Flexiworld Tech Inc v. Indeed Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Washington)
  • Defendant: Indeed, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01254, W.D. Tex., 02/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Indeed, Inc. maintains a permanent physical presence and regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online job-matching platform infringes four reissue patents related to systems and methods for data mining user information to facilitate anonymous communication between parties over the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns creating a trusted intermediary or "controller" that can connect two parties online for a transaction or communication without revealing their personal contact information to each other until authorized.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are all reissues of an original patent. The complaint notes that three of the four patents ('066, '088, and '176 Patents) were examined by the USPTO under its 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and that all asserted claims were found to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Plaintiff also alleges providing pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendant via a letter dated December 29, 2021.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-09-05	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2004-01-01	Defendant Indeed, Inc. founded
2017-12-12	’637 Patent Issued
2020-06-23	’066 Patent Issued
2020-07-07	’088 Patent Issued
2021-12-29	Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant
2022-08-16	’176 Patent Issued
2025-02-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,637 - "Apparatus, methods, and systems for data mining user information"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,637, "Apparatus, methods, and systems for data mining user information", issued December 12, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes drawbacks of then-prevalent online communication methods. It identifies email as having high latency and being impersonal; it characterizes chat and instant messaging as creating an undesirable emphasis on typing speed; and it notes that traditional voice communication lacks the anonymity preferred by internet users, creating privacy concerns and exposure to unwanted calls (Compl. ¶¶76-83; ’637 Patent, col. 3:58-5:18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a service or system, acting as a "controller," that facilitates communication between parties while preserving anonymity ('637 Patent, col. 5:19-20). A user can initiate a transaction by providing a "transaction specification" to the controller, which then generates a unique "reference code" ('637 Patent, Fig. 4A). This code allows parties to connect through the controller-managed system without directly sharing phone numbers or other personal identifiers, which are held by the controller ('637 Patent, col. 6:43-51). The system can also use data mining of user transaction histories to analyze for matches and suggest or automatically initiate connections between parties (Compl. ¶103; ’637 Patent, col. 9:51-10:11).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a technical framework for brokering trusted connections between otherwise anonymous parties online, a concept foundational to modern online marketplaces and expert consultation platforms (Compl. ¶¶58, 68-69).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 38 and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 38 include:
  • A controller obtaining "one or more transaction specifications" associated with a second party.
  • The controller "data mining information on the second party" based on a "history of transactions."
  • The controller verifying the identity of a first party.
  • The controller creating a "proposed first party transaction specification" that employs the data mining information.
  • The controller generating and supplying a "reference code" to the first party, with the code being associated with the proposed transaction and having a relationship to the second party.
  • The controller receiving a connection request from the first party that employs the reference code.
  • Making a connection without requiring the first party to provide a transaction specification to the controller beforehand.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,066 - "Services that are provided, at least partly, over the Internet for data mining user information"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,066, "Services that are provided, at least partly, over the Internet for data mining user information", issued June 23, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a reissue of the same original patent as the '637 Patent, the '066 Patent addresses the identical set of problems related to the shortcomings of email, chat, and traditional voice calls for online transactions, particularly the tension between the desire for interactivity and the need for anonymity (Compl. ¶124).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that described in the '637 Patent: a controller-based system that uses transaction specifications, reference codes, and data mining to facilitate anonymous communication ('066 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges the improvements and solutions described for the '637 Patent apply equally to the '066 Patent (Compl. ¶124).
• Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’637 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 38 and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of independent claim 38 include:
  • A controller obtaining "one or more transaction specifications" associated with a second party.
  • The controller "data mining information on the first party" based on a "history of transactions."
  • The controller verifying the identity of the first party.
  • The controller creating a "proposed first party transaction specification" that employs the data mining information collected on the first party.
  • The controller generating and supplying a "reference code" to the first party.
  • The controller receiving a connection request from the first party that employs the reference code.
