DCT
1:19-cv-11867
Globys Inc v. Sorriso Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Globys, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Sorriso Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Burns & Levinson LLP; Fenwick & West LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-11867, D. Mass., 09/03/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant Sorriso maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sorriso Smart Suite of products for digital invoicing infringes three patents related to systems and methods for electronic financial management and analysis.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic bill presentment and payment (EBPP) systems, which allow corporate users to not only view and pay bills online but also to interactively analyze large volumes of billing data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement for all three asserted patents via a letter on or about July 3, 2019, approximately two months before filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-07-19 | Priority Date for ’310, ’271, and ’252 Patents |
| 2010-08-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,774,271 Issues |
| 2011-08-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,996,310 Issues |
| 2015-01-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,930,252 Issues |
| 2019-07-03 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-09-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,996,310 - "Electronic Financial Management and Analysis System and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,996,310, issued August 9, 2011 (the “’310 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s shared specification with its parent patent describes prior art electronic bill presentment and payment (EBPP) systems as inadequate for corporate customers dealing with large, complex bills. These prior systems either provided static scanned images of paper bills, used cumbersome "paging" systems with numeric hyperlinks that were inefficient for navigating hundreds of pages, or lacked tools for users to flexibly analyze and manage billing data directly on the system ('271 Patent, col. 1:46-2:29; Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method where a central server receives billing information from billers. It then allows an end-user to select specific "analysis parameters" to customize how a subset of that billing data is analyzed. Based on the user's selections, the server analyzes the data and produces a customized report for the user's review ('310 Patent, Abstract; ’271 Patent, col. 2:55-65). This moves beyond static bill presentment to interactive, user-driven data analysis.
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled corporate customers to manage and analyze large volumes of billing data in a customizable, online environment, overcoming the scalability and functional limitations of prior EBPP systems (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of claim 1, a method, include:
- receiving billing information at a server from one or more billers for presentment to users;
- receiving at the server, from a user, a selection of one or more user-selected analysis parameters for customizing an analysis;
- analyzing at the server a subset of the billing information using the selected parameters to produce a customized report; and
- producing the customized report on a computer for review by the user.
- The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims is reserved (Compl. ¶13).
U.S. Patent No. 7,774,271 - "Electronic Financial Management and Analysis System and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,774,271, issued August 10, 2010 (the “’271 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’271 Patent shares a common specification with the ’310 patent and addresses the same technical problems in prior art EBPP systems, as described above (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming a method, this patent claims a computing system that facilitates electronic bill presentment. The system comprises two main components: an "analysis engine" that performs a customer-defined analysis on billing data to generate a report, and a "user interface" that is coupled to the engine and allows a customer (who is distinct from the biller) to control the analysis ('271 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’310 Patent, this system architecture provided corporate users with tools for interactive, online management and analysis of complex billing data (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- The essential elements of claim 1, a system, include:
- an analysis engine, to perform a customer-defined analysis on billing information and generate a customer-defined report; and
- a user interface, coupled to the engine, to enable a customer (different from the biller) to interact with and control the analysis engine, where the engine generates the report in response to an indication from the user interface.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).
U.S. Patent No. 8,930,252 - "Electronic Financial Management and Analysis System and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,930,252, issued January 6, 2015 (the “’252 Patent”).
- Technology Synopsis: The ’252 Patent, which shares the same specification as the other asserted patents, claims a computing system for user-defined billing analysis. The claims add further specificity, requiring the analysis to utilize "user-defined definition fields, user-defined category dependencies, and user-defined analysis parameters that define an analysis protocol," all of which are defined by the user through the system's user interface ('252 Patent, cl. 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts exemplary independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- Accused Features: The Sorriso Smart Suite is accused of infringing by providing a system with a billing data store, an analysis engine, and a user interface that allows users to perform analysis using user-defined fields, dependencies, and parameters to generate reports (Compl. ¶¶34-36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are sold as part of the "Sorriso Smart Suite," which includes "Sorriso Smart View, Smart Bill, and Smart Pay" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Sorriso Smart Suite is described as a platform for delivering "interactive bills on web, mobile, email, and text" (Compl. p. 5). The complaint provides a screenshot of the accused system's "MANAGE PHONES" interface, which shows capabilities for users to view and manage billing details for individual phone numbers (Compl. ¶16, p. 5). Another screenshot shows a reporting interface that allows users to select a report type (e.g., "Category bill allocation report"), set parameters like a date range, and view a generated report (Compl. ¶18, p. 6). The system is marketed as providing "Interactive access to bills, real-time personalization" and empowering business customers with digital self-service tools (Compl. p. 6, p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’310 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving billing information at a server from one or more billers for presentment to a plurality of users... | The Sorriso Smart Suite receives billing information, such as for phone services, at a server for presentation to users. | ¶16 | col. 2:60-63 |
| receiving at the server, from a user, a selection of one or more user-selected analysis parameters... | The Sorriso Smart Suite provides a user interface where a user can select parameters such as report type, start date, end date, and group structure to customize an analysis. | ¶17 | col. 2:63-65 |
| analyzing at the server the subset of the billing information using at least the selected one or more user-selected analysis parameters to produce a customized report... | The Sorriso Smart Suite analyzes billing data using the parameters selected by the user to generate a customized report, such as a "CATEGORY BILL ALLOCATION REPORT." | ¶18 | col. 7:40-54 |
| producing on a computer the customized report for review by the user... | The system produces and displays the customized report for the user's review. A screenshot from a product video shows the "Select the report you want to view" interface, which allows users to set parameters and generate a report (Compl. ¶18, p. 6). | ¶18 | col. 7:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "analysis parameters". The question will be whether the user's selection of filters like date ranges or report types in the accused product constitutes selecting "analysis parameters" as that term is used in the patent, or if the patent requires more complex, user-defined computational or statistical inputs.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product performs an "analysis" beyond simple data filtering and retrieval? The court may need to determine if sorting and categorizing data according to user-selected filters meets the claimed functional requirement of "analyzing... to produce a customized report."
