Savannah Licensing LLC v. Citizens Financial Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Savannah Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 5:22-cv-02146, N.D. Ohio, 11/29/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online banking website infringes patents related to detecting user frustration events to measure and improve the quality of a user's digital experience.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns real-time monitoring of user interactions with a device or service to identify points of friction and enable dynamic responses or data collection for later analysis.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint includes extensive pre-emptive arguments and case law citations asserting the patent eligibility of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting an anticipation of a motion to dismiss on that basis. The complaint also references arguments made during the prosecution of both patents to distinguish them from prior art.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-09-03	Priority Date for '992 and '777 Patents
2014-03-25	U.S. Patent No. 8,680,992 Issued
2016-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 Issued
2022-11-29	Complaint Filed

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 that prior methods for evaluating a user's experience with mobile devices and services were often "network based" and "delayed from the user's experience," preventing real-time or timely analysis of user friction ('992 Patent, col. 1:12-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a user's device to provide immediate feedback. The method involves detecting a "user frustration event" (e.g., shaking the device), automatically associating that event with a concurrent "device event" (e.g., a slow webpage download), and then creating and transmitting an "event package" containing data about both events ('992 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:49-67). This package can then be analyzed to diagnose and fix the source of the user's frustration.
• Technical Importance: This approach shifts user experience monitoring from delayed, server-side analysis to real-time, client-side event capture, potentially enabling faster responses and more accurate problem diagnosis by linking frustration directly to a specific device operation ('992 Patent, col. 3:26-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶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: As with its parent patent, the ’777 Patent addresses the problem that evaluating user experience was often delayed and disconnected from the user's actual moment of frustration ('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 for a computing system to receive the "frustration event package," determine feedback based on its contents (e.g., identify a cluster of frustrated users in one geographic area), and then implement a "network action" based on that feedback, such as increasing network service to the affected area ('777 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:7-14).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables a system to not only receive granular feedback about user frustration but also to potentially take automated, dynamic action to resolve the underlying issue, thereby creating a closed-loop system for improving user experience ('777 Patent, col. 7:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶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, where the frustration event is associated with an active operation of a device;
  • 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 "Citizens Financial Group, Inc." website (www.citizensbank.com) and its incorporated and/or related systems, collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶6, ¶74).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality uses the "Datadog" analytics service for monitoring user sessions (Compl. ¶75). The relevant functionality involves detecting "rage clicks," which are defined as a user clicking repeatedly on a particular website element. These events are allegedly auto-captured in session replays and transmitted as reports to Defendant's teams to "quickly identify frontend issues and resolve errors for better user experience" (Compl. ¶76). The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is central to Defendant's business of providing banking products and services (Compl. ¶6).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E and F) that were not included in the filing; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative descriptions.

• ’992 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
  The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality practices the claimed method through its use of analytics that monitor user interactions (Compl. ¶¶75-79). The theory of infringement appears to be that detecting "rage clicks" on the website meets the "detecting a user frustration event" limitation. Associating these clicks with the user's active session allegedly meets the "associating" limitation. The "session event report" that is generated, which includes "frustration signals" and the server IP address, is alleged to be the claimed "event package." Finally, transmitting this report to Defendant's internal teams is alleged to satisfy the "transmitting the event package" step (Compl. ¶79).

• ’777 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
  The complaint alleges that Defendant's servers practice the server-side method claimed in the ’777 Patent (Compl. ¶¶93-96). The infringement theory posits that Defendant's servers receive the "session event report including frustration signals," which meets the "receiving... a frustration event package" limitation. The system then allegedly practices the "determining... feedback" step when it processes the report. The final step, "implementing... a network action based on the determined feedback," is allegedly met when the system is used to "notify the respective team of the Accused Instrumentality regarding the session report including frustration signals" (Compl. ¶96).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Question: A central point of contention may be whether a software-based event like "rage clicks" on a website falls within the scope of a "user frustration event" as contemplated by the patents. The '992 Patent specification provides physical examples such as "shaking the device" or a "hard push" of a button ('992 Patent, col. 10:7-15), raising the question of whether the claims are limited to such physical manifestations of frustration.
  • Technical Question: The allegation that "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶96) satisfies the '777 Patent's requirement to "implement... a network action" raises a significant technical question. The '777 Patent specification describes network actions as technical adjustments like "increasing a network service in a local area" or "beam steering toward the area" ('777 Patent, col. 8:7-14), suggesting an automated, system-level response rather than a notification to a human operator. The court may need to determine if a human-in-the-loop notification constitutes a "network action" under the claim.
  • Evidentiary Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "session event report" contains all the information required by Claim 1 of the '992 Patent, specifically "information related to routing the event package through a network"? The complaint alleges this is met by the "IP address of the server of the Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶78), the sufficiency of which may be disputed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "user frustration event" (asserted in Claim 1 of both patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for both patented methods. Its construction is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on equating "rage clicks" with a "user frustration event." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patents read on purely software-based user interactions or are limited to the physical device interactions described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "frustration event" to physical actions, potentially leaving room for it to encompass other detectable signs of user frustration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '992 Patent specification repeatedly uses physical examples to define the term, such as "shaking the device or pressing buttons or a touch screen harder or longer than may be necessary" ('992 Patent, col. 3:1-4) and "shouting or sighing" (col. 10:57-59). These examples may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to physical user actions.

• The Term: "implementing... a network action" ('777 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the final, responsive step of the server-side invention. The infringement case depends on whether "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶96) meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "implementing an action" is broad on its face and could arguably include initiating a process that involves human intervention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of a "network action," including "increasing a network service in a local area," "increasing a power modulation," and "beam steering toward the area" ('777 Patent, col. 8:7-14). These examples all describe direct, technical changes to network operations, which may support an argument that the claim requires an automated, machine-implemented action rather than a simple notification.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant encourages infringement and sells the Accused Instrumentality to customers for use in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶¶85-86, 102-103). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendant's customers are direct infringers or how Defendant specifically intended to cause their infringement beyond providing the website functionality.
• 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 supports a claim for post-filing willfulness only and does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents or the alleged infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of "definitional scope": can the term "user frustration event," which is exemplified in the patent specifications with physical actions like shaking a device, be construed to cover purely software-based interactions such as the "rage clicks" alleged to occur on Defendant's website? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal for the infringement analysis.
• A key question of "functional operation" will be whether the accused system's act of "notify[ing] the respective team" constitutes "implementing... a network action" as required by the '777 Patent. The case may turn on whether the court interprets this claim limitation to require a direct, automated technical adjustment to the network, as suggested by the patent's examples, or if a notification that initiates a human-led response is sufficient.
• A central theme of the early case is likely to be patent eligibility. Given the Plaintiff's extensive pre-emptive arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101, a primary battleground will be whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea of monitoring user frustration or to a specific, patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality.