DCT
1:18-cv-12215
Netsoc LLC v. LinkedIn Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NetSoc, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: LinkedIn Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-12215, S.D.N.Y., 12/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LinkedIn social networking platform, specifically its Talent Solutions and ProFinder services, infringes two patents related to methods for connecting users to solve "life issues" through a rated, reputation-based, and geographically-aware network.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses systems for creating trusted connections within a social network, automating the process of finding relevant individuals or service providers based on categorized needs and location.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not note prior litigation or administrative challenges. The asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,978,107 and 7,565,344, share a common inventor and the same earliest priority date, originating from the same provisional application. The earlier-issued '344 patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-03 | Priority Date for '107 and '344 Patents |
| 2009-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,565,344 Issues |
| 2018-05-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 Issues |
| 2018-12-26 | Complaint Filed |
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 (Compl. ¶7).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenges individuals and families face when relocating to an unfamiliar geographic area, including logistical issues, community assimilation, and finding specialized service providers. (’107 Patent, col. 9:40-10:17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer system that functions as a social network to resolve these issues. The system maintains a list of "participants" (e.g., service providers, peers) and allows a user to search for them by selecting from a plurality of categories. The system then presents matching participants ranked by a "rating," while shielding their direct contact information. The user can send a blind inquiry, and the system tracks the response time, which is then used to update the participant's rating, creating a performance-based feedback loop. (’107 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 5A; col. 17:15-18:21).
- Technical Importance: The described system aims to create a dynamic, reputation-based marketplace that moves beyond static directories by incorporating performance tracking (like response time) directly into the ranking and visibility of its participants. (’107 Patent, col. 9:56-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11, with a focus on independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶9, ¶10).
- The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
- A computer system with memory and processors that executes instructions to:
- Maintain a list of participants with associated information.
- Present a user interface for selecting a category.
- In response to a category selection, display information for multiple matching participants, shielded from their contact information, based at least in part on a "rating" of those participants.
- Enable the user to send a shielded inquiry message to one or more participants.
- Track the response time of each participant who received the message.
- Update the rating of each participant based at least in part on the tracked response time.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9).
U.S. Patent No. 7,565,344 - “Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,565,344, “Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues,” issued July 21, 2009 (Compl. ¶13).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty a person has in finding trusted assistance for "life issues" in a geographic location with which they are unfamiliar, where they may not know who to contact. (’344 Patent, col. 1:49-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that acts as a "blind" intermediary. A user submits an inquiry specifying a category of interest and a particular geographic location, but not a specific recipient. The system then "programmatically" selects at least one participant from its database based on the user's category and location criteria and forwards the inquiry to the selected participant(s) without revealing their identity to the user beforehand. (’344 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 3; col. 2:1-11).
- Technical Importance: This approach automates the referral process, connecting a person in need with relevant local expertise without requiring the user to have pre-existing contacts or knowledge of who provides such services. (’344 Patent, col. 10:5-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-14, with a focus on independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶15, ¶16).
- The essential elements of independent claim 10 are:
- A system with processors and memory that operate to:
- Maintain a list of participants with associated biographical and geographic location information.
- Enable a user to communicate with a selected participant who is unknown to the user but familiar with the user's geographic region of interest.
- This is performed by: presenting categories for selection; receiving the category selection; receiving an electronic inquiry from the user for an "unidentified respondent" that specifies a location; programmatically selecting at least one participant based on the category and location; sending the inquiry to the selected participant(s) without identifying them to the user; and enabling the participant(s) to provide a response.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names LinkedIn's website (www.LinkedIn.com) and its associated products and services, with specific focus on LinkedIn Talent Solutions (including Recruiter and Recruiter Lite) and LinkedIn ProFinder (Compl. ¶¶9, 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges LinkedIn is the "world's largest professional network," providing a platform for members to create profiles containing biographical and professional information (Compl. ¶6, ¶21).
