DCT
1:25-cv-00246
MOV ology LLC v. Oracle Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MOV-ology LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Hoover LLP; Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00246, W.D. Tex., 02/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants being registered to do business in Texas and maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district, including Oracle's global headquarters in Austin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Customer Experience (CX) software suite infringes four patents related to systems and methods for capturing, analyzing, and using data from incomplete or abandoned online web forms.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the digital marketing and lead-generation sector, addressing the common business problem of losing potential customers who begin but do not complete online forms.
- Key Procedural History: All asserted patents claim priority to a single provisional application filed in 2013. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has publicly identified its patents on its website since at least March 2016, which may be used to support allegations of pre-suit notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-25 | Priority date for all asserted patents (U.S. Provisional No. 61/908,349) |
| 2016-03-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,280,531 issues |
| 2016-03-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 issues |
| 2016-03-XX | Plaintiff alleges its website began identifying patents covering its products |
| 2017-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,589,281 issues |
| 2020-09-08 | U.S. Patent No. 10,769,358 issues |
| 2025-02-19 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,280,531 - "Marketing to Consumers Using Data Obtained from Abandoned Electronic Forms"
Issued March 8, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of business entities losing potential online customers who start to enter information into a web form but fail to complete and submit it, leading to lost revenue (’531 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that captures data from these "abandoned" forms without requiring the user to click "submit." It uses embedded instructions (like a script) to determine a form has been abandoned, obtain the data the user has entered, build a data structure, identify the user from that data, and then send a personalized marketing message to entice the user to return and complete the form (’531 Patent, col. 2:21-55; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a way to recover potential sales leads that were previously lost, expanding data capture capabilities beyond then-conventional techniques that relied on form submission or user logins (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned;
- obtaining data from the abandoned form using embedded computer-executable instructions by building and parsing a data structure;
- storing the HTML element, its attribute, and user-entered text;
- determining identifying information of the user from the entered text;
- identifying a preferred communication medium for the user; and
- sending a personalized message via that medium to entice the user to complete the form.
U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 - "Obtaining Data from Abandoned Electronic Forms"
Issued March 15, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its sibling patent, the ’282 Patent addresses the loss of prospective customers who abandon online electronic forms before submission (’282 Patent, col. 1:13-35).
- The Patented Solution: This patent focuses more narrowly on the technical data-collection process. It describes a method for determining a form has been abandoned, using embedded instructions to obtain data from it, building a data structure from the form, parsing that structure to isolate an HTML element, and storing the element, its attribute, and any user-entered text (’282 Patent, col. 2:16-51). Figure 3 illustrates a system where a script (338) on a website's eForm (336) scrapes data and sends it to a separate identification/marketing service (340) (’282 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims a specific, computer-implemented process to solve the data-loss problem unique to web forms, which has no direct non-computer analogue (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned;
- obtaining data from the abandoned form with embedded computer-executable instructions by building and parsing a data structure to obtain an HTML element; and
- storing the HTML element, its attribute, and the user-entered text.
U.S. Patent No. 9,589,281 - "Obtaining Data from Incomplete Electronic Forms"
Issued March 7, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to capture data from incomplete (rather than explicitly "abandoned") web forms. The solution involves determining a form is incomplete and then using a script tag written to the webpage to locate HTML elements, build a data structure, store the captured data, and send a personalized message to the user (Compl. ¶54).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (Compl. ¶49).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Oracle's CX software suite, including Infinity Behavioral Intelligence and Responsys Campaign Management, of implementing these features (Compl. ¶¶51-53).
U.S. Patent No. 10,769,358 - "Obtaining Data from Incomplete Electronic Forms"
Issued September 8, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also covers obtaining data from incomplete electronic forms. The claimed method includes assessing the incomplete form, writing a script tag to the webpage to locate an HTML element, building a data structure, communicating with external databases to obtain additional user information, storing a combined contact profile, and sending a personalized message using that profile (’358 Patent, Claim 17; Compl. ¶66).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (Compl. ¶61).
- Accused Features: Oracle's CX software suite is accused of infringement, with the complaint highlighting features that allow customers to capture real-time behavior and create personalized campaigns (Compl. ¶¶63-65).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Oracle’s Customer Experience (CX) software suite, which includes products such as Oracle Infinity Behavioral Intelligence, Oracle Eloqua, and Oracle Responsys (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these products form a platform for digital marketing that allows Oracle's customers to "collect and evaluate prospect and customer behaviors in real time" (Compl. ¶5). The Infinity product allegedly uses a "CX tag, SDK, and API" to "capture any behavior and parameter" and "stream data while a person is still visiting" a customer's website (Compl. ¶30). This functionality is allegedly used to track "form incompletions and abandonments" and then generate "custom marketing campaigns" based on the intelligence gained (Compl. ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E-H) but does not attach them; the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations and quoted claim language in the complaint body.
