DCT
2:25-cv-05508
Social Finance LLC v. Carricarte IP Licensing LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Social Finance, LLC ("SoFi") (Delaware)
- Defendant: Carricarte IP Licensing, LLC (Florida) and Louis M. Carricarte (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blank Rome LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05508, E.D. Pa., 09/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant Louis M. Carricarte, the patent’s inventor, resides in the District, and Defendant Carricarte IP Licensing, LLC maintains its principal place of business in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, and that claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,866 are invalid, following a series of communications from Defendants alleging infringement and threatening litigation.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for collecting, aggregating, and displaying real-time feedback data from multiple participants via mobile devices, and enabling two-way communication between a client entity and those participants.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by a series of communications from Defendants to Plaintiff between May and August 2025. These communications allegedly included a "License Notification Packet" with infringement and claim construction analyses, proposed licensing terms, and culminated in a "Cease & Desist Due to Willful Infringement" letter threatening imminent litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-18 | U.S. Patent No. 10,949,866 Priority Date |
| 2021-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,949,866 Issue Date |
| 2025-05-27 | Defendants send "License Notification Packet" to Plaintiff |
| 2025-06-16 | Defendants send follow-up communication to Plaintiff |
| 2025-06-30 | Defendants send letter asserting willful infringement |
| 2025-07-14 | Defendants send letter again alleging willful infringement |
| 2025-08-08 | Defendants send "Cease & Desist" letter to Plaintiff |
| 2025-09-24 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,949,866 - "System And Method For Real Time Participant Engagement And Two-Way Communication"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,949,866 ("the ’866 Patent"), "System And Method For Real Time Participant Engagement And Two-Way Communication," issued March 16, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that traditional methods for gathering user or customer feedback are too slow in an environment of "nearly instantaneous" electronic communication, putting entities "out of touch and at a disadvantage" ('866 Patent, col. 1:39-54). It also notes the need for participant anonymity to obtain "accurate and realistic feedback" and for secure data transmission ('866 Patent, col. 1:55-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for real-time feedback collection and response. Participants use a mobile application to submit feedback on an "event" ('866 Patent, col. 5:56-59). This data is transmitted to a server, aggregated with data from other participants, and displayed on an interactive dashboard for a "client" entity ('866 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 6). The system's key feature is enabling the client to analyze this real-time data and then communicate back to selected "cohorts" of participants, for instance, to ask for more detailed feedback or provide a special offer ('866 Patent, col. 6:3-12).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution purports to create an immediate, actionable feedback loop that was previously unavailable, allowing entities to respond to customer sentiment "while the participant is still present" ('866 Patent, col. 5:64-6:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for claims 1-4. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim asserted. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) Providing participants a mobile application in real-time communication with a data server.
- (b) Allowing participants to input a command (feedback) by selecting a category and a value.
- (c) Receiving feedback data from multiple participants on the data server.
- (d) Aggregating and organizing the feedback data in real time into a data structure.
- (e) Providing a client entity a software application with an interactive dashboard for displaying the structured data.
- (f) The client application receiving the structured data from the data server in real time.
- (g) Displaying the structured data on the interactive dashboard, which allows the client to alter the display by selecting data analysis criteria.
- The complaint reserves the right to seek a declaration regarding claims 5-15 should Defendants amend their infringement accusations. (Compl. ¶23 n.2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint refers generally to "SoFi's technology and financial tools." (Compl. ¶18). It does not identify any specific product, application, or service by name.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes SoFi as a financial services company offering banking, lending, and investment products through a proprietary technology platform. (Compl. ¶11).
- The complaint frames the functionality of the accused instrumentality in the negative, asserting that SoFi's tools "do not perform, and are not configured to perform" the steps recited in the ’866 Patent's claims. (Compl. ¶18). Specifically, the complaint alleges SoFi's tools do not receive, aggregate, and organize feedback from multiple participants in real time, nor do they provide a client entity with an interactive dashboard to display and analyze such data as claimed. (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint for declaratory judgment presents a theory of non-infringement by asserting that Plaintiff's products lack the required functionality. The following chart summarizes these negative allegations against the elements of independent claim 1.
