DCT

3:16-cv-02689

SAP America Inc v. Investpic LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:16-cv-02689, N.D. Tex., 09/20/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant InvestPic is subject to personal jurisdiction, has conducted business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff SAP America, Inc. seeks a declaratory judgment that its software products do not infringe any enforceable claim of Defendant InvestPic, LLC's patent related to statistical analysis of financial information.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for analyzing financial market data using resampled statistical methods, such as bootstrapping, to provide more accurate risk/reward assessments than traditional models.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed after Plaintiff received a formal notice letter from Defendant on September 9, 2016, alleging infringement, followed by a threat of an "imminent lawsuit" on September 20, 2016. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291, has undergone two ex parte and inter partes reexaminations subsequent to the filing of this complaint, resulting in the issuance of Reexamination Certificates C1 (2017) and C2 (2017), which amended several claims, including the primary independent claims. This history suggests potential disputes over claim scope and validity that have evolved since the original complaint was filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-21 '291 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2002-02-19 '291 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-09 InvestPic sends notice letter to SAP
2016-09-20 InvestPic threatens imminent lawsuit
2016-09-20 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed
2017-09-06 '291 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2017-10-30 '291 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 - "Method and system for analysis, display and dissemination of financial information using resampled statistical methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291, "Method and system for analysis, display and dissemination of financial information using resampled statistical methods," issued February 19, 2002.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional financial analysis systems are flawed because they rely on the incorrect assumption that financial data follows a normal (Gaussian) distribution. This leads to models that "understate the true risk and overstate potential rewards" for an investment, promoting "imprudent investment decisions" (’291 Patent, col. 1:49-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses "resampled statistical methods" to analyze financial data without relying on assumptions of a normal distribution (’291 Patent, Abstract). The system includes a graphical user interface (GUI) for users to submit queries, a "resampled statistical analysis engine (RSAE)" that performs the analysis while preserving "temporal correlation in financial data," and a "graphics rendering engine (GRE)" to display the results (’291 Patent, col. 2:5-15). The system can also use a "bias parameter" to simulate different market conditions, such as bull or bear markets, by controlling randomness in the resampling process (’291 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
  • Technical Importance: The use of resampling is presented as a way to provide a "meaningful and reasonable statistical description" for financial data that is often "heavy tailed" and contains important information in its outliers, which traditional methods fail to capture (’291 Patent, col. 1:41-47; col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any enforceable claim" (Compl. ¶14), in response to an accusation that the accused products were "covered by multiple claims" (Compl. ¶10). The analysis below focuses on the primary independent method claim, Claim 1, as amended by the C1 Reexamination Certificate, which represents the currently enforceable scope.
  • Independent Claim 1 (as amended by C1 Reexamination Certificate):
    • selecting a sample space, wherein the sample space includes at least one investment data sample and at least a first investment data value associated with a first investment and a second investment data value associated with a second investment, each investment specified by a user;
    • generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method, samples drawn from the selected sample space, a temporal data object corresponding to both the first and second investment data values, and a bias parameter specified by the user;
    • wherein the bias parameter determines a degree of randomness in the drawing of samples from the selected sample space in a resampling process; and,
    • generating a plot of the distribution function.
      (’291 Patent C1 Cert., col. 2:23-41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Enterprise GRC," "Access Risk Management and other similar products" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused SAP products. It only identifies them by name as having been accused of infringement by InvestPic (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action, does not contain a detailed infringement theory or element-by-element claim chart. Instead, it reports the allegations made by the patent holder, InvestPic, in pre-suit communications (Compl. ¶¶10-12). According to the complaint, InvestPic alleged that SAP "is selling, offering to sell, using and making infringing articles, including Enterprise GRC, and Access Risk Management and other similar products," which are allegedly "covered by multiple claims of the '291 patent" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint further states that InvestPic asserted the '291 patent is "clearly infringed" by SAP (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's subject matter and the named accused products, the dispute may involve the following questions:

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "Enterprise GRC" (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) and "Access Risk Management" products fall within the technical scope of the ’291 Patent. The patent is focused on analyzing financial investment strategies and market returns, whereas GRC software typically addresses operational, compliance, and IT security risks, which may involve different data types and analytical methods.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused products perform "resampled statistical analysis" as claimed. A further point of contention may be whether they contain a specific "bias parameter" that a user can specify to determine "a degree of randomness in the drawing of samples," as required by the amended independent claims (’291 Patent C1 Cert., col. 2:33-38).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"resampled statistical method"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the statistical functions within SAP's GRC products are found to be "resampled statistical methods."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the concept by stating the invention "utilizes resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data" (’291 Patent, col. 2:61-63). Later, it refers to "resampled statistical methods such as the bootstrap" (’291 Patent, col. 9:20-22). The use of "such as" may support an interpretation that covers a class of techniques beyond just the specific bootstrap method detailed in the patent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the theory and process focuses almost exclusively on the "bootstrap method," which involves creating "bootstrap samples" by drawing randomly with replacement from an original data set (’291 Patent, col. 10:52-61; FIGS. 9a-9b). A party may argue that the term should be limited to methods sharing these specific characteristics.

"bias parameter... [that] determines a degree of randomness"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation was central to the reexamination proceedings and is present in the currently enforceable independent claims. Proving infringement will require showing the accused products have this specific functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a specific, user-driven feature rather than a generic statistical property.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the feature as a "bias parameter that controls a degree of randomness in the resampling process" (’291 Patent, col. 2:22-24). This language could potentially be read to cover any user-controlled input that skews the random sampling of data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific purpose and implementation: "to simulate either bull or bear market conditions" (’291 Patent, col. 2:20-22). It is further described as a decimal value (b) where "b% of the samples are 'up' days and 1-b% of the samples are 'down' days" (’291 Patent, col. 11:58-62). This could support a narrower construction limited to a user input that directly controls the proportion of positive and negative data points in the resampled set to simulate market trends.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • SAP seeks a declaration of non-infringement under theories of both direct and indirect (contributory and inducement) infringement (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not detail any specific facts alleged by InvestPic that would support an indirect infringement claim.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not state that InvestPic has alleged willfulness. However, the facts alleged by SAP establish that it had pre-suit knowledge of the ’291 patent and InvestPic's infringement contentions as of September 9, 2016, via a formal notice letter (Compl. ¶10). This notice could form the basis of a future willfulness claim by InvestPic for any infringement found to have occurred after that date.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technical domain mismatch: does SAP’s Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) software, which typically addresses operational and regulatory risk, perform the specific methods for financial investment analysis described and claimed in the ’291 Patent? The resolution will depend on whether the evidence shows an overlap in the actual functionality of the accused products and the patent's teachings on analyzing financial market returns.

  2. A second central issue will be one of claim scope and proof: can the term "resampled statistical method", which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of financial bootstrapping, be construed to cover the analytical functions in SAP's products? Furthermore, an evidentiary question will be whether SAP's products can be shown to implement the specific "bias parameter" limitation, a user-defined control over sampling randomness, as required by the narrowed, reexamined claims.