’531 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user... | Oracle's CX products are used to track "form incompletions and abandonments." (Compl. ¶5). Infinity software allows customers to "observe sessions while they're happening." (Compl. ¶30). | ¶5, ¶30 | col. 4:20-25 |
| obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer-executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form | Oracle’s Infinity software uses a "CX tag, SDK, and API" to "[c]apture any behavior and parameter into...[a] real-time stream" and build "custom behaviors." (Compl. ¶30). | ¶30 | col. 4:25-30 |
| parsing the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | col. 2:34-36 | |
| storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text | Oracle's Infinity product helps customers "collect and evaluate prospect and customer behaviors in real time" to "personalize the digital customer experience." (Compl. ¶5). | ¶5 | col. 2:37-40 |
| determining identifying information of the user based at least in part on the user-entered text | The accused products are alleged to use intelligence gained from tracking form data to "create personalized messages based on the individual interests and preferences of customers and prospects." (Compl. ¶5). | ¶5 | col. 2:41-43 |
| sending a personalized message to the user...to entice the user to complete the electronic form | Oracle's Responsys product "delivers advanced intelligence" allowing customers to "create personalized messages," including "inspiring email marketing messages." (Compl. ¶5, ¶53). | ¶5, ¶53 | col. 2:47-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether Oracle's use of a "real-time stream" (Compl. ¶30) constitutes the specific method steps of "building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form" and "parsing" it, as required by the claim. The complaint alleges these functions occur but does not detail the underlying mechanism.
- Scope Questions: The claim requires "identifying a preferred communication medium of the user." It is an open question whether Oracle's system, which may offer multiple communication channels (e.g., email), performs an affirmative step of identifying a preferred medium as contemplated by the patent.
’282 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user... | As described in Section IV for the ’531 Patent, Oracle's CX products are alleged to track "form...abandonments." (Compl. ¶5). | ¶5, ¶41 | col. 4:22-25 |
| obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer-executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parsing the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element | Oracle’s Infinity software allegedly uses a "CX tag, SDK, and API" to capture behavior and "accelerate...data collection" via ready-to-use or custom approaches. (Compl. ¶41). | ¶41 | col. 2:22-27 |
| storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text | The complaint alleges Oracle's CX suite uses "intelligence gained from tracking form incompletions and abandonments" for analytics and campaigns. (Compl. ¶5). | ¶5, ¶41 | col. 2:27-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by Oracle's Infinity product, which uses a "CX tag, SDK, and API" (Compl. ¶41). A central question will be whether this technology package functions as the "embedded computer-executable instructions" described in the patent, which provides a specific JavaScript example in its specification (’282 Patent, Fig. 9).
- Scope Questions: The definition of "abandoned" will be critical. The patent provides a flexible definition, including "length of time" or "leaving the website" (’282 Patent, col. 4:22-25), raising the question of whether the specific events Oracle's software tracks as "incompletions" fall within the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’531 and ’282 Patents
- The Term: "abandoned by the user"
- Context and Importance: This term is the triggering condition for the entire claimed method in both patents. The boundary between a user who is merely pausing and one who has "abandoned" the form is central to determining when the accused methods would begin to operate and, therefore, potentially infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the determination "can be based on a variety of factors including length of time, leaving the website, canceling the transaction, failure to input needed data, etc." (’531 Patent, col. 4:20-25). Plaintiff may argue this disjunctive list supports a broad construction covering many types of user inaction or navigation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that other parts of the specification imply a more concrete event. For example, the specification describes an abandoner as a visitor "that enters information in a form field and does not complete the process by submitting the eForm" (’531 Patent, col. 8:21-24), which could be interpreted to require at least some data entry followed by a failure to submit.
For the ’281 and ’358 Patents
- The Term: "incomplete electronic form"
- Context and Importance: Unlike the "abandoned" term in the earlier patents, "incomplete" may have a different and potentially broader scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine the scope of infringement for the later-issued patents and whether it covers scenarios distinct from outright abandonment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "incomplete" suggests any state short of final submission could qualify. The claims pair this with actions like "assessing an incomplete electronic form" (’358 Patent, col. 21:9-12), which could be argued to cover even real-time analysis as a user is typing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that, read in context of the overall invention, an "incomplete" form must still be one from which the user has navigated away or ceased interaction, to avoid absurd results where the system infringes merely by monitoring an active user session.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. It asserts that Oracle "knowingly and intentionally induces infringement" by providing its CX software suite to customers and providing "instructions on their use" to perform the claimed methods. The complaint cites extensively to Oracle's online product documentation as evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶34, ¶45, ¶57, ¶69).
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not contain a formal count for "Willful Infringement," it lays the groundwork for such a claim. It alleges post-suit knowledge, stating Oracle has known of the patents "since at least the date of service of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶33). It also alleges a basis for pre-suit knowledge by claiming that Plaintiff's website has publicly identified the asserted patents as covering its services since March 2016 (Compl. ¶4). The complaint provides a screenshot of the plaintiff's website, which allegedly has identified its patent portfolio since March 2016, as evidence of public notice (Compl. ¶4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical mapping: does Oracle's highly integrated, real-time "CX" platform, which operates as a continuous data stream, perform the discrete, sequential steps recited in the patent claims (e.g., "building a data structure," "parsing the data," "storing" the result), or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation that places the accused system outside the literal scope of the claims?
- The case will also turn on claim construction: can the term "abandoned," as used in the earlier patents, be construed to cover the same set of user behaviors as the term "incomplete" in the later patents? The court's interpretation of these trigger conditions will define the scope of infringement and the extent to which the different patents overlap or cover distinct scenarios.
- A key evidentiary question for damages will be one of notice: can Plaintiff prove that Oracle had pre-suit knowledge of the patents based on the public-facing "patent marking" page on Plaintiff's website? The answer will determine whether Plaintiff can pursue enhanced damages for any infringement found to be willful.