’866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (c) receiving on said data server feedback data from multiple participants... | Plaintiff alleges its technology does not receive feedback from multiple participants' mobile applications. | ¶18 | col. 22:62-63 |
| (d) aggregating and organizing in real time into a data structure said feedback data received from multiple participants... | Plaintiff alleges its technology does not aggregate and organize feedback received from multiple participants in real time into a data structure. | ¶18 | col. 23:1-6 |
| (e) provid[ing] to a client entity a software application executable on a client device... capable of receiving... and displaying... in an interactive dashboard in real time said structured data from multiple participants... | Plaintiff alleges its technology and financial tools do not include a software application for a client entity that receives and displays real-time structured data from multiple participants in an interactive dashboard. | ¶18 | col. 23:7-16 |
| (g) displaying in real time said structured data in said interactive dashboard... wherein said interactive dashboard allows said client entity to alter the display of structured data... | Plaintiff alleges its technology and financial tools do not include an interactive dashboard that displays real-time data and allows a client entity to alter that display by selecting data analysis criteria. | ¶18 | col. 23:19-26 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a user's individual interactions with a personal finance application constitutes "participant feedback about an event" as that term is used in the patent, which provides examples like feedback at a restaurant or theme park. (Compl. ¶18; ’866 Patent, Ex. 1, 3).
- Technical Questions: The primary dispute appears to be factual and technical: do SoFi's financial tools incorporate the specific system architecture required by Claim 1? The complaint raises the question of whether there is evidence that SoFi's systems perform multi-user, real-time data aggregation and provide a client-facing "interactive dashboard" for data analysis, functionalities which Plaintiff expressly denies. (Compl. ¶18).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "participant feedback about an event in real time"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's scope. The dispute may turn on whether a user's interactions with their own financial account on SoFi's platform can be characterized as "feedback about an event," or if the patent is limited to shared, public, or commercial experiences.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a very broad definition of "event," stating it "is meant to include any and all types of occurrences, activities, situations, scenarios, conditions or other circumstances which an individual may observe, have knowledge of or with which the individual may be somehow involved." (’866 Patent, col. 5:50-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples consistently describe events involving multiple participants in a shared context, such as guests at a "client establishment" like a restaurant, attendees at a venue, or employees on a factory floor. (’866 Patent, col. 5:24-26; col. 12:41-43).
The Term: "interactive dashboard"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff specifically denies its technology includes the claimed "interactive dashboard." (Compl. ¶18). The specific capabilities of this dashboard, particularly that it is used by a "client entity" to analyze aggregated data from "multiple participants," will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the dashboard as a means for a client to "visualize the participant data displayed in a variety of different ways" and to "organize and analyze the data in real time." (’866 Patent, col. 5:27-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1(g) requires that the dashboard allows the client to "alter the display of structured data... by selecting for display the desired data analysis criteria and range." Figures 8-13 depict a sophisticated interface with multiple filters, trending data, and drill-down capabilities, suggesting a tool more complex than a simple data display. (’866 Patent, FIGs. 8-13).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not indirectly infringe the ’866 Patent but does not provide specific facts beyond a general denial. (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness by Defendants. Instead, it states that Defendants' repeated allegations of Plaintiff's "willful infringement" and threats of litigation in pre-suit correspondence form the basis for the "actual and justiciable controversy" that gives the court jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 15-17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent's concept of an "event," which is exemplified by shared public experiences like dining, be construed broadly enough to read on an individual user's private interactions with their own account on a financial services platform?
- A second key issue will be one of technical and factual mismatch: Does SoFi's technology platform, designed for personal finance, actually implement the specific architecture claimed in the ’866 Patent—namely, a system for aggregating real-time feedback from multiple distinct participants for analysis by a "client entity" on an "interactive dashboard"—a configuration that SoFi expressly denies exists in its products?
- Finally, the case raises a question of patent eligibility: As alleged in the complaint, do the claims merely recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data using generic computer components, and if so, do they contain a sufficient "inventive concept" to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?