DCT
2:23-cv-00111
Asymmetric IP LLC v. Sitecore USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Asymmetric IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Sitecore USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Findlay Craft, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00111, E.D. Tex., 03/13/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Moosend Design Software infringes a patent related to a dual-pane document editing method.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to web page editing software that simultaneously displays an editable version of a document in one area and a rendered, live preview of the document in another, aiming to improve editing efficiency and context.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent via a notice letter. It also includes an extensive discussion of the patent's prosecution history, contrasting the claimed invention with prior art from Microsoft to frame the patented method as a non-obvious improvement. The complaint notes that Microsoft is a current licensee of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-04-06 | ’261 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-06-02 | ’261 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-06-01 | Accused Moosend Software "Editor redesign" announced (approx.) |
| 2022-10-24 | Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-03-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,047,261 - Document Editing Method
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies inefficiencies in prior art document editing methods, including the need for specialized knowledge to edit source code, the "inaccurate representation" and "unnecessary code" generated by early WYSIWYG ("what you see is what you get") editors, and the lack of surrounding context in database-driven editors (’261 Patent, col. 1:11-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a document, such as a webpage, is rendered and displayed in two separate areas simultaneously (’261 Patent, col. 2:21-23). An editor can make changes in a second display area, and those edits are applied to the first display area in real-time or near-real-time (’261 Patent, col. 2:29-35). This allows the user to see a live, accurate preview of their edits as they are being made, without the visual clutter of editing mark-up in the preview pane (’261 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide an intuitive editing process that does not require specialized knowledge of the underlying code while preserving the context of the full document layout during editing (’261 Patent, col. 2:12-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11, 16, 23, and 26-29 (’261 Patent, col. 20:1-21:49; Compl. ¶52).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- Receiving document data including mark-up language.
- Processing the data to render and display the document in a first display area.
- Processing the data to render and display at least part of the document in a second display area.
- Receiving editing data.
- Editing the document in the second display area and applying the edits to the document in the first display area.
- Storing the result as a "first edited version."
- Receiving "further editing data" to create another edit.
- Storing the result of the further edit as a "second edited version."
- The complaint’s assertion of dependent claims indicates an intent to pursue narrower infringement theories if necessary (Compl. ¶52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "Moosend Design Software" ("MDS"), which includes the Campaign Editor, Landing Page Designer, and Form Designer (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
- MDS is a web-based, drag-and-drop editor used to create landing pages and other marketing documents (Compl. ¶33). The complaint focuses on a June 2022 redesign of the editor, which it alleges incorporates the patented technology (Compl. ¶32). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website describing the "Editor redesign," which involved creating a top menu and organizing layouts, items, and settings into left and right panes to improve usability (Compl. p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,047,261 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) receiving data associated with the document, the data including mark-up language data | MDS receives mark-up language data associated with a user's document, such as a landing page created by the user (Compl. ¶34). | ¶34 | col. 9:56-62 |
| b) processing the received data to render... in a first display area... formatting the... document based on the mark-up language data | MDS processes the mark-up data to render and display the document in a central display area, which serves as a live preview (Compl. ¶35). A provided screenshot shows this central preview pane (Compl. p. 15). | ¶35 | col. 2:62-65 |
| c) processing the received data to render... in a second display area... formatting the... document based on the mark-up language data | MDS processes the mark-up data to render part of the document for display in a right-hand side display area, which contains settings and editable content fields (Compl. ¶36). | ¶36 | col. 2:3-6 |
| d) receiving editing data | MDS receives editing data from the user through input fields and controls in the right-hand side user interface (Compl. ¶37). | ¶37 | col. 2:7 |
| e) editing the... document displayed in the second display area... and applying said editing to the... document displayed in the first display area | Edits made by the user in the right-hand side display area are applied to the document shown in the central preview display area (Compl. ¶38, ¶41). | ¶38, ¶41 | col. 2:7-11 |
| f) storing data associated with the... document edited in e) as a first edited version | MDS stores data for each edited version, which allows users to "undo" changes (Compl. ¶39). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Undo or redo a change" feature (Compl. p. 16). | ¶39, ¶47 | col. 4:51-54 |
| g) receiving further editing data | After a first edit is made and stored, MDS subsequently receives further editing data from the user (Compl. ¶40). | ¶40 | col. 5:13-22 |
| h) further editing the... document displayed in the second display area using the further editing data... | MDS uses the further editing data to make additional edits in the right-hand pane, which are then applied to the central preview pane (Compl. ¶41). | ¶41 | col. 5:13-22 |
| i) storing as a second edited version data associated with the further edited at least part of the document | The ability to "redo" a change or make subsequent edits that create a new state in the undo/redo history constitutes storing a second edited version (Compl. ¶39). | ¶39 | col. 5:13-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the accused MDS "righthand side of the display area," which functions as a properties and settings panel, meets the claim limitation of a "second display area" where at least part of the document is "rendered." The complaint alleges it does by showing that editable content fields from the document appear there (Compl. ¶36). A defendant may argue this panel is a set of controls rather than a rendering of the document as contemplated by the patent's specification and figures, which depict two side-by-side document views (’261 Patent, Fig. 4).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the functionality of an "undo" or "redo" feature constitutes "storing data... as a first edited version" and a "second edited version." The complaint's theory relies on this equivalence (Compl. ¶39). A defendant could contend that the patent contemplates a more persistent, formal versioning system (as depicted in element 416 of Fig. 4), rather than the transient state management of an undo/redo stack.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "second display area"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. If the accused product’s settings panel qualifies as a "second display area," the plaintiff's infringement theory is strengthened. If it is construed more narrowly to require a more complete, parallel rendering of the document, the infringement case may be more difficult to prove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 only requires that "at least part of the document" is displayed in the second area (’261 Patent, col. 20:13-14). This language could support an interpretation where an editing panel containing even a single editable field from the document qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent, which is referenced throughout the complaint, depicts the first and second display areas (402, 410) as two distinct, comprehensive views of the webpage (’261 Patent, Fig. 4). This could support an interpretation requiring a more substantial, contextual rendering of the document, not just isolated fields in a properties panel.
The Term: "storing data... as a first edited version"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine whether features like an undo/redo stack or an auto-save function meet the claim limitations for creating and storing distinct "versions."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the duration or format of storage. Any process that saves the state of an edited document in memory for later recall could arguably be considered "storing" a "version."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses versioning in the context of review by different editors (e.g., junior and senior) and shows selectable links to different versions (e.g., "Version 1," "Version 2") in Figure 4 (’261 Patent, col. 5:6-12; Fig. 4, element 416). This may suggest the patent contemplates a more formal, persistent, and user-facing versioning system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant encourages its customers to use the Moosend Design Software in an infringing manner through promotional materials and technical assistance (Compl. ¶53, ¶55).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’261 Patent since at least October 31, 2022, following receipt of a notice letter (Compl. ¶54). The complaint further alleges Defendant engaged in reckless conduct and may have been willfully blind to its infringement (Compl. ¶58-59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused software's properties panel, which displays isolated, editable fields, constitute a "second display area" where part of the document is "rendered," as required by the claims, or does the patent require a more complete, contextual view of the document?
- A second central question will be one of functional interpretation: does the transient state-saving mechanism of an undo/redo feature satisfy the claim requirement of "storing data... as a first edited version" and subsequently a "second edited version," or is a more formal and persistent version-control system required to infringe?