DCT
1:18-cv-12267
Netsoc LLC v. Oath Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: NetSoc, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Oath Inc. (Delaware / New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-12267, S.D.N.Y., 07/11/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has 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 online question-and-answer social network infringes a patent related to a method for facilitating the resolution of user issues through a categorized, feedback-driven network.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves large-scale, public-facing social networks, such as online Q&A platforms, which connect users seeking information with other users who possess relevant knowledge or expertise.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a Second Amended Complaint filed in a consolidated case. The complaint asserts that the accused service, operated by Defendant Oath Inc., was previously part of Yahoo! Inc. before its business units were sold to Verizon.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-09-03 | ’591 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-03-10 | Date of article cited as evidence of Defendant's data center infrastructure |
| 2015-12-22 | ’591 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-07-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,218,591, "Method and System for Establishing and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues," issued December 22, 2015.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical problems and concerns that arise when individuals or families relocate, such as logistical issues, assimilating into a new community, or finding specific local expertise. (’591 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a social network service where a user can submit an inquiry about a problem without specifying a recipient. The system then selects one or more participants to receive the inquiry based on a category chosen by the user. (’591 Patent, col. 2:12-29). The system can provide biographies of potential "issue resolvers" to the user, route communications, and track the performance of the resolvers through user feedback. (’591 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:41-61).
- Technical Importance: The patented method claims to facilitate complex personal and professional transitions, such as corporate employee relocations, by networking individuals with relevant local knowledge and resources. (’591 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-8 of the ’591 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is detailed in the complaint's infringement chart.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Maintaining a list of participants and associated information.
- Presenting a user with a plurality of selectable categories.
- Receiving a category selection and an electronic inquiry from the user for an unidentified respondent.
- Selecting participants to receive the inquiry based at least in part on the category selection.
- Sending the inquiry to the selected participants.
- Receiving responses that include biographical information about the responding participant.
- Publishing a portion of the response for other users to view, without identifying the original user but including the responder's biographical information.
- Tracking feedback for participants, including determining a rating from the user.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "Oath Answers Service," identified as operating at www.oath.com and described as the successor to the well-known "Yahoo! Answers" platform (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The service provides a platform where users can post questions and receive answers from a community of other users (Compl. ¶10, Attachment 1). Users post their questions into specific categories (e.g., "Health," "Business & Finance") to target users with relevant expertise (Compl. ¶10, p. 8). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user leaderboard, which displays a list of participants ranked by points, suggesting a system for tracking user participation and reputation (Compl. ¶10, p. 5, Attachment 2). The platform also allows the original asker to rate the answers they receive (Compl. ¶10, p. 28, Attachment 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,218,591 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| maintaining a list comprising a plurality of participants... wherein the list also includes information associated with at least one of each participant... | Defendant's servers allegedly maintain a list of its service participants (users) and their associated information, such as user profiles, points, and levels. A screenshot of a user "Leaderboard" is provided as evidence. | ¶10, pp. 4-6 | col. 3:45-54 |
| presenting a user with a plurality of categories from which the user may make a selection of a category from the plurality of categories; | The service allegedly presents users with a list of selectable categories for their questions. A screenshot shows a sidebar menu with categories like "Arts & Humanities" and "Business & Finance." | ¶10, pp. 7-8 | col. 6:46-59 |
| in conjunction with the selection of the category, receiving an electronic communication from the user for an unidentified respondent, wherein the electronic communication contains an inquiry of the user; | After selecting a category, a user can allegedly submit an electronic communication containing an inquiry. The complaint alleges the respondent is "unidentified." A screenshot shows the interface for typing and submitting a question. | ¶10, pp. 9-10 | col. 2:19-24 |
| after receiving the selection of the category by the user, selecting one or more participants from the list to receive the electronic communication, wherein selecting is based at least in part on the selection of the category... | The complaint alleges that after a user posts an inquiry in a category, the system selects participants who have opted into that category to see the inquiry on their profile pages and respond. | ¶10, pp. 11-12 | col. 6:22-23 |
| receiving a response to the inquiry from the selected one or more participants, the response from each of the one or more participants including biographical information about that participant; | The system allegedly receives responses to the user's inquiry, and these responses are accompanied by the responding participant's biographical information, such as their user profile. | ¶10, pp. 18-20 | col. 7:17-24 |
| publishing at least a portion of the response... without identifying the user but includes providing biographical information about the participant who provided the response; | The platform allegedly publishes responses for public view. The complaint alleges the original user can post anonymously, while the responding participant's profile information is displayed with their answer. | ¶10, pp. 21-26 | col. 4:11-18 |
| tracking feedback for each of the selected one or more participants... including determining a rating from the user for at least one of the selected one or more participants. | The service allegedly tracks feedback by allowing the user to provide a rating (e.g., 5 stars) for a response and to award a "Best Answer." A screenshot shows an "Asker's rating" feature. | ¶10, pp. 27-29 | col. 9:41-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of receiving a communication "for an unidentified respondent." The complaint alleges this is met by a user posting a question to a public category board. The question for the court is whether the claim term, in the context of the patent's description of a service that "selects a recipient/participant for the user" (’591 Patent, col. 2:25-27), can be construed to read on a public broadcast to a forum, or if it requires a more targeted, albeit anonymous, routing of a message.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system performs the step of "selecting one or more participants...to receive the electronic communication" (Compl. ¶10, p. 11). However, the evidence provided shows users browsing categories to find questions to answer (Compl. ¶10, p. 12, Attachment 6). This raises the evidentiary question of whether the system actively "selects" and "sends" the inquiry to specific participants, as the claim requires, or if it merely makes the inquiry passively available for any interested participant to view, which may represent a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "selecting one or more participants from the list to receive the electronic communication"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "selecting" is critical to infringement. If "selecting" is construed to require an active, targeted routing of the inquiry to a specific subset of users by the system, the infringement case may be more difficult to prove than if it is construed broadly to cover merely making the inquiry available to any user who has expressed an interest in a category. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product's functionality appears to be based on passive availability rather than active selection and sending.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "selecting." One might argue that by categorizing the inquiry, the system is functionally selecting the audience of all participants interested in that category.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "selecting...to receive the electronic communication" followed by "sending the inquiry to the selected one or more participants." This sequence suggests an active process. The specification reinforces this, describing a service that "selects a recipient/participant for the user" and then the inquiry "is then sent to that participant" (’591 Patent, col. 2:25-28). The flowchart in FIG. 3 explicitly depicts a step to "SELECT WHICH PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE FORWARDED THE INQUIRY" (’591 Patent, FIG. 3, 340). This evidence may support a narrower construction requiring an affirmative, system-directed selection and forwarding action.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Oath induces infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers on how to use the question-and-answer services in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’591 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is also pleaded (Compl. ¶12).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Oath's purported knowledge of the ’591 patent and the underlying technology from "at least the date of issuance of the patent" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). The plaintiff seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶ V.e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's model, where users' inquiries are made passively available on a public category board for any interested participant to view, perform the active, two-step process of "selecting...participants to receive" an inquiry and then "sending the inquiry to the selected...participants," as required by Claim 1?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation of receiving a communication "for an unidentified respondent" be met by a user posting a question to a public forum, or does the patent's disclosure require a system that more actively routes a message to a recipient whose identity is purposefully withheld from the user?