  • Making a connection where the proposed transaction specification created by the controller is not created by the first or second party.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,176 - "Apparatus, methods, or software for data mining user information by providing services over the Internet for connecting people"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,176, "Apparatus, methods, or software for data mining user information by providing services over the Internet for connecting people", issued August 16, 2022 (Compl. ¶140).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system using a controller to facilitate anonymous connections between parties online. The system performs data mining on both the first and second parties based on their transaction histories and uses that information to create a proposed transaction and generate a reference code to enable the connection (Compl. ¶¶143, 145).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 38 (independent), 39, and 41-44 (Compl. ¶24).
• Accused Features: Defendant's internet-based platform, including features like Indeed Ads, Indeed Resume Project, and Indeed Instant Match (Compl. ¶180).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,088 - "Methods, devices, or applications for accessing a service provided over the Internet for connecting to another user or device, the service data mines transactions and information of its user"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,088, "Methods, devices, or applications for accessing a service provided over the Internet for connecting to another user or device, the service data mines transactions and information of its user", issued July 7, 2020 (Compl. ¶159).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a first party to access a service that connects it to a second party. The service controller creates a proposed transaction by employing data mined from the first party's transaction history and provides the first party a reference code to initiate the connection (Compl. ¶¶162, 164).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 38 (independent), 39-42, and 52-55 (Compl. ¶25).
• Accused Features: Defendant's internet-based platform, including features like Indeed Ads, Indeed Resume Project, and Indeed Instant Match (Compl. ¶180).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are various versions of Defendant's "Internet-based platform with features such as Indeed Ads, Indeed Resume Project, and Indeed Instant Match, including as implemented on Indeed’s web-based platform and using iOS, Android, and other apps" (Compl. ¶180).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused platform functions to connect two parties—job seekers and employers—for the purpose of employment transactions (Compl. ¶¶66-67, 180). It further alleges that the platform uses data mining of user information and transaction histories to initiate or suggest connections between these parties (Compl. ¶¶106, 126). The complaint provides historical context, showing a 2004 screenshot of Indeed's initial, simpler "job search engine" interface to contrast with its current, more complex matching functionalities (Figure 5, Compl. ¶65). To establish the state of technology at the time of the invention, the complaint includes a chart showing that in 2000, home internet use was at approximately 41.5%, with the vast majority being dial-up connections (Figure 3, Compl. ¶62; Figure 4, Compl. ¶63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE46,637 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 38)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
obtaining, by a controller, one or more transaction specifications over the Internet associated with the second party...	Indeed’s platform (the alleged controller) obtains job postings (transaction specifications) from employers (the second party).	¶105	col. 12:19-24
data mining information on the second party, by the controller, based, at least in part, on data collected by the controller from a history of transactions...	Indeed’s platform allegedly mines data on employers based on their history of transactions on the Indeed platform.	¶106	col. 28:41-49
verifying, by the controller, the identity of the first party or station...	Indeed’s platform verifies the identity of the job seeker (the first party) when they use the platform.	¶105	col. 28:4-5
creating, by the controller, a proposed first party transaction specification...employing, at least in part, the data mining information on the second party...	Indeed’s platform allegedly creates a proposed transaction (e.g., a job match) for a job seeker using the mined data on the employer.	¶106	col. 28:50-55
generating, by the controller, a reference code for supplying to the first party...the reference code having a relationship to the second party...	Indeed’s platform generates a unique identifier or link (the alleged reference code) associated with the proposed job match and supplies it to the job seeker.	¶105	col. 28:56-61
receiving, by the controller, a connection request from the first party...employing, at least in part, the reference code...	A job seeker uses the identifier or link to submit a connection request (e.g., an application) to the employer through the Indeed platform.	¶105	col. 28:1-4
a connection between the first party and the second party...is made without requiring the first party...to provide a transaction specification to the controller...	The connection is allegedly made via Indeed's automated matching without the job seeker having to provide a full transaction specification beforehand.	¶107	col. 28:6-16

RE48,066 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 38)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
obtaining, by a controller, one or more transaction specifications...associated with the second party...	Indeed’s platform (the alleged controller) obtains job postings (transaction specifications) from employers (the second party).	¶125	col. 12:19-24
