Ve Opening LLC v. Bloomfire Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VE Opening LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Bloomfire, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01937, W.D. Tex., 01/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a place of business in Austin, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s AI Enterprise Search platform infringes a patent related to methods for searching across and sharing information between distinct software applications on a computing device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of siloed data sources, a significant challenge in enterprise software where users need to access information from various platforms (e.g., internal databases, cloud storage, collaboration tools) through a single interface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The complaint does not specify the filing date of the original complaint or mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-06-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 Priority Date
2018-03-13	U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 Issued
2026-01-12	First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 - *"Method and System for Enabling the Sharing of Information Between Applications on a Computing Device"*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079, "Method and System for Enabling the Sharing of Information Between Applications on a Computing Device," issued March 13, 2018 (’079 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where software applications on a computing device typically operate independently in "siloed environments," making it difficult, confusing, and inefficient for a user to perform a task that requires accessing or sharing information from multiple applications (Compl. ¶12; ’079 Patent, col. 1:21-46).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that allows a user to initiate a "global search" from a first application that spans across to a second application. The system then automatically identifies and presents "candidate elements" (e.g., files, contacts, events) from the second application. A user can select one of these elements, which generates a selectable link within the first application. Selecting this link allows the user to access information from the second application directly through the interface of the first application, thereby breaking down the informational silos (’079 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-63).
• Technical Importance: The method aims to provide a more integrated and efficient user experience by reducing the need for manual copy-pasting or switching between applications, a common issue with "app sandboxing" in many operating systems at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶20).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • From a first application, receiving a global search request that requests information across the first and a second application.
  • Prompting for and receiving a search term from a user.
  • Automatically determining and presenting corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application for user selection.
  • Receiving the user's selection of a candidate element.
  • Linking the selected candidate element with the first application.
  • Generating a selectable link within the first application that enables access to information related to the second application.
  • Receiving the selection of that link and presenting the information from the second application through the first application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s “AI Enterprise Search” product and platform (the “Accused Instrumentality”) (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentality is described as a knowledge management platform that provides a "unified search experience" by searching across and integrating knowledge from multiple sources (Compl. ¶21). These sources include both Bloomfire's internal databases (alleged to be a "first application") and external, third-party applications and data repositories such as Slack, Google Drive, Microsoft Teams, and Salesforce (alleged to be "second applications") (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The stated goal of the product is to "minimize context switching across applications" (Compl. p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the Accused Instrumentality's user interface for integrating various content sources like SharePoint, MS Teams, and Google Drive (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’079 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
from the first application, initiating a global search covering the first application and the second application by performing steps comprising: receiving a global search request... wherein the global search request requests information across the first application and the second application;	A user initiates a global search within the Bloomfire platform (the first application) by clicking an "Ask AI" button or using the search bar, which requests information from both the internal Bloomfire database and integrated third-party sources (the second application) (Compl. ¶22-23). A screenshot shows this search initiation (Compl. p. 18).	¶22, ¶23	col. 2:51-54
in response to the reception of the global search request, prompting for a search term from a user; receiving the search term;	After a user initiates a search, the system prompts the user to enter a search term in a dialog box or search bar (Compl. ¶23). A screenshot depicts the "Ask AI" window prompting for a user query (Compl. p. 19).	¶23	col. 2:54-56
based on the received search term, automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application and presenting the determined one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application for selection by the user;	After receiving the search term, the AI Enterprise Search platform automatically determines and displays relevant "candidate elements" from integrated second applications (e.g., Microsoft Teams) and the first application (e.g., Sharepoint) for the user to select (Compl. ¶24). This is illustrated in a screenshot of search results (Compl. p. 20).	¶24	col. 2:57-61
