DCT
2:22-cv-04202
Savannah Licensing LLC v. Quest Software Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Savannah Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Quest Software Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-04202, S.D. Ohio, 11/29/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the Southern District of Ohio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software solutions, which monitor user interactions on its website, infringe patents related to detecting user frustration and using that data to improve user experience.
- Technical Context: The technology involves monitoring a user's physical or digital interactions with a device or application to infer frustration, then packaging and transmitting data about that event for analysis and potential system adjustments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution for both patents-in-suit, the applicant amended the claims to overcome prior art rejections. These amendments, which added specific limitations related to associating a frustration event with an active device operation and including detailed information in the resulting data package, may be central to arguments regarding both claim scope and infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-03 | Priority Date for ’992 and ’777 Patents |
| 2013-09-19 | ’992 Patent Prosecution Amendment |
| 2014-03-25 | ’992 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-06-21 | ’777 Patent Prosecution Amendment |
| 2016-09-27 | ’777 Patent Issue Date |
| 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 that prior methods for evaluating user experience were often "network based and may be delayed from the user's experience," failing to capture immediate, device-level user sentiment (Compl. ¶21; ’992 Patent, col. 1:10-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method implemented on a user's device to provide real-time feedback. The method detects a "user frustration event" (e.g., shaking the device), associates this event with an active operation on the device at that moment (e.g., an app that is running), and then creates and transmits an "event package." This package contains specific details, including a "level" and "type" of frustration, as well as information for routing the package over a network (’992 Patent, col. 14:18-29). The process is illustrated in the patent's flow chart in Figure 2 (’992 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This device-centric approach enables the collection of granular, context-rich data about user experience at the moment it occurs, rather than relying on delayed or indirect network-level diagnostics (Compl. ¶23).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- 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 on the user frustration event and the device event, which includes information indicating a level, a type of user frustration, and information for routing the package; 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: Similar to its parent '992 Patent, the '777 Patent addresses the problem that "current methods for evaluating a user's experience are network based and include deficiencies such as delayed evaluation and transmission" ('777 Patent, col. 1:23-27).
- The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on the server-side processing of the data generated by the device-side method. It claims a method where a computing system receives the frustration event package, which already contains information about the frustration's level, type, and its association with an active device operation. The system then determines feedback based on this package and implements a network action in response (’777 Patent, col. 14:45-59). This allows a system to not only analyze but also act upon the received user feedback, for example by improving network performance ('777 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This technology creates a closed-loop system where user frustration data is not just collected for later review but can be used to trigger immediate, automated actions to improve system performance for the user or a group of users (’777 Patent, col. 8:1-14).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- receiving a frustration event package comprising indicators for user frustration (including level and type) that is associated with an active device operation at the time of the event;
- determining feedback based on the indicators in the package; and
- implementing 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 "Quest Software Inc." website, which the complaint refers to as the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶74). The complaint alleges this instrumentality utilizes "LogRocket" technology to perform the accused functions (Compl. ¶75).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that, at least in internal testing, the Accused Instrumentality uses LogRocket to detect "rage click sessions," which are defined as a user repeatedly clicking on a website element (Compl. ¶75-76). Upon detection, the system allegedly captures the session events as replay videos, click maps, and heat maps, generates a real-time "session event report," and transmits this report to Defendant's internal teams for analysis and service improvement (Compl. ¶76, ¶78-79). The complaint asserts Defendant provides software and related services and derives revenue from its website (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’992 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting a user frustration event | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly practices this step by detecting and identifying "rage clicks," where a user clicks repeatedly on a particular element of an app or website (Compl. ¶76). | ¶76 | col. 3:1-6 |
| 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 | The alleged "rage clicking" (user frustration event) is associated with the "active operation of the Accused Instrumentality" (device event) at the time the clicking occurred (Compl. ¶77). | ¶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 | A "session event report" (event package) is formed based on the rage clicking. This report allegedly includes "session replay videos, click maps, heat maps" as the "level" of frustration and the "IP address of the server" as the routing information (Compl. ¶78). | ¶78 | col. 5:1-2; col. 5:60-62 |
| transmitting the event package | The "session event report" is transmitted to the teams of the Accused Instrumentality for analysis (Compl. ¶79). | ¶79 | col. 5:5-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary issue may be whether "rage clicks" (repeated digital inputs on a website) fall within the scope of a "user frustration event." The ’992 Patent's specification primarily describes physical actions like shaking a mobile device or hard button presses (e.g., ’992 Patent, col. 3:1-4), raising the question of whether the claim term is limited to that physical context.
- Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that "session replay videos, click maps, [and] heat maps" function as "information indicating a level...of user frustration" as specifically required by the claim, rather than serving as general-purpose diagnostic data?
’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...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 | A server of the Accused Instrumentality allegedly receives a "session event report" (the package) that designates the event as a "rage click" and is associated with the active operation of the website when the clicking occurred (Compl. ¶94). | ¶94 | col. 7:14-16 |
| determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator | The server allegedly determines feedback based on the indicator that an event is a "rage click" and associated indicators such as session replays and heat maps (Compl. ¶95). | ¶95 | col. 7:27-34 |
| implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback | The system allegedly implements a network action by "notify/alert[ing] the respective team of the Accused Instrumentality regarding the session report" (Compl. ¶96). | ¶96 | col. 8:8-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A critical dispute may arise over the definition of "network action." The complaint alleges that notifying a human team constitutes a "network action." However, the ’777 Patent provides examples such as "increasing a network service in a local area" or "beam steering" (’777 Patent, col. 8:8-12), which suggests the term may be limited to automated, system-level adjustments to network operation, not merely sending a message.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "user frustration event" (’992 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against the website-based Accused Instrumentality hinges on whether "rage clicks" qualify as a "user frustration event." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples are physical manipulations of a device, whereas the accused conduct is digital.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers generally to "non-productive actions by the user" (’992 Patent, col. 3:1-2), which could be argued to encompass a wide range of behaviors beyond the specific examples, including repeated, ineffective clicks.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit examples provided in the detailed description are physical, such as "shaking the device or pressing buttons or a touch screen harder or longer than may be necessary" (’992 Patent, col. 3:2-4). This may support an argument that the invention is tied to the context of physical device interaction.
The Term: "network action" (’777 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’777 patent depends on whether an electronic "notification/alert" to a person is a "network action." The patent's examples appear to be machine-to-machine adjustments, making the construction of this term central to the dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with limiting language. Plaintiff may argue that any action implemented over a network in response to the determined feedback meets the claim, including sending a notification to a responsible party.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives 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. 8:8-12). These examples all describe automated, technical adjustments to network infrastructure or performance, not human-directed communications.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶85-86, ¶102-103). It alleges inducement based on encouraging infringement with knowledge and contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Instrumentality is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" for both patents (Compl. ¶83, ¶100). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness only and does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the patents' described context of mobile device interaction and automated network management be construed to cover the accused functionality? Specifically, can "user frustration event" (described via physical examples) read on digital "rage clicks", and can "network action" (described as automated system adjustments) read on a "notification" sent to a human team?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused product’s general-purpose session-replay and analytics tool, which generates "session replay videos, click maps, [and] heat maps," perform the specific function of providing "information indicating a level...of user frustration" as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and purpose?