GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. ScienceSoft USA Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ScienceSoft USA Corporation (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00338, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products, which appear to relate to software services, infringe a patent directed to an "assistive agent" that processes user requests by integrating with various web services.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of intelligent virtual assistants, which interpret natural language user requests and orchestrate multiple data sources or services to provide a comprehensive response or perform a task.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,130,900, Assistive agent, Issued September 8, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior personal information managers (PIMs) and early virtual assistants which, despite having access to a user's data (e.g., calendar, contacts), failed to "take full advantage of the information" to proactively assist the user ('900 Patent, col. 1:22-30). For instance, a user would still need to manually calculate the necessary lead time for an appointment reminder, a task the system could automate.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user request is received and its "semantics" are determined by identifying a domain (e.g., "restaurants"), a task (e.g., "find"), and parameters (e.g., "Indian food") ('900 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:54-62). The system then accesses one or more "semantic web services" through an Application Program Interface (API) to retrieve relevant data and formulate a response for the user ('900 Patent, Fig. 2). This architecture allows the agent to integrate disparate data sources to fulfill a complex user request.
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a method for creating a more intelligent and integrated virtual assistant capable of understanding user intent and orchestrating multiple, independent web services to perform complex tasks beyond the capabilities of a single application ('900 Patent, col. 9:4-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the '900 Patent are asserted, referring only to "Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent claim 1, a representative method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a user request for assistance from a mobile device.
  • Determining the semantics of the request by identifying a domain, task, and parameter, which involves parsing the request to identify its meaning along with using "location and user personal information captured by the mobile device including telephone, texting, and user activity."
  • Accessing one or more "semantic web services" via an API to retrieve data matching the identified domain, task, and parameter.
  • Providing personalized recommendations and presenting possible responses to the user by interacting with the web services (e.g., through a text messaging or phonebook API).
  • Determining a responsive answer and responding to the user.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, services, or methods. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only general allegations that Defendant "mak[es], us[es], offer[s] to sell, sell[s] and/or import[s]" infringing products (Compl. ¶11) and that its employees "internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its substantive allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). Consequently, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint's infringement theory appears to be that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the methods claimed in the '900 Patent. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the '900 Patent's claims and the procedural posture, the infringement analysis raises several high-level questions:

• Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be identifying the specific accused instrumentalities. A key question will be what evidence Plaintiff provides to show that these unidentified products perform each step of the claimed method, such as parsing user requests and accessing external web services via APIs (Compl. ¶16; '900 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused products, once identified, use "location and user personal information captured by the mobile device including telephone, texting, and user activity" to determine the semantics of a user request, as required by claim 1 ('900 Patent, col. 27:61-65). Evidence of such data capture and use will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"semantic web services"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the invention, as it defines the universe of data sources the "assistive agent" can access. Its construction will determine whether the accused system must interact with a specific type of formally-defined "semantic web" technology or if any external, API-accessible service qualifies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope, stating these may be "provided by third-party service providers" like "Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, and the like sources" or may be functionalities "installed on the hardware device itself" like a calendar or contacts app ('900 Patent, col. 4:25-43).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself, along with references to "web ontology language" and "Resource Description Framework (RDF)" in dependent claims 2 and 3, could support a narrower construction limited to services that employ formal ontological structures, not just any service with an API ('900 Patent, col. 28:13-18).

"determining semantics of the user request"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core "intelligence" of the system. Whether the accused products perform this step will depend on how narrowly or broadly the court defines the process of "determining semantics."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this generally as interpreting user intent and disambiguating among candidate interpretations ('900 Patent, col. 5:12-15). This could be argued to cover a wide range of natural language processing techniques.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification repeatedly tie this step to the specific act of "identifying at least one domain, at least one task, and at least one parameter for the user request" ('900 Patent, cl. 1; col. 5:58-62). A defendant may argue that an accused system must perform this specific three-part identification to meet the limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant sells its products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that "direct end users to commit patent infringement" in the "customary and intended manner" (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that its service constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant has "continued to" infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). This provides a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: Given the complaint’s lack of specificity, a threshold dispute will likely concern identifying the accused products and presenting concrete technical evidence that these products actually perform the multi-step method of interpreting a user request, accessing external services, and formulating a response as claimed.
• The case will also turn on claim construction: The viability of the infringement case will heavily depend on whether the court adopts a broad or narrow definition for core technical terms like "semantic web services", which could mean anything from "any service with an API" to only those using formal ontologies.
• A third key question will be one of technical specificity: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused system's method for interpreting a user's request relies on the specific data types required by claim 1, namely "personal information captured by the mobile device including telephone, texting, and user activity," or does the accused system operate without using this specific information?