receiving the selection of at least one of the candidate elements; and linking information between the first application and the second application by performing steps comprising: responsive to receiving the selection of the candidate element, linking the selected candidate element with the first application such that a user may access the selected candidate element from the first application;	The user selects a candidate element from the search results, which links information from the source application to the Bloomfire platform, allowing the user to access it from within Bloomfire (Compl. ¶25-26).	¶25, ¶26	col. 14:52-60
generating for the first application a selectable link that, when selected, is operable to enable access to information related to the second application;	The presented candidate elements in the search results function as selectable links that, when clicked, enable access to the underlying information, including information from second applications like MS Teams (Compl. ¶27). A screenshot shows search results presented as selectable tiles (Compl. p. 24).	¶27	col. 14:61-64
receiving the selection of the linked selected candidate element through the first application; and responsive to the reception of the selection...presenting information related to the linked selected candidate element through the first application.	When a user selects a linked candidate element (e.g., a file from SharePoint), the information is presented to the user directly within the Bloomfire AI Enterprise Search interface, without the user having to leave the platform (Compl. ¶28). A provided screenshot shows a document viewer displaying the content within the main UI (Compl. p. 26).	¶28	col. 14:65-col. 15:2

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential area of dispute may be whether the accused cloud-based enterprise platform constitutes a "first application" and "second application" on a "computing device" as contemplated by the patent. The patent’s figures primarily depict a mobile device interface, which could raise the question of whether the patent's scope extends to a distributed, web-based enterprise software environment.
  • Technical Questions: The case may turn on the specific technical mechanism of "linking." A key question will be whether displaying search results from disparate sources and opening them within an integrated viewer inside the Bloomfire UI meets the claim requirements of "linking the selected candidate element with the first application" and "presenting information...through the first application." The analysis will likely focus on whether this constitutes a mere presentation of hyperlinks or the deeper integration described by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "linking the selected candidate element with the first application" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as it describes the crucial step of connecting information from an external application back to the primary application. The definition of "linking...with" will be critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from a simple list of search results that navigate the user away from the first application.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the link is generated "such that a user may access the selected candidate element from the first application," which does not explicitly forbid opening the content in a new frame or embedded window that is technically still managed by the first application.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes an embodiment where a link to an email is generated and "presented to the user as part of the notes information field" of a separate task-management application (’079 Patent, col. 12:45-53; Fig. 4). This suggests a more integrated form of linking where data from the second application is embedded into a data field of the first, potentially supporting a narrower construction.

• The Term: "first application" / "second application" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The relationship between these terms defines the environment in which the invention operates. Whether the Bloomfire platform is a "first application" and its integrated data sources (e.g., Salesforce, Google Drive) are "second applications" will be a foundational issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent often describes these as distinct programs on a single device, whereas the accused system involves a primary web platform integrating with other cloud services.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines an "application" broadly as "a program or programs that perform one or more particular tasks on a computing device" (’079 Patent, col. 4:51-53). This definition does not explicitly limit applications to standalone, locally installed software, potentially encompassing web applications and services.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background discusses "applications installed on computing devices" and contrasts a "calendar application" with an "email application" (’079 Patent, col. 1:21-28). The patent figures exclusively show interfaces resembling mobile phone apps (’079 Patent, Figs. 3-4). This context could be used to argue for a narrower definition tied to distinct programs operating on an end-user device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant advertises and provides marketing materials and videos that instruct customers on how to use the Accused Instrumentality in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33-34). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Instrumentality is a material part of the invention and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’079 Patent and its infringement at least as of the date of service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶33-34). This forms a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of contextual scope: Can the claims, which are described in the patent's specification and figures in the context of personal applications on a single user device (e.g., a smartphone), be construed to cover a distributed, enterprise-level software-as-a-service platform that integrates third-party cloud services?
• A key infringement question will be one of functional mechanism: Does the Accused Instrumentality's method of displaying search results from integrated sources and presenting the underlying content within its own user interface constitute "linking the selected candidate element with the first application" and "presenting information...through the first application," or is this a functionally distinct process from that claimed in the patent?