Peter Pedersen v. Zoho Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Zoho Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00408, W.D. Tex., 04/22/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business within the district, specifically citing an office in Del Valle, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sales and Marketing platform infringes a patent related to a system for managing the distribution of electronic messages based on user-defined profiles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for filtering and targeting electronic communications, a field focused on increasing message relevance and reducing unwanted messages for end-users.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Priority Date (Provisional)
2005-11-15	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Issued
2022-04-22	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 - "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, “Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System,” issued November 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and complexity of distributing electronic messages, where recipients are often annoyed by irrelevant "junk mail" and find it difficult to manage their communication preferences across multiple information suppliers (’920 Patent, col. 1:57-65, col. 2:1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized message management system where both message recipients and message senders (termed "messengers") can create and maintain profiles (’920 Patent, col. 2:26-41). A recipient’s profile specifies which messengers they wish to receive content from and how (e.g., delivery method, timing), while a messenger’s profile defines the types of messages they offer (’920 Patent, col. 3:11-23, col. 3:24-38). An "individual message generator" then accesses these profiles to match messages from messengers to the appropriate recipients according to the rules they have each established (’920 Patent, col. 2:63-65, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This dual-profile approach sought to give both senders and receivers granular control over message distribution, aiming to improve the relevance of communications beyond simple rule-based filtering available at the time (’920 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An electronic computer system in communication with a global network and an electronic message management database.
  • A "recipient profile application" for receiving and storing recipient profile data, including delivery parameters (where, when, how) for messages from specific messengers.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving and storing messenger profile data, including messenger identifying data.
  • A "message input application" for receiving message files from a messenger.
  • An "individual message generator" that accesses the database to generate an individual message for a recipient according to the specified delivery parameters.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is "Zoho's Sales and Marketing platform" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused product as a "Sales and Marketing platform" but provides no specific details regarding its technical architecture or the functionality of its features (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges the products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the United States (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B describing how claim 1 of the ’920 Patent is infringed by the Accused Products (Compl. ¶22). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. The complaint’s narrative allegations are general, asserting that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 1 by making, using, testing, and selling the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide a specific, element-by-element mapping of the accused platform's features to the limitations of claim 1. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the "Zoho's Sales and Marketing platform" contains distinct software components that correspond to the claimed "recipient profile application", "messenger profile application", and "individual message generator". The case will require evidence demonstrating whether the accused platform provides recipients with the ability to define granular, messenger-specific delivery rules, as distinct from general account settings.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether a modern, integrated marketing suite, which may not have the discretely named "applications" described in the patent, nevertheless performs the functions required by each claimed element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"recipient profile application" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent’s novelty centers on giving individual recipients control over how they receive messages from specific "messengers." The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused platform has a functionality that meets this definition, as opposed to a more general user settings or unsubscribe feature. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused system provides the granular, per-messenger control described in the patent’s specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires an application for "receiving recipient profile data from recipients" and "storing the recipient data in the database, the profile data including delivery parameters" (’920 Patent, col. 11:26-32). This could be argued to cover any system that accepts and stores user-defined delivery preferences.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process where a recipient logs in and specifies "one or more messengers, type of messages and type of content the recipient wishes to receive from each messenger," as well as detailed "message delivery profiles" (’920 Patent, col. 7:59-67). This suggests a more structured and specific application than a generic settings menu.

"individual message generator" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core logic of the claimed system. Infringement will depend on whether the accused platform has a component that actively "access[es] and utilize[s] data and files from the database to generate an individual message" based on a combination of both recipient and messenger profiles.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the generator’s function as being "operative to access and utilize data and files from the database to generate an individual message to be sent to the recipient" (’920 Patent, col. 11:40-43). This could potentially read on any system that customizes a message for a specific user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 8 explain a process where the generator "matches the recipient, and type and content criteria," then "combines the message with the delivery profile data for all recipients matching the profile, and creates a total output file" (’920 Patent, col. 11:1-6). This suggests a specific matching and assembly process, not just simple message personalization.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks an injunction against "directly or indirectly infringing" (Prayer G), the sole count for infringement in the complaint alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as it alleges no facts related to intent or knowledge, such as the provision of user manuals or instructions that encourage infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful" but alleges that Defendant "has made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '920 Patent were invalid" (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19). These allegations could form the basis for a willfulness claim, which would likely depend on knowledge of the patent acquired from the filing of the lawsuit, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of technical specifics, the case will depend entirely on whether discovery reveals that "Zoho's Sales and Marketing platform" possesses a technical architecture that maps onto the specific, multi-part system of Claim 1. The plaintiff will need to show that the platform contains functionalities that operate as the claimed "recipient profile application", "messenger profile application", and "individual message generator".
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: can the patent’s claims, which describe a system with distinct applications for recipients and messengers, be construed to cover a modern, integrated software-as-a-service platform? The court's interpretation of terms like "recipient profile application" will determine whether a general-purpose marketing tool performs the specific, structured functions required by the patent.