3:22-cv-01979
Mouseflow Inc v. Savannah Licensing LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mouseflow, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Savannah Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Findlay Craft, P.C.; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01979, N.D. Tex., 09/06/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Mouseflow alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant Savannah Licensing has brought underlying patent infringement actions in the district, thereby submitting itself to the court's jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its website analytics tools do not infringe Defendant's patent related to detecting and responding to user frustration on electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of user experience (UX) analytics, specifically technologies that automatically detect and analyze user frustration to improve software or network performance.
- Key Procedural History: This is a declaratory judgment action filed by Mouseflow in response to Defendant Savannah Licensing suing several of Mouseflow's current and former customers for infringing the patent-in-suit by using Mouseflow's tools. The existence of these underlying lawsuits against its customers forms the basis for the "actual controversy" required for this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-03 | ’777 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-09-27 | ’777 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-09-06 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 - Measuring and Improving the Quality of a User Experience Upon Receiving a Frustration Event Package
Issued September 27, 2016
The Invention Explained
Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional methods for evaluating user experience can be "delayed from the user's experience," suggesting a need for more immediate and context-aware feedback mechanisms (ʼ777 Patent, col. 1:24-26).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for detecting a "user frustration event" on a device, such as shaking the device or an unusually hard button press (ʼ777 Patent, col. 4:1-10). This frustration event is then associated with a specific "device event" that was occurring at the time (e.g., a software application running slowly) (ʼ777 Patent, col. 4:40-44). Information about both events is compiled into a "frustration event package" and transmitted for analysis. Based on this package, the system can determine and implement a "network action," such as increasing network resources, to alleviate the source of the frustration (ʼ777 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:25-30).
Technical Importance: The technology proposes a method to link physical manifestations of user frustration directly to specific software or device performance issues in near real-time, enabling automated responses to improve user experience (ʼ777 Patent, col. 3:21-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶4).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- [a] receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a user frustration event indicator and an associated event indicator that indicates a level and a type of user frustration associated with a user frustration event, wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes an active operation of a device at a time when the user frustration event occurred;
- [b] determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator; and
- [c] implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim of the '777 patent" (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentalities" are Plaintiff Mouseflow's "User Feedback and Session Replay tools" (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the User Feedback tool as a website plugin that provides a method for website owners to "collect opinions, experiences, and perspectives" from users through a pop-up triggered by a specific event (Compl. ¶10, ¶14).
- The Session Replay tool is described as a website plugin that "tracks a user's activity during that session and marks it in accordance with specific triggering events" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that this tool records user activity and adds a "tag" to the session recording when a triggering event, such as an indicator of frustration, occurs (Compl. ¶15, ¶16).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes the Plaintiff's non-infringement arguments as presented in the complaint.
'777 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] receiving... a frustration event package... associated with a device event that includes an active operation of a device... | The complaint argues the accused tools do not record "device operations" but rather "website operations" or "user activity," and do not create or receive a "frustration event package" as required by the claim. | ¶13, ¶15 | col. 4:48-53 |
| [b] determining... feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator... | The complaint alleges the tools do not "determine" feedback. The User Feedback tool is described as an "open survey tool," and the Session Replay tool is alleged to only "tag" a recorded session, not determine feedback from a package. | ¶14, ¶16 | col. 8:46-54 |
| [c] implementing... a network action based on the determined feedback. | The complaint asserts that the accused tools do not implement any network action; the User Feedback tool only triggers a pop-up requesting user input, and the Session Replay tool only marks a session. | ¶12, ¶14, ¶16 | col. 8:25-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the term "device event," which the patent describes as including "a web page download, a phone call, loading a software application" ('777 Patent, col. 6:50-53), can be construed to read on the "website operations" and "user activity" that the complaint alleges the accused tools track (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the accused tools' functionality meets the active claim limitations. For example, does "tagging a specific recorded user session with an indicator of frustration" (Compl. ¶16) constitute "determining feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator" as required by the claim? Further, what evidence suggests that prompting a user for a survey via a pop-up constitutes "implementing... a network action based on the determined feedback"? (Compl. ¶14).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "device event"
Context and Importance
The plaintiff’s non-infringement argument hinges on a distinction between a "device event" (claimed) and "website operations" (accused functionality) (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The construction of this term is therefore critical to determining whether the accused tools fall within the scope of the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "a web page download, a phone call, loading a software application, running a software application, a software operation or the like" ('777 Patent, col. 6:50-53). A party could argue this list is illustrative, not exhaustive, and that tracking "website operations" is a type of software operation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's consistent focus on mobile "device" operations (e.g., detecting shaking via an accelerometer, interacting with a haptic screen) frames the "device event" in the context of the physical device's state and native applications, not just browser-based user activity ('777 Patent, col. 4:1-10; col. 4:63-65).
The Term: "implementing... a network action"
Context and Importance
Plaintiff Mouseflow flatly denies that its tools perform this step, stating that they only trigger a pop-up or tag a recording (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). Whether this limitation is met appears to be a dispositive question for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the nature of the "network action." A party might argue that any action involving network communication resulting from the feedback, however minimal, could satisfy this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, substantive examples of a "network action," such as "increasing a network service in a local area," "increasing a power modulation," or "beam steering toward the area" ('777 Patent, col. 8:25-30). A party could argue that these examples limit the term to actions that actively modify network performance, a function the complaint alleges the accused tools lack.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for both contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶19). This request is based on Savannah Licensing's lawsuits against Mouseflow's customers for their use of the accused tools, which establishes the underlying allegation of direct infringement by third parties that is a predicate for an indirect infringement claim (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the patent's concept of a "device event," which is rooted in the operation of a physical device, extend to cover the "website operations" and "user activity" that are tracked by the accused website plugins?
- A key question will be one of functional operation: do the accused tools, which allegedly only prompt for survey feedback or tag session recordings, perform the claimed, multi-step method of "determining feedback" from a "frustration event package" and then "implementing a network action" based on that determination? The complaint suggests a fundamental mismatch between the automated, responsive system claimed in the patent and the analytics-gathering function of the accused tools.