DCT
1:22-cv-10130
Savannah Licensing LLC v. CME Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Savannah Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: CME Group Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-10130, S.D.N.Y., 11/29/2022
- 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.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, which utilizes session-monitoring and user-behavior analytics, infringes patents related to detecting user frustration events on a device and using the resulting data to provide feedback.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of User Experience (UX) analytics, which involves capturing, packaging, and analyzing data about user interactions with software to identify points of friction and improve system performance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution for both patents, the applicant amended the claims to distinguish them from prior art, a history that may be relevant to future claim construction arguments.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,680,992 |
| 2010-09-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 |
| 2014-03-25 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,680,992 |
| 2016-09-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 |
| 2022-11-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,680,992 - Measuring and Improving the Quality of a User Experience, Issued March 25, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art methods for evaluating user experience, noting they "may be network based and may be delayed from the user's experience" (Compl. ¶21; ’992 Patent, col. 1:12-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method implemented on a user's device to provide more immediate feedback. The method involves detecting a "user frustration event" (e.g., physical actions like shaking the device), associating that event with a concurrent "device event" (e.g., a specific application running), forming an "event package" containing data about the frustration and its context, and transmitting that package through a network (’992 Patent, col. 14:18-29). This captures real-time, context-specific data at the moment of user frustration (’992 Patent, col. 4:26-38).
- Technical Importance: This approach shifts user experience monitoring from delayed, server-side analysis to real-time, device-level event capture, enabling the collection of more granular and timely feedback.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶19, ¶43).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- detecting a user frustration event;
- associating the user frustration event with a device event that includes an active operation of the device at a time when the user frustration event occurred;
- forming an event package based at least in part on the user frustration event and the device event that includes information indicating a level, a type of user frustration, and information related to routing the event package through a network; and
- transmitting the event package.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 - Measuring and Improving the Quality of a User Experience Upon Receiving a Frustration Event Package, Issued September 27, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as its parent '992 Patent: that "current methods for evaluating a user's experience are network based and include deficiencies such as delayed evaluation and transmission" (Compl. ¶50; ’777 Patent, col. 1:23-27).
- The Patented Solution: This invention describes the server-side counterpart to the '992 Patent's device-side method. It discloses a method where a computing device (e.g., a server) receives the "frustration event package," determines feedback based on the indicators within that package, and then implements a "network action" based on that feedback (’777 Patent, col. 14:45-59). This creates a closed-loop system where detected frustration can trigger a response.
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a system for acting upon the received user frustration data, potentially enabling automated network improvements or structured reporting to developers.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51, ¶73).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a user frustration event indicator and an associated event indicator that indicates a level and a type of user frustration associated with a user frustration event, wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes an active operation of a device at a time when the user frustration event occurred;
- determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator; and
- implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "CME Group Inc." website, which allegedly utilizes a third-party service named LogRocket (Compl. ¶74-75).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused website uses LogRocket to "detect and capture rage click sessions" from a user's device (Compl. ¶75).
- This functionality is alleged to generate "session replay videos, click maps, heat maps, etc." and create a "real-time session event report" that is transmitted to Defendant's teams for analysis and service improvement (Compl. ¶76, ¶78). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific market positioning or commercial importance of the accused website's features. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'992 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting a user frustration event | Detecting "rage clicks," defined as when a user clicks repeatedly on a particular element or area of the website (Compl. ¶76). | ¶76 | col. 3:1-5 |
| associating the user frustration event with a device event that includes an active operation of the device at a time when the user frustration event occurred | Associating "rage clicking" with the "detecting and capturing sessions related to rage clicks" during the active operation of the website. | ¶77 | col. 4:31-35 |
| forming an event package...that includes information indicating a level, a type of user frustration, and information related to routing the event package through a network | Forming a "session event report" containing session replay videos, click maps, and heat maps as the "level" and "type" of frustration. | ¶78 | col. 5:1-2, 59-62 |
| transmitting the event package | Transmitting the "session event report" over the internet to the teams of the Accused Instrumentality. | ¶79 | col. 4:39-40 |
'777 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a user frustration event indicator...that indicates a level and a type of user frustration...wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes an active operation of a device at a time... | A server of the Accused Instrumentality receiving a "session event report" which is alleged to be the frustration event package, with "rage clicks" being the user frustration event indicator. | ¶94 | col. 14:46-54 |
| determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator | The server determining feedback based on the "indicator which designates that the received event is a rage click" and the associated session data. | ¶95 | col. 14:55-57 |
| implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback | Notifying the "respective team of the Accused Instrumentality regarding the session report including frustration signals." | ¶96 | col. 14:58-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Question: A primary point of dispute may be whether the term "user frustration event," exemplified in the '992 Patent with physical user actions like shaking a device or hard button presses (’992 Patent, col. 3:1-5), can be construed to encompass the software-detected behavior of "rage clicks" as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶76).
- Scope Question: For the '777 Patent, a key issue may be the scope of "network action." The complaint alleges this is met by "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶96), whereas the patent specification provides examples such as "increasing a network service in a local area" or "beam steering" (’777 Patent, col. 8:8-13). The court may need to determine if an administrative communication qualifies as a "network action."
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges that "session replay videos, click maps, heat maps" constitute "information indicating a level" of frustration (’992 Patent, col. 14:25; Compl. ¶78). A technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that these outputs inherently convey a gradable "level," as opposed to simply documenting the occurrence of the event.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "user frustration event" (from '992 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
- The definition of this term is critical to the infringement analysis for both patents. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to the patent's explicit physical examples or if it can broadly cover other programmatically-detected indicators of user frustration, such as the "rage clicks" performed by the accused system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces its examples with "for example" and "such as," suggesting the list is not exhaustive (’992 Patent, col. 3:1-5). Plaintiff may argue that "rage clicks" are another form of "non-productive actions by the user," consistent with the patent's general description.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples of direct, physical actions detected by device sensors (e.g., "shaking, throwing or impact of the device," "shouting or sighing") (’992 Patent, col. 4:51-52, 57-59). Defendant may argue the invention is limited to detecting these specific types of physical inputs rather than inferring frustration from standard mouse-click patterns.
The Term: "network action" (from '777 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
- This term's construction is central to infringement of the '777 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation of "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶96) appears distinct from the technical, system-level adjustments described in the patent's examples.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "network action" to a specific type. Plaintiff could argue that any action implemented over a network and based on the feedback, including an automated notification, meets the claim's plain meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of a "network action," such as "increasing a network service in a local area," "increasing a power modulation," or "beam steering" (’777 Patent, col. 8:8-13). Defendant may argue that these examples define the scope of the term, limiting it to actions that directly alter network or system performance parameters, not merely administrative communications.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '992 and '777 Patents. The allegations for inducement are based on "encouraging infringement" (Compl. ¶85, ¶102). The allegations for contributory infringement assert that the Accused Instrumentality is not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶86, ¶103).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶83, ¶100). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "user frustration event," rooted in patent examples of direct physical actions like shaking a device, be construed to cover the algorithmically-inferred behavior of "rage clicks" in the accused website analytics system?
- A second central question of definitional scope will be whether implementing a "network action," which the patent exemplifies as altering technical network parameters, is met by the accused system's alleged function of generating an administrative notification for an internal team.
- Given the complaint’s extensive pre-emptive arguments regarding patent eligibility (Compl. ¶16-42, ¶48-72), a foundational question for the court will be one of patentability: are the claims directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality (real-time, context-aware feedback), or to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and organizing data about human behavior?