "red flag." | ¶18 | col. 6:45-47 |
| [d] analyzing the error in the markup language document and underlying causes of the error... | The Accused Product's automatic validation process "pars[es] the [XML] document and mark[s] the errors." | ¶19 | col. 6:47-49 |
| [e] computing a set of possible actions to remedy the error... | The Accused Product’s "Quick Fix support helps you resolve errors... by offering Quick Fixes." | ¶20 | col. 6:48-50 |
| [f] displaying information about the error... and its underlying causes on the display unit; | Hovering over an error presents a tooltip, and double-clicking an error icon displays an "information dialog box with the full error message." | ¶19, ¶21 | col. 6:50-53 |
| [g] displaying the set of possible actions to remedy the error... | The Accused Product displays "a list of available Quick Fixes" in various ways, such as a tooltip shown in a screenshot from the user guide. | ¶22, ¶24, p. 12 | col. 6:51-53 |
| [h] receiving a user input selecting one of the possible actions... | The user can "activate" a fix by selecting from "proposals," including clicking on "a link that can be used to perform the fix." | ¶23 | col. 6:58-62 |
| [i] replacing the location causing the error... with the selected one of the possible actions... | A user-selected "link" can "perform the fix." | ¶24 | col. 6:60-63 |
| [j] wherein the information... comprises: [k] a link to the error in the working XML file; [l] a link to the corresponding definition(s) in an associated schema file; and [m] links to relevant information in an applicable W3C specification. | An "information dialog box" is alleged to provide these three types of information, citing a screenshot where "System ID" corresponds to element [k], "Schema" corresponds to element [l], and "Additional info" corresponds to element [m]. | ¶27, p. 13 | col. 7:35-44 |
The complaint provides a screenshot of an information dialog box that allegedly displays the information required by claim limitations [j], [k], [l], and [m] (Compl. p. 13).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the information presented in the accused dialog box (Compl. p. 13) meets the specific requirements of limitations [k], [l], and [m]. For instance, the defense may question whether a plain text file path, as shown for "System ID" and "Schema," constitutes "a link" in the manner required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely scrutinize whether the Accused Product's "Quick Fix" feature, which offers pre-defined solutions, performs the specific step of "computing a set of possible actions" as claimed. The patent describes a "cascaded strategy" for computing suggestions (’456 Patent, col. 5:58), raising the question of whether the accused functionality is merely retrieving a stored fix or performing the more dynamic "computing" process required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "computing a set of possible actions to remedy the error"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's automated problem-solving capability. The dispute will likely focus on what level of analysis or generation is required to "compute" a "set" of actions, versus simply retrieving a known solution from a list.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the smart fix process "enumerates one or more possible corrections" (’456 Patent, col. 4:51-53), which could suggest that presenting even a single, known correction qualifies. The claim itself requires a "set," which can be a single member.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a "cascaded strategy" and "type-specific corrections" for generating suggestions, implying a more sophisticated analytical process than simply looking up an error code (’456 Patent, col. 5:58-61). A defendant could argue "computing" requires this level of dynamic analysis.
The Term: "a link"
Context and Importance: This term appears in sub-elements [k] and [l] of Claim 1. Its construction is critical because the complaint's evidence consists of screenshots showing text file paths (Compl. p. 13). Practitioners may focus on whether "a link" requires an active hyperlink or if a simple textual reference to a file location is sufficient.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "link" or require it to be a clickable hyperlink. In the context of a developer tool, a file path that allows a user to locate and open the referenced file could be argued to function as a link.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common technical meaning of "link" implies a user interface element that, when activated, navigates to a resource. The patent's goal of saving developer time could support an interpretation that requires a more functional, one-click navigational element rather than a text string that must be manually copied or navigated to.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Syncro Soft provides user guides, training videos, and web demonstrations that instruct customers on using the infringing "Quick Fix" features (Compl. ¶12, ¶28, ¶34). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are especially made for this use, and are not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶29, ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges both pre-suit and post-suit willfulness. It asserts that Syncro Soft knew of the patent or was willfully blind to its infringement prior to the suit (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges actual knowledge as of September 5, 2017, the date a copy of the original complaint was delivered, and that Syncro Soft continued to infringe thereafter (Compl. ¶31, ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the information provided in the Accused Product's error dialog box—specifically, the text file paths for the "System ID" and "Schema"—constitute "a link" as required by the precise language of Claim 1, or is there a material difference between a textual reference and a functional link?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the accused "Quick Fix" feature, which offers solutions to known XML errors, perform the claimed step of "computing a set of possible actions," or does it merely retrieve pre-programmed solutions in a way that falls outside the scope of the claim as informed by the patent's specification? The outcome may depend on the level of dynamic analysis the court determines is required by the term "computing."