data mining information on the first party, by the controller, based, at least in part, on data collected by the controller from a history of transactions...	Indeed’s platform allegedly mines data on job seekers (the first party) based on their history of transactions and activity on the Indeed platform.	¶126	col. 27:42-49
verifying, by the controller, identity of the first party or the first station...	Indeed’s platform verifies the identity of the job seeker (the first party) when they use the platform.	¶125	col. 27:50-51
creating...a proposed first party transaction specification...employing, at least in part, the data mining information on the first party...	Indeed’s platform allegedly creates a proposed transaction (e.g., a job match) for the job seeker using the data mined on that same job seeker.	¶126	col. 27:52-57
generating...a reference code for supplying to the first party...	Indeed’s platform generates a unique identifier or link (the alleged reference code) and supplies it to the job seeker.	¶125	col. 27:58-65
receiving, by the controller, a connection request from the first party...which employs the reference code.	A job seeker uses the identifier or link to submit a connection request (e.g., an application) through the Indeed platform.	¶125	col. 27:1-3
wherein the proposed first party transaction specification...is not created by the first party at the first station...	The job match is allegedly created by Indeed's automated system, not by the job seeker themselves.	¶126	col. 27:10-16

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "anonymity." The patents describe a system for facilitating anonymous communication, whereas the accused platform’s primary goal is to establish a direct, non-anonymous professional connection. The dispute may turn on whether the platform’s function of mediating initial contact without revealing full contact details (e.g., personal email or phone number) until a party consents constitutes infringement of claims directed to anonymity. The complaint supports this theory by citing the patent's specific example of a job seeker desiring anonymity from a current employer (Compl. ¶81).
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused platform’s technical operation maps to specific claim steps. For example, a question for the court will be whether Indeed’s automated matching algorithms function as the claimed "controller" that "creat[es] a proposed first party transaction specification...employing...data mining information" without input from the user, as required by the claims. Another question is whether the unique links or application identifiers used by Indeed qualify as the "reference code" recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "controller"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central intermediary that performs the key steps of data mining, verification, and connection. Its construction is critical because Defendant may argue its distributed, multi-server platform architecture does not constitute a single "controller" as depicted in the patent's figures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the controller is a functional system, stating it "typically is implemented to manage and coordinate operation of the service/system" and can be a "node on the Internet" (RE46,637 Patent, col. 11:36-39; col. 19:33-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a singular "CONTROLLER UNIT" (24) as a distinct logical block, which could support an argument that the claims require a more centralized architecture than what Defendant employs (RE46,637 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 3).

• The Term: "data mining information on the...party...based, at least in part, on data collected...from a history of transactions"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the core technical action that allegedly provides the inventive concept. The dispute will likely concern what type of user activity qualifies as a "history of transactions" and what analysis constitutes "data mining."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes collecting data from "observed patterns of a user's conduct, e.g., Web surfing" and gathering information from "third party sources," suggesting a broad scope beyond just completed commercial exchanges (RE46,637 Patent, col. 13:16-18; col. 9:56-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language ties the data mining to a "history of transactions involving one or more transactions." This could be construed more narrowly to require a history of concrete, completed interactions on the platform, rather than general browsing activity or profile keywords.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing "product manuals, website, instructional videos and/or sales and marketing activities" that instruct and encourage its customers (job seekers and employers) to use the accused platform in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶181).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents since at least December 29, 2021, via a notice letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶192, 200, 208, 216). The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continued its infringing activities without seeking to remedy the infringement (Compl. ¶¶193, 195).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the concept of "anonymity," described in the patents as a primary benefit for preserving privacy, be construed to cover the functionality of the accused job-matching platform, whose principal purpose is to facilitate direct, non-anonymous contact between users after an initial introduction?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused platform's automated matching functionality perform the specific, controller-driven process required by the claims—particularly the creation of a "proposed...transaction specification" using "data mining" of a "history of transactions"—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed method and the platform's actual algorithmic process?