DCT

3:20-cv-09211

Ac Holdco Inc v. Beable Education Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-09211, D.N.J., 07/21/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Saki Dodelson resides in the district and Defendant Beable Education, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online literacy platform infringes a patent related to methods for automatically providing educational content that is differentiated based on a user's skill level.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the educational technology sector, specifically focusing on software systems that personalize K-12 literacy instruction by adapting a single source text for students with varying reading comprehension levels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a contentious history between the parties. Defendant Saki Dodelson co-founded Plaintiff Achieve3000 and, along with other key executives now at Defendant Beable, invented the patent-in-suit, assigning their rights to Achieve3000. Plaintiff asserts this history gives rise to the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which may prevent Defendants from challenging the patent’s validity. Notably, while not mentioned in the complaint as it post-dates the filing, the provided documents indicate that an inter partes review proceeding (IPR2021-01169) was initiated against the patent-in-suit, resulting in a certificate issued December 23, 2024, cancelling all claims of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-08-31 ’993 Patent Priority Date
2017-05-16 ’993 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-18 Defendant Dodelson resigns from Achieve3000
2020-05-28 Beable product launch
2020-07-21 Complaint Filing Date
2021-07-19 IPR Petition (IPR2021-01169) filed against ’993 Patent
2024-12-23 IPR Certificate issued cancelling all claims of the ’993 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,652,993 - Method and Apparatus For Providing Differentiated Content Based On Skill Level

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,652,993, “Method and Apparatus For Providing Differentiated Content Based On Skill Level,” issued May 16, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the rigidity of traditional classroom instruction, where a single textbook or lesson plan is used for all students regardless of their individual skill levels. This "one-size-fits-all" approach can leave some students behind and fail to challenge others, while creating a burdensome task for educators who lack the tools to efficiently customize materials (’993 Patent, col. 1:28-44, col. 2:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented system designed to automate the process of differentiating educational content. The system obtains a single piece of “unmodified content,” such as a news article, assesses a user’s skill level (e.g., reading comprehension), and then automatically generates and delivers multiple versions of that same content, each version modified in its vocabulary, sentence structure, and format to match the specific skill level of a different user (’993 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-12). This allows an entire class of students with diverse abilities to engage with the same core information simultaneously.
  • Technical Importance: The claimed technology seeks to solve the scalability problem in personalized education by using a computer system to perform the otherwise labor-intensive task of adapting teaching materials for individual student needs (’993 Patent, col. 13:4-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 8 (a system claim) (’993 Patent, col. 19:6-col. 22:38; Compl. ¶97).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Obtaining an "unmodified content" and one or more "educational standards."
    • Evaluating the educational standards to produce a "unique standards code."
    • Analyzing the unmodified content to determine its "reading difficulty level."
    • Generating in real-time a "plurality of aligned versions" of the content by transforming its format and content, which includes breaking it into sentences and selecting different vocabulary and sentence lengths based on the standards code.
    • Transmitting a specific aligned version to a user corresponding to that user's skill level.
    • Generating one or more lesson plans with questions associated with the aligned version.
    • Providing the lesson plan questions to the user via a communication system.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶99).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the “Beable Life-Ready Literacy System,” which is powered by the “BeableIQ Engine” (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused product as a supplemental online literacy program for K-12 students that provides "differentiated instruction" and "personalized learning" (Compl. ¶8, 87). The system is alleged to automatically provide students with lessons that are "differentiated to match the reading level of each individual student," with the adjusted materials originating from the same source material (Compl. ¶98). The complaint alleges that Beable's system, like the plaintiff's own product, involves "literacy acceleration," "content differentiated by reading levels," and the use of "Lexile levels" to measure reading ability (Compl. ¶88, 90). The Beable website screenshot included in the complaint describes how each student receives lessons at the "just-right" level for her needs" (Compl. p. 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’993 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computer implemented method for providing differentiated content to a user... The Beable system is an online software platform that provides differentiated content to student users (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:6-8
obtaining in real-time... a first unmodified content from at least one source using at least one computer; Beable’s automated system is alleged to obtain content from at least two sources (academic and special interest) that comprises unmodified content before it is differentiated (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:9-12
obtaining one or more educational standards... The system is alleged to use educational standards, with academic lessons described as being "aligned with state standards" (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:13-14
evaluating the one or more educational standards to produce a unique standards code... On information and belief, the Beable system evaluates educational standards for core meaning and other elements to produce a unique standards code used internally to provide differentiated content (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:15-28
generating in real-time... a plurality of aligned versions of the first unmodified content by transforming format and content... selecting a different vocabulary and sentence length... The Beable system is alleged to automatically generate lessons differentiated for each user's reading level by modifying source material to use different vocabulary and sentence length (Compl. ¶99). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows different, individualized learning paths for three different students (Compl. p. 44). ¶99 col. 19:33-47
transmitting, simultaneously, a first aligned version of the plurality of aligned versions... to the user, wherein the first aligned version corresponds to a reading skill level of the user; The Beable system is alleged to transmit a differentiated lesson to each particular student corresponding to their reading level, while other versions are sent to other students at the same time (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:48-52
generating... one or more lesson plans for the user, the one or more lesson plans comprising questions associated with the first aligned version... The BeableIQ engine is alleged to generate an "individualized learning path" for each student that includes questions and assessments of comprehension associated with the differentiated reading material provided (Compl. ¶99). ¶99 col. 19:53-64

