DCT
1:19-cv-12159
Instaresponse LLC v. Edx Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: InstaResponse, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: edX, Inc. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chavous Intellectual Property Law LLC; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-12159, D. Mass., 10/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant is incorporated in Massachusetts and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online learning platform infringes a patent related to a method for students to evaluate teachers against educational standards, with the system managing data flow and anonymity.
- Technical Context: The technology operates within the educational technology (EdTech) sector, specifically addressing systems for data-driven teacher performance assessment and feedback.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-27 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299 |
| 2016-05-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299 Issues |
| 2019-10-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299 - "TECHNOLOGIES FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING TEACHERS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,349,299, "TECHNOLOGIES FOR STUDENTS EVALUATING TEACHERS", issued May 24, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies an issue where some teachers may not properly adhere to predefined educational standards when using lesson plans, which can result in their students receiving low scores on standardized tests (’299 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method where educational standards and associated lesson plans are made available to students via a network server. Students can then provide ratings on the teacher's performance relative to those standards. The system is designed to manage this feedback, notably by making student ratings anonymous to the teacher but revealing the student's identity to an administrator, and then correlating the rating with a test score to provide analytical insights (’299 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a structured, computer-mediated framework to benchmark teacher performance against specific educational standards using direct student feedback, potentially offering a more granular and data-centric evaluation tool (’299 Patent, col. 7:10-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (’299 Patent, col. 17:41-18:24; Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
- Receiving, at an evaluation server, an educational standard and lesson plan from a teacher client.
- Storing the standard and lesson plan in a database that also stores a student schedule.
- Receiving selections for the standard and lesson plan from the teacher client.
- Assigning the standard to the lesson plan and associating them with the student schedule.
- Receiving a student login and presenting the standard and lesson plan to the student client.
- Presenting a Likert rating scale to the student.
- Receiving a rating from the student.
- Storing the rating such that it is anonymous to the teacher client but not anonymous to an administrator client.
- Correlating a test score with the stored rating.
- Providing a notice to the administrator client based on the correlation.
- The complaint states that the infringing methods perform the steps of "at least Claim 7" and reserves the right to modify its infringement theories, suggesting dependent claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶15, ¶37).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The “EDX Learning Management System” (“Accused Product”) (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as an online course platform that allows teachers to build lessons based on educational standards (Compl. ¶17). It alleges that students can log in, view their course schedules on a dashboard, and submit feedback on courses via a rating system (Compl. ¶21-24).
- The complaint alleges the platform provides for anonymous student surveys and that an administrator has "control over matters" and is "able to see the feedback" (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges the system generates "insight data" for the administrator related to a learner, which is correlated to a specific course (Compl. ¶27). The allegations are based "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 7 but does not include its referenced Exhibit B claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in paragraphs 17-27 of the complaint.
'299 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by an evaluation server, an educational standard and a lesson plan from a teacher client over a network; | Defendant’s online platform allows teachers to build lessons based on educational standards on an educational server (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 8:1-19 |
| storing, by said evaluation server, said educational standard and said lesson plan in a database coupled to said evaluation server, wherein said database stores a student schedule; | The student's course assignments, which constitute a schedule, are stored within their login on the platform's database (Compl. ¶18). | ¶18 | col. 8:50-52 |
| receiving, by said evaluation server, an educational standard selection and a lesson plan selection from said teacher client... | A database stores different topics (lesson plans) that are associated with different educational standards, which can be selected (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 8:45-49 |
| assigning, by said evaluation server, said educational standard to said lesson plan...such that said educational standard and said lesson plan are associated with said student schedule; | Assignments are created for students for different courses, which can be scheduled for a specified time and displayed to the student (Compl. ¶20). | ¶20 | col. 5:18-24 |
| receiving, by said evaluation server, a student login from a student client over said network; | Students can log into the system by creating an account (Compl. ¶21). | ¶21 | col. 8:45-52 |
| presenting, by said evaluation server, said educational standard and said lesson plan on said student client...based on said student schedule responsive to said receiving said student login; | After logging in, a student can see their schedule on the server via a dashboard (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 8:41-49 |
| presenting, by said evaluation server, a Likert rating scale on said student client... | Students can submit feedback by giving a rating to their course (Compl. ¶23). | ¶23 | col. 6:15-25 |
| receiving, by said evaluation server, a rating from said student client over said network based on said Likert rating scale; | After a survey, the student's submitted feedback is received by the server over the network and stored (Compl. ¶24). | ¶24 | col. 6:26-34 |
| storing, by said evaluation server, said rating...wherein said rating is anonymous to said teacher client...wherein said rating is not anonymous to an administrator client... | Surveys are anonymous and do not display the student's identity to the teacher, but an administrator "has control" and "is thus able to see the feedback" (Compl. ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 6:50-58 |
| correlating, by said evaluation server, a test score with said rating associated with said educational standard and said lesson plan, wherein said test score is stored in said database; | The server "correlates the completed survey with a specific course and a class or a subject" (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 7:42-49 |
| and providing, by said evaluation server, a notice to said administrator client over said network based on said correlating. | The administrator receives "insight data related to a learner implying date being correlated to the specific course" (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 7:25-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim term "test score". The complaint alleges the server "correlates the completed survey with a specific course" (Compl. ¶26), which raises the question of whether this alleged functionality meets the limitation of correlating a "test score" with a rating.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific dual-anonymity structure where a rating is "anonymous to said teacher client" but "not anonymous to an administrator client" because the server reveals the student's identity. The complaint alleges an administrator "has control" and "is able to see the feedback" (Compl. ¶25). A technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that this "control" equates to the server actively revealing student identity to an administrator as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "test score"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final correlating step of claim 7. The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on whether the "insight data" (Compl. ¶27) or "completed survey" (Compl. ¶26) allegedly used by the Accused Product can be construed as a "test score". Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be case-dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "test score". Plaintiff may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any metric of student performance or comprehension, not just a formal exam grade.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to the patent’s background section, which frames the problem in the context of students receiving "low scores" on "standardized tests" (’299 Patent, col. 1:52-54), to argue that "test score" should be construed more narrowly to mean a quantifiable result from a formal assessment.
The Term: "wherein said rating is not anonymous to an administrator client based on said evaluation server revealing said student identity to said administrator client"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific data access architecture that is a core feature of the claimed method. The infringement case depends on showing that the Accused Product implements this specific two-tiered privacy model.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the claim is satisfied as long as the system’s architecture functionally results in the administrator being able to access student identities linked to ratings, even if through general administrative privileges, while teachers cannot. The specification states, "the ratings are not anonymous to the administration" (’299 Patent, col. 6:52-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claim requires more than just general administrative access; it requires the server to perform an active step of "revealing said student identity." The defense could contend that an administrator having generalized "control" (Compl. ¶25) does not meet this active "revealing" limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶31). The prayer for relief seeks "enhanced damages" (Compl., p. 10, ¶f). This establishes a basis for alleged post-filing willfulness, but not pre-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "test score", which is recited in the context of evaluating teacher effectiveness, be construed to read on the "completed survey" or general "insight data" that the Accused Product allegedly correlates with a course?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does discovery reveal that the Accused Product's architecture performs the specific two-tiered anonymity function required by Claim 7, where the server actively "reveals" student identity to an administrator while concealing it from a teacher, or is there a material difference in its technical implementation?
- An underlying procedural question will be the sufficiency of evidence: given that infringement allegations are based "at least in internal testing and usage," the case may depend heavily on whether Plaintiff can obtain evidence through discovery to substantiate its claims about the internal workings of the edX platform.