- LinkedIn Talent Solutions: This service allegedly allows recruiters (users) to search for potential candidates (participants) using filters like industry and location. The results are ordered by a proprietary "relevance" algorithm. Recruiters can then send "InMail" messages to candidates without knowing their direct email addresses, and the system provides analytics on message responses and response times (Compl. ¶¶8-12, 16-19). The complaint includes a screenshot of the LinkedIn Recruiter search interface showing filters for location, keywords, and other criteria (Compl. p. 9).
- LinkedIn ProFinder: This service is described as a marketplace for freelance professionals. A user submits a request for a service within a specific category and geographic area. The system then allegedly matches the request to a list of "shortlisted candidates" and notifies them, allowing them to respond with proposals. The initial request is sent without the user identifying a specific professional (Compl. ¶¶26-27, 31).
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... | LinkedIn's servers and databases store and maintain data for millions of participants (users), including their associated information (Compl. p. 6). | ¶10 | col. 17:34-41 |
| present a user with an interface from which the user makes a selection of a category from a plurality of categories; | The LinkedIn Recruiter interface presents users with a plurality of categories (e.g., location, industry, company) from which to make a selection to filter candidates (Compl. p. 8-9). | ¶10 | col. 17:51-54 |
| in response to receiving the selection... present, for the user, some of the information associated with each of multiple participants... which match the selection..., while shielding contact information...; | After a recruiter selects categories, LinkedIn displays profiles of matching participants but shields their direct contact information (e.g., email address) (Compl. p. 10-11). | ¶10 | col. 17:55-62 |
| 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...; | LinkedIn allegedly displays search results based on a "rating or ranking," using proprietary algorithms for "relevance" that consider a variety of factors to determine the sort order (Compl. p. 12). | ¶10 | col. 17:63-66 |
| enabling the user to send an inquiry message to one or more of the multiple participants, while shielding the contact information from the user...; | Recruiters can send "InMail" inquiry messages to participants without the participants' direct contact information being revealed (Compl. p. 13-14). | ¶10 | col. 18:1-6 |
| tracking a response time of each of the one or more participants who received the message from the user; and | The LinkedIn Recruiter platform tracks the response time of each participant, displaying timestamps for replies and providing an "Inmail Response Analytics" dashboard (Compl. p. 16). | ¶10 | col. 18:7-10 |
| updating the rating associated with each of the one or more participants based at least in part on the tracked response time. | Plaintiff contends that a participant's rating is updated based on their response time and activity, such as being "Accepted" or "Declined," which affects their ranking in future search results (Compl. p. 16-19). | ¶10 | col. 18:11-14 |
’344 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| maintain a list comprising a plurality of participants... wherein the list includes information associated with each participant includes biographical information, the biographical information identifying a geographic region...; | LinkedIn maintains a list of millions of participants whose profiles contain biographical information, including geographic location data (Compl. p. 23-24). A screenshot shows profiles with location data like "Greater Los Angeles Area" (Compl. p. 24). | ¶16 | col. 13:26-39 |
| presenting the user with a plurality of categories from which the user may make a selection...; | The LinkedIn ProFinder service presents a user with a plurality of service categories (e.g., "Healthcare Consulting") from which to choose (Compl. p. 27-28). | ¶16 | col. 13:46-49 |
| receiving an electronic communication from the user for an unidentified respondent, wherein the... communication contains an inquiry... specifying a particular location that corresponds to the geographic region of interest; | A user of ProFinder submits an inquiry by filling out a form that specifies service details and a location (e.g., zip code), but does not identify a specific respondent (Compl. p. 30). | ¶16 | col. 13:53-60 |
| after receiving the selection... programmatically making a selection of at least one participant for receiving the electronic communication based at least in part on (i) the selection of the category, (ii) the information associated with the at least one participant, including the geographic region...; | LinkedIn ProFinder's system programmatically selects a list of "shortlisted candidates" based on the user's selected category and location information specified in the inquiry (Compl. p. 31, 35). A screenshot shows an automated email sent to a consultant selected by the system (Compl. p. 35). | ¶16 | col. 13:61-14:5 |
| sending the inquiry to one or more participants of the selection without identifying the one or more participants to the user; | The system sends the user's inquiry to the selected participants without first identifying those participants to the user who submitted the request (Compl. p. 36). | ¶16 | col. 14:6-9 |
| enabling any of the one or more participants to provide a response to the inquiry... wherein each response includes information about the participant sending the response; | Selected participants can provide a response (a proposal) to the user's inquiry through an online communication forum, with each response including information about the responding participant (Compl. p. 37-38). | ¶16 | col. 14:10-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’107 patent will be whether LinkedIn’s proprietary, multi-factor "relevance" algorithm (Compl. p. 12) constitutes a "rating" as required by claim 6. A related question is whether "programmatically making a selection" in claim 10 of the ’344 patent, which the specification often describes as selecting "a recipient" (singular), can be construed to read on the ProFinder system's practice of notifying a small group of up to five professionals (Compl. p. 27).
