Interstellar Inc v. Kahoot EDU Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Interstellar Inc. (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Kahoot! EDU, Inc. (Texas) and Kahoot! ASA (Norway)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Culhane PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00727, W.D. Tex., 06/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ game-based learning platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for online academic competitions.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the educational technology (EdTech) sector, specifically platforms that use gamification to facilitate academic contests among students and teams.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with notice of the patent and their alleged infringement via correspondence on or about February 15, 2024, and again on April 29, 2024, prior to filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,339,825 Priority Date
2013-09-01	Kahoot! platform made available to the public (approx.)
2016-04-01	Kahoot! launches "Team Mode" capability (approx.)
2019-07-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,339,825 Issue Date
2024-02-15	Plaintiff first notified Defendants of the '825 Patent (approx.)
2024-04-29	Plaintiff provided additional details to Defendants regarding infringement (approx.)
2024-06-28	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,339,825 - "System and Method for On-Line Academic Competition"

• Issued: July 2, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that athletic competition models have not been effectively translated to the online academic environment, which is often limited to individual contests among top-performing students rather than fostering broader team-based and league-based competition (col. 1:16-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a web-based application designed to facilitate online academic competitions between teams and individuals, incorporating features common in sports (Compl. ¶9). The system includes a database of questions and profiles, and a processor that enables users (like a coach or teacher) to create teams, organize competitions (e.g., leagues, inter-team matches), and present questions to contestants within a time limit, while a real-time scoreboard tracks both individual and team progress (’825 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-50). Figure 9 illustrates the overall system architecture, showing modules for creating different competition formats like "Intra-team Pick-Up," "Inter-team Pick-Up Challenger," and "Leagues" (’825 Patent, Fig. 9).
• Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a novel framework for online academic contests that moves beyond simple quizzes to enable structured, recurring competitions modeled on athletic leagues and tournaments (Compl. ¶10-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 14 (a method claim) (Compl. ¶17-18).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) Essential Elements:
  • A database storing test questions, team/individual profiles, and response statistics.
  • A processor programmed to perform steps, including:
    • Enabling team creation.
    • Enabling a user to (1) create a league and a "cycle of academic competition," (2) search for and select teams for inter-team competition, or (3) divide a team for intra-team competition.
    • Presenting test questions to contestants for a set time.
    • Providing a "real time scoreboard with time clock" that displays individual progress and contributes to both individual and team scores.
    • Enabling teams to compete in "live" or "non-live" formats, with the scoreboard displaying results in real time for both scenarios.
• Independent Claim 14 (Method) Essential Elements:
  • This method claim largely mirrors the functional steps recited in system claim 1, including enabling team creation, enabling a user to set up league/inter-team/intra-team competitions, presenting questions, providing a real-time scoreboard with a time clock, and enabling live or non-live competition formats.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 9, 11, 15, 22, and 24 (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendants' "online platform," which allows users to generate quizzes called "kahoots" accessible via web browser or mobile application (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "game-based learning platform that makes it easy to create, share and play learning games or trivia quizzes in minutes" (Compl. ¶22).
• Key functionalities alleged in the complaint include enabling users to create academic competitions from scratch or by using a question bank (Compl. ¶23), hosting competitions "live in class or via a video conferencing tool" (Compl. ¶24), and a "Team Mode" capability for collaboration (Compl. ¶26). The platform also includes a "Podium feature" to acknowledge top-scoring players after a competition (Compl. ¶27).
• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a direct competitor to Plaintiff's platform and that it benefits from using the patented invention (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes at least claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, and 24 of the '825 Patent, and it refers to a non-proffered Exhibit 2 for exemplary details of this infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶36). As Exhibit 2 was not included with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on a claim chart is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendants' Kahoot! platform provides the system and performs the methods claimed in the ’825 Patent, including enabling users to create and host team-based academic competitions with real-time scoring features (Compl. ¶23-27). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the various ways a user can configure a "kahoot" meet the specific competition structures recited in the claims. For example, does creating a one-off "Team Mode" game satisfy the limitation of enabling a user to "create a league of teams and a cycle of academic competition"? The evidence will need to show that the accused platform enables the creation of these specific, structured competition formats, not just general-purpose quizzes.
• Technical Questions: The claims require "providing a real time scoreboard with time clock... that displays an individual contestant's progress with respect to both the time frame for answering questions and questions answered correctly" (’825 Patent, col. 40:60-66). A factual question will be whether the accused Kahoot! scoreboard and timer functionalities operate in the specific manner required by this limitation. Similarly, the distinction between "live" and "non-live" competition formats as defined in the patent will need to be mapped precisely onto the functionality of the Accused Product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a cycle of academic competition"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the limitation requiring the system to enable a user to "create a league of teams and a cycle of academic competition amongst the league of teams" (’825 Patent, col. 40:43-45). The definition of "cycle" will be critical to determining if the Accused Product's features for organizing games meet this claim element, or if they are merely for scheduling single, unrelated events.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "League Cycle" as "a cycle...that may last any length of time and the frequency of competition events is variable" (col. 9:31-34), which suggests flexibility.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses cycles in the context of structured, recurring rounds, such as a "round-robin schedule" (col. 14:10-14, Fig. 12). Embodiments describe a "round-robin type schedule" and a "predetermined schedule," which may support a narrower construction requiring a pre-planned series of contests rather than a single event (col. 28:54-57; col. 29:23-26).

"real time scoreboard with time clock"

• Context and Importance: This feature is a core component of both independent claims 1 and 14. Its construction will determine whether Kahoot's display of points and timers infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific combination of "real time" display, a "time clock," and the tracking of progress "with respect to both the time frame for answering questions and questions answered correctly" creates a multi-part functional requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "real time" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for any scoreboard that updates during the competition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the scoreboard in detail, including displaying "the proportion of time that has elapsed" and a "chip" on a "tube" that visually represents progress against the clock (’825 Patent, col. 17:5-19). Defendants may argue that these specific implementations limit the scope of the term to a display with these particular characteristics.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by "actively and knowingly encouraging end users and customers to use the Accused Product" in an infringing manner within the U.S. (Compl. ¶40). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Product is especially adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶43).

Willful Infringement

• The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the '825 Patent and the alleged infringement on "repeated occasions" beginning in February 2024 (Compl. ¶32, ¶44). The complaint alleges that despite this notice, Defendants continued their allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶33, ¶45).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a cycle of academic competition," which the patent specification links to structured leagues and round-robin schedules, be construed broadly enough to read on the more flexible, user-driven game-creation tools offered by the accused Kahoot! platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be factual and technical: does the Kahoot! platform, as it actually operates, meet the specific functional requirements of the claims, particularly the "real time scoreboard with time clock" that must display progress relative to both time and correctness, and the distinct "live" and "non-live" competition modes as described in the patent?
• A third question concerns willfulness and damages: given the allegation that Plaintiff provided specific notice of infringement months before filing suit, the focus may turn to whether Defendants' conduct following that notice was objectively reckless, potentially exposing them to enhanced damages if infringement is found.