DCT
2:19-cv-00008
Unoweb Virtual LLC v. Open Text Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: UnoWeb Virtual, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Open Text, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw Derieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00008, E.D. Tex., 03/22/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has transacted business in the district, maintains extensive operations and offices in Texas, and has committed acts of infringement there through its distribution channels.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s OpenText eDOCS DM, a document management system, infringes a patent related to tracking user access to content aggregated from multiple, distinct hosts.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to content management systems that solve the problem of tracking and presenting a user's interaction history with data that is stored across different sources.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff notes that the asserted patent was "repeatedly scrutinized" by the U.S. Patent Office during prosecution and that its patents have been licensed to other "leading technology companies."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-12-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,730,083 Priority Date |
| 2010-06-01 | U.S. Patent No. 7,730,083 Issues |
| 2019-03-22 | First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,730,083 - Method of Using a Code to Track User Access to Content
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,730,083, Method of Using a Code to Track User Access to Content, issued June 1, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge for users navigating online environments where content and products are siloed in different, independent e-shops or servers, making it difficult to track interactions and find previously viewed items across these disparate sources (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5; ’083 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system, or "virtual network," that tracks a user's activity across multiple content hosts. It does this by assigning a unique "surf code reference" to each piece of content a user views. These references are compiled into a "surf user-list," which the user can later access to see a consolidated history of all content they have viewed, regardless of its original host (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29; ’083 Patent, Abstract, col. 21:59-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to overcome drawbacks in early content management systems by providing a unified way to track and aggregate user access to heterogeneous data, which the complaint alleges improved efficiency and reduced costs (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶48).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- Providing a computer to host a plurality of contents from a plurality of content hosts.
- Storing a user identification to enable a user to log in.
- Permitting a logged-in user to view at least two different contents.
- Assigning a "surf code reference" to each of the different contents viewed.
- Receiving a request from the user to create a "user list" of viewed contents.
- Storing the user list, which comprises the surf-code references.
- Permitting the user to access the user list to identify viewed content.
- Presenting the viewed content to the user based on the user list.
- Independent Claim 8 (Method):
- Permitting a user to access a virtual server that provides a virtual network.
- Receiving a user request to create a "user list" of viewed contents.
- Assigning a "surf code reference" to each viewed content.
- Automatically storing the user list (comprising the surf code references) within the virtual network.
- Permitting the user to request the user-list from the virtual network.
- Supplying the user-list to the user at the client.
- Supplying a content to the user drawn from the user list.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- OpenText Document Management, eDOCS Edition ("eDOCS DM") (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- eDOCS DM is described as a platform that provides a "secure, centralized repository to unify, manage, and govern" an organization's content, which is often "scattered across the organization stored in multiple locations" (Compl. ¶42).
- A key feature alleged is "DM Sync & Save," which allows users to synchronize content from their local drives to the eDOCS DM server, making that content accessible to other users and effectively turning user machines into "content hosts" (Compl. ¶43). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Windows Explorer DM Extension" interface showing how local content can be synchronized. (Compl. p. 11).
- The system includes an "InfoCenter" user interface that, among other things, displays a "tile" showing the "most recently edited contents to the user" (Compl. ¶45). Users can click on items in this tile to launch the corresponding document (Compl. ¶46).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'083 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a computer hosting a plurality of contents provided by a plurality of content hosts... | The eDOCS DM server allegedly hosts content from multiple sources, including content uploaded by different users from their local drives via the "DM Sync & Save" feature. | ¶43 | col. 23:50-55 |
| storing on the computer storage medium an identification of the user to enable the user to log in... | The system requires users to log in with credentials, as shown in a screenshot of the eDOCS DM login screen. | ¶44 | col. 24:59-60 |
| permitting a logged-in user to access the computer through the requesting client to view at least two different contents... | After logging in, a user can view multiple documents, including those uploaded by other users. | ¶45 | col. 24:61-63 |
| assigning a surf code reference to each of the different contents viewed... | On information and belief, the system allegedly "assigns a surf code reference to the different contents viewed and edited" to track user activity. | ¶45 | col. 24:64-65 |
| receiving a request from a logged-in user to create a user list of different contents viewed by the logged-in user; | A user allegedly requests this list when, for example, the "InfoCenter" interface is configured to display recently edited content. A screenshot shows the "Recently Edited" tile in this interface. | ¶45; p. 13 | col. 24:1-3 |
| storing the user list on the computer, the user list comprising the surf-code reference for each of the different contents viewed... | The complaint alleges the "Recently Edited" tile in the InfoCenter interface constitutes the "user list," which is generated and stored by the system. | ¶45 | col. 24:4-6 |
| permitting the logged-in user to access the user list to identify the content viewed by the logged-in user; | The InfoCenter interface provides users access to this list of recently edited documents via configurable "tiles". | ¶ p. 14 | col. 24:7-9 |
| presenting the content viewed by the logged-in user to the requesting client based on the user list. | A user can click on a document listed in a tile, which launches the content in its native application. | ¶46 | col. 24:10-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the mechanism used by eDOCS DM to display "recently edited" documents qualifies as the claimed method of "assigning a surf code reference" and generating a "user list." The dispute could center on whether a product's internal document identifier and modification timestamp, used to generate a list of recent files via a database query, is equivalent to the patent's "surf code reference" and "user list" architecture.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the assignment of a "surf code reference" on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶45). This raises a factual question about the actual, underlying operation of the eDOCS DM software. Evidence from discovery will be needed to determine if the accused product's functionality for tracking recent documents matches the specific steps required by the claims or operates via a different technical method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "surf code reference"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's claimed method of tracking. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused product's mechanism for identifying previously viewed content can be defined as a "surf code reference."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as "a reference for each information supplied to each client" which "forms the surf user-list" (’083 Patent, col. 21:59-62). A party could argue this language is broad enough to encompass any unique identifier, such as a document ID or a URL, that is used for the purpose of tracking a user's content interaction history.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent’s repeated use of the term in a specific context (e.g., Fig. 37, showing "Surf Code References" as a discrete list of numerical IDs) implies a purpose-built tracking code that is distinct from a document's inherent properties. The argument would be that the code must be specifically "assigned" for tracking, not merely a pre-existing property that is later queried.
The Term: "user list"
Context and Importance: The complaint equates the "Recently Edited" tile in the accused product's interface with the claimed "user list." The viability of this assertion depends on the term's construction.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the user list comprises "the surf-code reference of the content viewed by the logged-in user" (’083 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue that any UI element presenting a history of viewed content, such as the accused "Recently Edited" tile, meets this functional definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may contend that the patent figures, such as Figure 39 showing a "Surfing List," depict a specific type of data structure and UI element. They may argue the term requires more than simply presenting the results of a database query for recently modified files and instead requires a distinct list compiled from the "surf code references."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that OpenText provides "documentation and training materials" that instruct customers and end users on how to use eDOCS DM in a manner that allegedly infringes claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on OpenText's knowledge of the ’083 patent and its alleged infringement, with knowledge dating from "at least service of the original Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50). The allegation centers on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "surf code reference," described in the patent as a specific code for tracking user "surfing," be construed to cover the internal metadata (e.g., document IDs, modification timestamps) that the accused eDOCS DM product allegedly uses to generate a list of recently edited files?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will emerge from discovery to substantiate the "information and belief" allegation that the accused product performs the specific step of "assigning a surf code reference to each of the different contents viewed"? The case may turn on whether the accused product's architecture matches the claimed method or achieves a similar result through a technically distinct process.