’271 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an analysis engine, to perform a customer-defined analysis... and to generate an associated customer-defined report... | The Sorriso Smart Suite is alleged to comprise an analysis engine that performs a customer-defined analysis and generates reports based on that analysis. The complaint provides a screenshot from a product video showing a user selecting report parameters as an example of this functionality (Compl. ¶26, p. 9). | ¶26 | col. 7:40-44 |
| a user interface, coupled to the analysis engine, to enable a customer to interact with and control the analysis engine... | The Sorriso Smart Suite provides a user interface that allows a customer to control the analysis engine by selecting reports and defining parameters for those reports. | ¶27 | col. 6:46-51 |
| wherein the analysis engine generates the customer-defined report in response to receiving an indication from the user interface. | The accused system allegedly generates the report after the user provides input through the user interface, such as clicking an "UPDATE" button after selecting parameters. | ¶27 | col. 8:33-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The construction of "analysis engine" will be critical. The parties may dispute whether this term requires a specific software or hardware architecture for performing analysis, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any component that processes data to generate a report.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system’s user interface "control" the "analysis engine" in the manner claimed? A question may be raised as to whether selecting from a predefined list of reports and filters constitutes the level of "control" envisioned by the patent, which also describes users defining their own billing information fields ('271 Patent, col. 6:18-24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "analysis parameters" (’310 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’310 Patent hinges on whether the user inputs available in the Sorriso Smart Suite—such as selecting a report type, a date range, or a grouping structure—qualify as "user-selected analysis parameters." The definition of this term will determine whether simple filtering and reporting functions fall within the scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad ability for users to "uniquely manage and analyze financial information" ('271 Patent, col. 6:38-39) and describes the analysis engine as enabling a user to "establish an analysis and reporting profile" ('271 Patent, col. 7:46-48). This language may support a broad definition covering any user input that shapes the output.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed figures depict specific user interfaces for creating reports that include options for "Group," "Sort by," "Subgroup," and "Calculate" (e.g., Total Calls, Average Cost/Call) ('271 Patent, Fig. 15). A defendant could argue these examples limit "analysis parameters" to inputs for performing statistical calculations or complex data grouping, not merely setting a date range.
The Term: "analysis engine" (’271 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a core component of the claimed system. Its construction will determine what structural and functional capabilities a system must possess to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its functional language could be subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation, which would narrow its scope to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "analysis and report generation engine 306" in functional terms, stating it "enables a user to effectively manage, analyze and create custom reports" ('271 Patent, col. 7:40-42). This functional description could support a broad interpretation covering any software module that performs these tasks.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses the "analysis and report generation engine 306" as a specific block within the EBPAP agent architecture (Fig. 3). If construed as a means-plus-function term, its scope would be limited to this disclosed structure and its equivalents. The function is "to perform a customer-defined analysis... and to generate an associated customer-defined report."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of indirect infringement for all asserted patents but does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for inducement or contributory infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶13, 23, 32).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a letter from Plaintiff on or about July 3, 2019, which provided actual notice of the asserted patents and the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 28-29, 37-38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the key claim terms "analysis parameters" and "customer-defined analysis" be construed broadly to encompass standard data filtering and report generation features common in business software, or will they be narrowed to the more complex, user-configurable statistical and relational data manipulations detailed in the patents' specific embodiments?
- A related evidentiary question will be one of technical functionality: does the accused Sorriso Smart Suite’s reporting feature perform an "analysis" as required by the claims, or does it operate as a conventional data retrieval and display tool that lacks the inventive user-driven analytical capabilities described in the patents?
- The viability of the willfulness claim will depend on the substance of the pre-suit notice: the complaint asserts a letter was sent, and the objective reasonableness of the defendant's decision to continue its accused conduct after receiving that notice will be a central factual inquiry.