DCT

9:07-cv-00282

Emptoris, Inc. vs Ariba

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:07-cv-00282, E.D. Tex., 11/20/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant Ariba, Inc. sells products and services within the Eastern District of Texas and maintains a registered agent for service in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s spend management products and services infringe a patent related to knowledge management systems that retrieve documents based on matching user answers to multiple groups of questions.
  • Technical Context: The technology falls within the domain of knowledge management and expert systems, designed to capture and institutionalize the decision-making processes of experienced personnel for use by others within an organization.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-08-09 '590 Patent Priority Date
2003-02-11 '590 Patent Issue Date
2007-11-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,519,590 - "System and Method for Performing a Mindflow Process Using a Mindflow Document Archive"

  • Issued: February 11, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem in the "emerging electronic business environment" where high employee turnover results in corporations losing their "expert" decision-makers. It notes that existing transactional technologies do not adequately capture the analytical processes that drive successful business decisions (U.S. Patent No. 6,519,590, col. 1:36-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to model the "mindflow" of "expert" knowledge workers to provide decision-making support to "novice" workers (col. 2:18-24). The system stores "mindflow documents" which contain answers to different groups of questions from previous expert-led sessions. When a new user answers the same groups of questions, the system retrieves the most relevant historical documents by matching the new answers against the stored answers, allowing the user to learn from the documented thought processes of prior experts (col. 2:3-17; col. 3:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to institutionalize analytical strategies and raise the collective "business IQ of an organization," moving beyond simple workflow automation to capture and reuse expert judgment (col. 4:35-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims being asserted. The independent claims of the ’590 Patent are Claims 1, 10, and 20.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
    • A memory operable to store a plurality of documents, where each document contains a plurality of first answers to a first group of questions and a plurality of second answers to a second group of questions.
    • A processor coupled to the memory, operable to execute a knowledge module for a business task, present both groups of questions to a "knowledge worker," and retrieve documents that have a predetermined number of matching answers for both the first and second groups of questions.
  • Independent Claim 10 (Method Claim):
    • A method comprising the steps of storing documents with first and second sets of answers, executing a knowledge module, presenting the corresponding two groups of questions to a user, and retrieving documents based on a predetermined number of matching answers for each group.
  • Independent Claim 20 (Document Claim):
    • A "mindflow document" (a computer-readable medium) that includes identifiers for a knowledge module and a knowledge worker, and information from a query session comprising pluralities of answers to first and second groups of questions.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Ariba's "spend management products and services" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical functionality or market context of the accused products. It makes a general allegation of infringement without describing how the accused products operate or which specific features are alleged to infringe the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations that map features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted claim. It offers only conclusory statements that Ariba's products and services infringe the ’590 Patent (Compl. ¶8, ¶10). Without such allegations, a claim-chart-based analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint provides no basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes, the following terms from the independent claims are fundamental to the patent's scope and would likely be a focus of litigation.

  • The Term: "mindflow document" / "document"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of the data structure at the heart of the invention is critical. The infringement analysis depends on whether any structured data file qualifies, or if the document must be shown to specifically capture an "analytical thought process" as described in the specification.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 recites "a plurality of documents, each document comprising a plurality of first answers to a first group of questions and a plurality of second answers to a second group of questions," without further structural or content-based limitations on the document itself (col. 40:22-27).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a "mindflow document" as detailing the "analytical thought processes and decision-making activities of knowledge workers" (col. 3:1-4) and capturing the mindflow of "expert" workers to support "novice" workers (col. 2:18-24). The title itself uses the term "Mindflow." This language may support an argument that the term is not a generic data file but one tailored to modeling expert cognition.

  • The Term: "knowledge worker"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term determines who must be using the claimed system for infringement to occur. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is limited to an "expert" or "novice" in an organizational context, it could narrow the scope of infringing activities compared to a construction that reads on any system user.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the term "knowledge worker" without express definition or limitation (col. 40:31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the invention's purpose as providing "analytical decision-making support to 'novice' knowledge workers" by modeling the mindflow of "'expert' knowledge workers" (col. 2:18-24). This framing could be used to argue the term implies a user acting within a specific role in a knowledge-transfer context.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶10). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as referencing user manuals that instruct on infringing use or alleging specific instances of providing components with knowledge of direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests attorneys' fees for an "exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285," which is often predicated on a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 3, ¶d). The complaint does not allege any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant.

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

  • A primary issue in this case will be evidentiary development. The complaint lacks any factual detail linking the accused "spend management products" to the patent claims. A key question is what specific product functionalities Plaintiff will identify during discovery that allegedly perform the patented method, particularly the core process of retrieving documents by matching a user's answers against two distinct, stored sets of answers.
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of claim scope and abstraction. A central issue for the court will be whether terms like "mindflow document" and "knowledge worker" are construed broadly to cover generic expert systems and databases, or whether they are limited by the specification's detailed narrative of modeling the "analytical thought process" of "experts" to guide "novices." The outcome of this construction will determine whether the patent covers a general information retrieval architecture or a more specific tool for institutional knowledge transfer.