Peter Pedersen v. Oracle Corporation

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Oracle Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00410, W.D. Tex., 04/22/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, including an office at 2300 Oracle Way in Austin, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Oracle Responsys platform infringes a patent related to a profile-responsive electronic message management system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for managing the distribution of electronic messages, allowing message recipients to define profiles that filter and control the communications they receive from various senders.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Priority Date
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, issued November 15, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient and unwanted mass electronic communication, such as "spam e-mail" and "junk mail." It notes the difficulty for organizations to manage customer communications effectively and the corresponding burden on recipients who are inundated with irrelevant messages (’920 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system where individual recipients can create and manage their own "recipient profiles" to specify which types of messages they are willing to receive from which "messengers" (senders), and via which delivery methods. Senders also provide information to the system. An "individual message generator" then uses both recipient and messenger profiles to process and distribute messages only to the appropriate, willing recipients according to their specified preferences ('920 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-67). The system architecture is depicted in flowcharts, such as Figure 4, which illustrates the interaction between recipient profile inputs, messenger inputs, and the message processing core ('920 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system aims to shift control over message delivery to the recipient, providing a more granular filtering mechanism than was common at the time and addressing a core challenge in the evolution of digital marketing and customer relationship management (CRM) systems ('920 Patent, col. 2:26-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • An electronic computer system and an electronic message management database.
  • A "recipient profile application" for receiving and storing profile data from recipients, including delivery parameters.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving and storing profile data from messengers.
  • 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 as specified by the messenger and according to the recipient's delivery parameters.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is identified as "Oracle's Responsys platform" (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Oracle "develops, designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services" in the United States, identifying the Responsys platform as an example of such a product (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the Oracle Responsys platform.

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). This exhibit was not provided. The complaint's narrative allegations assert that the Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Mapping: A central question will be whether the architecture of the Oracle Responsys platform maps onto the distinct components recited in claim 1: a "recipient profile application", a "messenger profile application", a "message input application", and an "individual message generator". The defense may argue its system is an integrated platform whose functions cannot be discretely mapped to these claimed elements.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the plaintiff possess to show that the Responsys platform's message-sending logic functions as the claimed "individual message generator"? Specifically, does it generate messages for a recipient "specified by the messenger" but "according to the delivery parameters" specified by the recipient, as required by the claim?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "individual message generator"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core functional element of the invention, responsible for reconciling messenger intent with recipient preferences. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on whether the accused platform's logic for processing and sending marketing emails performs the specific functions of the claimed "generator." Practitioners may focus on this term because it dictates the required interaction between the system's various databases and profiles.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the generator in broad functional terms as being "in communication with the database and operative to access and utilize data and files from the database to generate an individual message" ('920 Patent, col. 11:40-44). This could support an interpretation covering any software module that performs this function, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 8 provide a more specific process flow, where the generator "matches the recipient, and type and content criteria," "combines the message with the delivery profile data," and creates an "output file" ('920 Patent, col. 11:1-7; Fig. 8). A party could argue these steps narrow the scope of the term to a system that performs this specific sequence of matching and combining distinct data profiles.

• The Term: "recipient profile application"

• Context and Importance: This term defines how the system receives and stores the recipient's preferences, which is a foundational aspect of the invention. The scope of this term will determine what kind of user-facing preference center or data-intake mechanism in the accused product meets this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 2 describes this element as including a "global network interactive recipient profile input form," suggesting any web-based interface for collecting recipient data could fall within the scope ('920 Patent, col. 11:51-55).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where the "recipient will logon to the message management system server" to "create or maintain" a profile (e.g., in a self-service manner) ('920 Patent, col. 8:60-64). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a direct, interactive portal for the end-recipient, potentially excluding systems where recipient preferences are managed exclusively by the messenger (e.g., an administrator unsubscribing a user).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of indirect infringement but provides no specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶3).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint 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 form the basis for a potential willfulness claim and a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Prayer ¶C). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the absence of a claim chart or detailed technical allegations in the complaint, a foundational question is whether the plaintiff can produce discovery evidence that demonstrates the Oracle Responsys platform's internal architecture and functionality actually perform each step recited in the asserted claims.
• The case will likely turn on a question of architectural correspondence: Do the software modules and data structures of a modern, cloud-based marketing automation platform like Responsys correspond to the discrete "recipient profile application", "messenger profile application", and "individual message generator" claimed in a patent from the early 2000s, or has the technology evolved such that its integrated nature avoids a direct mapping to the patent's claimed structure?
• A central claim construction dispute may address the locus of control: The patent describes a system where both "messengers" and "recipients" actively manage profiles. A key question for the court will be whether the claims require a system where end-recipients have direct, interactive control over their profiles, or if the claims can read on systems where a "messenger" (e.g., Oracle's customer) manages recipient data and preferences on their behalf.