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for infringement would be whether Beable's process for creating an "individualized learning path" (Compl. ¶99) meets the specific claim requirement of generating a "plurality of aligned versions of the first unmodified content." This raises the question of whether Beable's system starts with a single, common source text for all students, as the patent appears to require, or generates unique paths from a broader library of content.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Beable's system generates a "unique standards code" by analyzing multiple pedagogical elements of educational standards. A key technical question is whether the accused system actually performs this specific multi-factor analytical and coding process, or if it uses a more conventional method of tagging content to align with standards.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "unique standards code"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and is central to the patented method of interpreting educational standards before aligning content. The patent describes a specific analytical process to generate this code. The infringement dispute may depend on whether Beable’s alleged alignment process performs this specific coding function or a more generic one. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the accused system's proprietary algorithm falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be construed broadly to encompass any internal data structure, tag, or identifier that a system uses to associate a piece of content with a specific educational standard.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed definition, stating the code is produced by analyzing "at least one of one or more statements..., a structure..., a core meaning..., a related and ancillary meaning..., a learning mode..., an intent..., or related critical thinking, logical, philosophical, and pedagogical elements" of the standards (’993 Patent, col. 19:17-28). This explicit, detailed list may support a narrower construction limited to a code generated from this specific multi-factor analysis.

Term: "transforming format and content"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core technical act of differentiation. The viability of the infringement claim may hinge on whether the accused Beable system performs the specific type of transformation required by the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "transforming" suggests a wide range of possible modifications, from simple word substitution to complete rewriting of the source text.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself further defines the transformation as "compris[ing] breaking up the first unmodified content into sentences, selecting a different vocabulary and sentence length" (’993 Patent, col. 19:43-45). This language provides strong intrinsic evidence that the scope of "transforming" is limited to these specific enumerated actions, rather than any and all possible modifications.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain allegations that would support a claim for indirect (induced or contributory) infringement. The allegations in Count One are directed at Beable for its own acts of making, using, and selling the accused system (Compl. ¶97).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that infringement was willful and deliberate. The factual basis for this allegation is Defendant Beable's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’993 patent, stemming from the fact that Beable's founder/CEO (Saki Dodelson), Chief Academic Officer (Susan Gertler), and Chief Product Officer (Rivki Locker) are the three named inventors on the patent (Compl. ¶102, 109-110).

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

  • A dispositive issue will be one of patent viability: given that all claims of the ’993 patent were cancelled in an inter partes review proceeding initiated after the complaint was filed, the primary question is what, if any, legal basis remains for the patent infringement cause of action.
  • A key legal question concerns assignor estoppel: the case raises the question of whether the Defendants are estopped from challenging the patent’s validity because its principals invented the patent and assigned it to the Plaintiff. The resolution of this issue may be influenced by the subsequent IPR cancellation and evolving case law on the doctrine.
  • Assuming the patent claims were viable, a central technical question would be one of mechanistic correspondence: does the accused "BeableIQ Engine" perform the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 1—particularly the generation of a "unique standards code" from a multi-factor analysis and the subsequent transformation of a single source text—or does it achieve differentiation through a technically distinct method?