DCT
1:18-cv-10262
Netsoc LLC v. Chegg Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NetSoc, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Chegg Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-10262, S.D.N.Y., 11/05/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, including an office in New York, NY.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Chegg Tutors online service infringes a patent related to a social network system that connects users with categorized and rated "issue resolvers."
- Technical Context: The technology concerns online platforms that create a managed marketplace for services or expertise, where providers are categorized, rated, and connected to users through a central system that shields direct contact information.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority back to a 2003 provisional application and is the result of a long chain of continuation applications. The patent was issued subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 Priority Date |
| 2018-05-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 Issued |
| 2018 | Date of Accused Product screenshots provided in complaint |
| 2018-11-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 - “Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107, “Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues,” issued May 22, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the logistical and social challenges individuals face when relocating to a new area, such as finding schools, housing, or professional services, and the inefficiency of using generic research methods to solve these personal "life issues" (’107 Patent, col. 2:5-16; col. 11:1-9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented social network service that maintains a list of "participants" or "issue resolvers" who can assist with user problems. A user selects from a plurality of categories related to their issue, and the system presents them with a selection of matching participants, while shielding the participants' direct contact information. The system tracks the performance of participants, such as their responsiveness, and uses this data to rate or rank them, creating a managed, performance-based network. (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-60; Fig. 5A).
- Technical Importance: The described system provides a structured framework for an online expertise marketplace, moving beyond simple directories to a managed network where provider quality is tracked and used to inform user choice. (’107 Patent, col. 9:56-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-11, with a detailed preliminary analysis focused on independent system claim 6. (Compl. ¶9).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 6 include:
- A memory storing a list of participants and associated information.
- One or more processors that execute instructions to:
- Maintain the list.
- Present a user interface for selecting a category.
- In response, present information for multiple matching participants while shielding their contact information.
- Base the display of participant information at least in part on a "rating" of the participants.
- Enable the user to send a shielded inquiry message to participants.
- Track a response time for participants who receive a message.
- Update the rating associated with a participant based at least in part on the tracked response time.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Chegg Tutors" service, accessible via the website www.chegg.com, as the accused instrumentality. (Compl. ¶¶9-10). The body of the complaint focuses exclusively on the Chegg Tutors service; however, the prayer for relief makes a conflicting reference to Defendant infringing through several unrelated dating websites. (Compl. ¶i.a).
Functionality and Market Context
The Chegg Tutors service is an online platform that connects students with tutors for various academic subjects. (Compl. ¶10). The platform allows a user (student) to select a subject category, browse a list of available tutors, and view their profiles, which include user-generated "like" counts and an "Expected Response Time." (Compl. p. 10, Attachment 2). A screenshot of the Chegg Tutors interface shows a user can select a subject category like "Programming Tutors" from a list of options. (Compl. p. 6, Attachment 4). The platform facilitates communication between the student and tutor through an internal messaging system, which shields the parties' direct contact information such as email addresses. (Compl. p. 11, 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’107 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer system comprising: a memory to store a list comprising a plurality of participants... wherein the list also includes information associated with... each participant... | Chegg allegedly uses one or more servers and databases to store and maintain a list of participants (tutors) and their associated information. | ¶10, p. 4 | col. 6:15-21 |
| one or more processors that execute instructions to: maintain the list; | Chegg’s servers allegedly execute instructions to maintain the data of the participants (tutors) and their information. A screenshot shows a list of available programming tutors. (Compl. p. 5, Attachment 2). | ¶10, p. 5 | col. 5:51-55 |
| present a user with an interface from which the user makes a selection of a category from a plurality of categories; | The Chegg Tutors service allegedly presents users with an interface to select a subject, such as "Programming Tutors" or "Math," from a plurality of categories. | ¶10, p. 5 | col. 6:56-62 |
| in response to receiving the selection of the category by the user, present, for the user, some of the information associated with each of multiple participants... which match the selection..., while shielding contact information... | After a user selects a category, the system allegedly displays a list of matching tutors but shields their direct contact information. A screenshot shows a tutor's profile page where communication is initiated via a "Send message" button on the platform. (Compl. p. 9, Attachment 3). | ¶10, p. 7 | col. 8:54-65 |
| wherein displaying some of the information associated with each of the multiple participants is based at least in part on a rating of individual participants... | The display of tutors is allegedly based on a rating or ranking. The complaint points to tutor status ("Online," "Ready to teach now!") and "like" counts as factors influencing the ranking. | ¶10, p. 10 | col. 7:16-20 |
| enabling the user to send an inquiry message to one or more of the multiple participants, while shielding the contact information from the user... | The platform allegedly allows a user to send an inquiry message to tutors through the system without revealing the user's or tutor's direct contact information. | ¶10, p. 11 | col. 12:44-58 |
| tracking a response time of each of the one or more participants who received the message from the user; and | Chegg allegedly tracks the response time of each participant. The complaint provides a screenshot showing an "EXPECTED RESPONSE TIME" of "< 5 min" displayed on a tutor's profile. (Compl. p. 15, Attachment 3). | ¶10, p. 15 | col. 9:60-64 |
| updating the rating associated with each of the one or more participants based at least in part on the tracked response time. | The complaint alleges that each participant's rating is updated based on their response time, which in turn affects their ranking and display to users. | ¶10, p. 16 | col. 18:48-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent's specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of resolving "life issues" associated with corporate or family relocation. A question arises as to whether the claims, when read in light of the specification, can be interpreted to cover a platform dedicated to academic tutoring.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Chegg "updat[es] the rating" based on "tracked response time." While the complaint shows Chegg displays an "Expected Response Time," the specific evidence demonstrating that this tracked time is used to algorithmically update a persistent "rating" (such as the "like" count) as required by the final claim element may become a central point of factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "rating of individual participants"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement requires the accused system to both display participants based on a "rating" and to "update" that rating based on response time. The definition of "rating" will determine whether Chegg's display of "like" counts and its ranking based on tutor availability and responsiveness meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term without a precise definition, referring generally to "feedback or a quality rating of the participant" (col. 7:17-18). This language could support an interpretation that "rating" encompasses various signals, including popularity metrics (likes), user feedback, or system-generated rankings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires updating the rating "based at least in part on the tracked response time." A party could argue this implies the "rating" must be a dynamic score that is algorithmically modified by responsiveness metrics, rather than a static "like" count or a simple availability status.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Chegg induces and contributes to infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers and tutors on how to use the Chegg Tutors service in a way that practices the claimed method and system. (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Chegg's purported knowledge of the '107 patent "from at least the date of issuance of the patent." (Compl. ¶11). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded. The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement. (Compl. p. 20, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "rating", as used in Claim 6, be construed to cover the combination of "like" counts and an "expected response time" displayed on the Chegg platform, or does the claim require a single, integrated score that is algorithmically updated by response time data?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: what proof will be offered to show that the accused Chegg system performs the specific step of "updating the rating... based at least in part on the tracked response time," as opposed to merely displaying a response time metric alongside a separate popularity count?
- A fundamental question of patent scope may arise: can the claims of the '107 patent, which are described in the specification primarily through the lens of solving logistical "life issues" like corporate relocation, be properly applied to an online platform for academic tutoring?