DatRec LLC v. Ukg Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DatRec, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: UKG, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01886, N.D. Tex., 08/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s UKG Pro product infringes a patent related to methods for secure communication over a public network using a database of verified user identities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves creating trusted digital identity networks by collecting and cross-verifying personal and relational data from multiple users to establish a reliability score.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, which did not involve producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-12-07	’309 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-19	’309 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309 - Method and System for Secure Communication Over a Public Network

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for secure communication channels over public networks like the Internet, where individuals are often "exposed to non-secure connections and to communications from unreliable or falsely-identified senders" (’309 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to improve confidence in a party's identity during electronic communication by creating a database of verified user data (’309 Patent, col. 1:63-65). This is achieved by allowing a plurality of users to enter "individual-associated data bits" (IDBs), which include both personal identifiers and "relationship data" about other individuals, such as family members (’309 Patent, col. 2:26-35; col. 5:11-17, 39-48). The system processes this crowdsourced data to generate a "user-identifier data set" (IDS) for each individual and verifies the information by determining a "level of confidence based on the degree of identity between data on the user entered by different users" (’309 Patent, col. 2:36-40). This verified database then allows authenticated users to define specific levels of communication with one another (’309 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach seeks to create a trusted network by leveraging social or relational connections to cross-validate identity information, rather than relying solely on credentials provided by a single individual (’309 Patent, col. 2:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-17 of the ’309 Patent (Compl. ¶9). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Providing a database with verified data relating to an individual's identity, where the database is constructed by:
    • Permitting multiple individuals related to the subject individual to enter data ("individual-associated data bits" or IDB) comprising a personal identifier and "relationship data indicative of a family tree."
    • Generating an "individual-associated data set" (IDS) from the entered IDB.
    • Verifying the IDS by determining a "level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals."
  • Compiling the individual data sets (IDSs) to construct the database.
  • Defining one or more levels of permitted communication between individuals in the database and the verified individual based on the verification.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general assertion of claims 1-17 encompasses them (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as UKG Pro (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that UKG Pro is a "system and method for secure communication over a public network" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint references a document on Defendant's website titled "UKG-Device-Finger-and-Face-Scan-Data-Statement.pdf," which suggests the UKG Pro system may involve the use of biometric data for identity verification purposes (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that UKG offers UKG Pro with instructions that suggest an infringing use (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included in the provided filings (Compl. ¶10). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers a system" that practices the patented method for secure communication (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific details mapping features of UKG Pro to the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"relationship data indicative of a family tree"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the type of data used to construct the claimed database. The infringement dispute may turn on whether the data structures used in the accused UKG Pro product, which appears to be a corporate or enterprise system, can be characterized as being "indicative of a family tree." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patent is limited to social/familial networks or can extend to organizational or professional relationship structures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the term "indicative of," which may suggest that the data does not have to be a literal family tree but merely suggestive of one or structured in a similar hierarchical manner. The specification also refers more broadly to "relationship data" including "friends, acquaintances, neighbors, business colleagues or associates" (’309 Patent, col. 5:48-52), which could support an interpretation beyond strict familial ties.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites "family tree" specifically. The specification repeatedly uses familial examples, such as "parents, brothers and sisters, spouse, children" and "grandparents, cousins, in-laws" as the primary embodiment of "relationship data" (’309 Patent, col. 5:41-48). An illustration of a data sequence for matching individuals includes names that appear to be a multi-generational family list (’309 Patent, col. 7:41-48; FIG. 3B). This focus on familial context could support a narrower construction limited to personal and genealogical relationships.

"verifying the IDS for the individual by determining the level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core verification mechanism of the invention. The analysis of infringement will require determining precisely how UKG Pro authenticates users. If UKG Pro uses a different method, such as comparing a user's biometric data to a single, trusted record provided by an employer, it may not meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "degree of similarity" is not precisely defined, suggesting it could cover various comparison algorithms. The patent states that the system compares data bits D1 and D2 from a first and second user to determine if a match is "reliable according to a predetermined criterion" (’309 Patent, col. 10:50-56), which could be read to encompass any system that cross-references inputs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process where data on the same individual is "entered by different users," and reliability is calculated based on the correspondence between these separate entries (’309 Patent, col. 4:4-6; col. 10:30-38). This implies a crowdsourcing or multi-source validation model. A system that verifies identity against a single, pre-existing, authoritative source (e.g., an HR file) rather than by comparing data "entered by different individuals" may fall outside this narrower scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶11-12). For inducement, it alleges Defendant encourages infringement by instructing customers on how to use UKG Pro for secure communication through its website and manuals (Compl. ¶11). For contributory infringement, it alleges UKG Pro is not a staple commercial product and that its only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’309 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11). The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "relationship data indicative of a family tree," which is described throughout the patent in a social and genealogical context, be construed to cover the employee data and organizational hierarchies managed by the accused enterprise software, UKG Pro?
• A key question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused product's identity verification functionality, which the complaint suggests may involve biometrics, meet the claim limitation requiring verification through a "level of reliability based on a degree of similarity between data on the individual entered by different individuals," or does it operate on a fundamentally different principle, such as comparison to a single authoritative record?