- Technical Questions: For the ’107 patent, a key factual question is what evidence exists that the "tracked response time" (Compl. p. 16) is functionally used to "update" the "rating" (i.e., the search relevance algorithm). The complaint alleges this connection, but the mechanism of the update will be a central point of proof.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rating" (from ’107 Patent, claim 6)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’107 patent depends on this term. If "rating" is construed narrowly to mean a specific performance score that is mathematically updated by response times, Plaintiff's burden of proof may be high. If construed broadly to mean any algorithmic rank or ordering, Plaintiff's position may be stronger. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim explicitly links its "updating" to "tracked response time."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "rating" is not explicitly defined in the specification, potentially leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could include any form of relative ranking or scoring.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 6 itself requires "updating the rating... based at least in part on the tracked response time" (col. 18:11-14), suggesting the rating is a performance-based metric. The shared specification also discusses tracking the "performance of the particular issue resolver" (e.g., ’344 Patent, col. 9:56-61), which could be argued to narrow the scope of "rating" to a performance score.
The Term: "programmatically making a selection of at least one participant" (from ’344 Patent, claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for the infringement allegation against LinkedIn ProFinder, which allegedly notifies a small group of professionals rather than selecting a single one. Whether selecting a "group" constitutes "making a selection of at least one" will be a key dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "at least one" means one or more, which could support the argument that selecting a group of five participants falls within the claim scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently refers to the system selecting "a recipient/participant for the user" (singular), and the inquiry being sent "to that participant" (’344 Patent, col. 2:7-9). This repeated use of the singular could support a narrower construction where the system performs a one-to-one or one-to-few matchmaking function, rather than a one-to-many broadcast.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LinkedIn induces and contributes to infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers and end users on how to use the accused features of Talent Solutions and ProFinder in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶11, 17). This is supported by allegations that LinkedIn provides documentation and services that guide users through the claimed processes.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on LinkedIn's knowledge of the patents "from at least the date of issuance of the patent" (Compl. ¶¶11, 17). The complaint does not allege specific facts related to pre-suit knowledge or notice.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the court's determination of several key issues:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "rating", as used in the ’107 patent, be interpreted to cover LinkedIn's proprietary, multi-factor "relevance" algorithm, or is it limited to a performance metric demonstrably updated by the "tracked response time" as the claim language suggests?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional connection: Can NetSoc produce evidence demonstrating that the response time data tracked by the LinkedIn Recruiter service is not merely an informational metric for users but is an actual input that causes an "update" to the algorithmic ranking of participants, as required to prove infringement of the ’107 patent?
- A final question will be one of technical scope: Does LinkedIn's ProFinder system, which notifies a small group of professionals about a service request, perform the function of "programmatically making a selection of at least one participant" as claimed in the ’344 patent, or does the patent's specification limit this step to a more direct, one-to-one matchmaking process?