DCT
6:20-cv-01167
WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforcecom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Delaware)
- Defendant: Salesforce.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, Group
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01167, W.D. Tex., 12/18/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, maintains regular and established places of business, including an office in Austin, and employs over 300 individuals within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Salesforce Customer 360 Data Manager infringes a patent related to methods for determining a unique subscriber record from an arbitrary set of subscriber attributes.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves data management systems designed to consolidate customer information from disparate sources into a single, unified profile, a critical function for modern customer relationship management (CRM) platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,369,827 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2013-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,369,827 Issued |
| 2018-09-01 | Approximate Date of Accused Product Initiative Announcement |
| 2020-12-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,369,827 - "Method of determining a unique subscriber from an arbitrary set of subscriber attributes"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8369827, "Method of determining a unique subscriber from an arbitrary set of subscriber attributes," issued February 5, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge faced by telecommunications service providers in managing subscribers across increasingly complex networks, such as Long Term Evolution (LTE). In these environments, a single subscriber may be associated with multiple different identifiers (e.g., IMSI, SIP URI), making it difficult to consistently apply policies, charging rules, and quality of service standards. The patent notes a need for a system that can quickly and reliably resolve these different identifiers to a single, unique subscriber. (’827 Patent, col. 1:11-34, col. 2:56-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system called a Subscriber Profile Repository (SPR) that receives a request containing one or more "subscription identifiers." The SPR determines if these various identifiers match a subscriber record and confirms that the record is unique by verifying that all matching identifiers point to the same identical record. To improve performance, the system first queries a fast "subscriber record cache" before querying a full "subscriber record database" if no match is found in the cache. (’827 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3; col. 2:10-18).
- Technical Importance: The described method offered a way to enhance the speed and interoperability of subscriber identification in multi-service telecom networks, particularly by using a cache to accelerate the resolution of requests for active subscribers. (’827 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method performed by a Subscriber Profile Repository (SPR) for determining a unique subscriber record from a set of subscription identifiers.
- Receiving a message that includes at least one subscription identifier.
- For each identifier, determining if it matches a subscriber record.
- Determining that the record is unique when each identifier that matches a record points to an "identical subscriber record."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Product Identification: Salesforce Customer 360 Data Manager (the "Accused Product"). (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "cross-cloud technology" designed to integrate customer data from various Salesforce platforms (e.g., Marketing Cloud, Commerce Cloud, Service Cloud) into a single, "unified view of the customer." (Compl. ¶5).
- It allegedly employs a "hub-and-spoke" architecture, where the central hub stores customer profiles and standardizes data using a "Cloud Information Model." A diagram included in the complaint illustrates this architecture, contrasting it with point-to-point integration. (Compl. ¶8, p. 6).
- The system is alleged to create these unified profiles by assigning a "global party ID" to each customer, which acts as a unique identifier to aggregate data from multiple sources. (Compl. ¶¶9, 10). The complaint presents a "Data Strategy" diagram from Salesforce documentation showing how three separate profiles are unified by a common "Global Party ID." (Compl. p. 7).
- The Accused Product allegedly processes incoming customer data, for example from CSV files, containing attributes such as customer ID, name, address, and phone number. It then uses "match rules" to compare these attributes to existing global profiles to identify unique customers. (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’827 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method performed by a Subscriber Profile Repository (SPR) for determining a unique subscriber record from a set of subscription identifiers... | The Customer 360 Data Manager is alleged to operate as an SPR that determines unique subscriber records by creating and storing central customer profiles and assigning a global profile to each unique customer. | ¶¶6, 8, 9 | col. 2:30-34 |
| receiving a message including at least one subscription identifier; | The system allegedly receives customer data from multiple cloud services, for example in a CSV file ("message"), which contains attributes such as customer ID, name, address, and phone number ("subscription identifiers"). | ¶¶11, 12 | col. 2:12-13 |
| for each subscription identifier ... determining whether the subscription identifier matches a subscriber record; | The system allegedly compares the attributes ("subscription identifiers") from incoming data against its existing global profiles ("subscriber records") using configurable "match rules" to find a match. The complaint provides a screenshot showing a table of such match rules. | ¶¶13, 16; p. 13 | col. 2:14-15 |
| and determining that the subscriber record is the unique subscriber record when each subscription identifier that matches the subscriber record matches an identical subscriber record. | When a "Match Method" is set to "Exact," the system allegedly compares incoming attributes to find a "perfect match" with a pre-existing global profile, thereby identifying attributes belonging to the same person ("unique subscriber record"). The complaint includes a UI screenshot showing this "Exact" match method selection. | ¶¶15, 17; p. 15 | col. 2:15-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "Subscriber Profile Repository", which the patent describes within the specific context of a 3GPP telecommunications network, can be construed to read on the Accused Product, which is a cloud-based CRM data management platform. The defense may argue that the patent's scope is implicitly limited by its detailed description of telecom-specific architectures. (’827 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 1:26-48).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the Accused Product's function of reconciling and merging disparate customer data to create a "global profile" is the same as the patent's claimed step of resolving a set of identifiers to a single, "identical subscriber record." The complaint alleges they are the same, but the underlying technical operations could be materially different, raising the question of whether there is a functional mismatch between the accused method and the claimed method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "Subscriber Profile Repository (SPR)"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical. A narrow construction could confine the patent to the telecommunications field detailed in the specification, potentially placing the accused CRM product outside its scope. A broader construction could allow it to cover any system that stores and manages user profile data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "SPR" to a telecommunications environment. Plaintiff may argue the detailed description provides an exemplary embodiment, not a limiting one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the "SPR" as a component within a 3GPP Evolved Packet Core (EPC), interacting with elements like a Policy and Charging Rules Node (PCRN). (’827 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:36-50).
The Term: "subscription identifier"
- Context and Importance: The meaning of this term will determine whether general customer data points like names and email addresses, as used by the Accused Product, qualify as the "identifiers" contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: While the patent lists specific telecom identifiers (IMSI, NAI, etc.), it also refers to "any other method of identifying network subscribers known in the art," which could be argued to encompass a wider range of data. (’827 Patent, col. 5:22-28).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All explicit examples provided in the patent are unique or semi-unique identifiers used for authentication and service provisioning in a network context. The defense may argue that common, non-unique data like a "First Name" does not function as a "subscription identifier" in the manner disclosed by the inventors. (’827 Patent, col. 5:22-26).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement by asserting that Salesforce provides and disseminates materials, including user manuals and product descriptions, that instruct customers on how to use the allegedly infringing features of the Accused Product. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Product is especially made for infringement and lacks substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’827 Patent obtained "since at least the date of service of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute raises several core questions for the court to resolve:
A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "Subscriber Profile Repository" and "subscription identifier", which are defined and exemplified within the specific technical context of 3GPP telecommunications networks in the patent's specification, be construed broadly enough to encompass the components and data attributes of a general-purpose, cloud-based CRM platform?
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused product's process of reconciling and merging data from various sources to create a unified "global profile" perform the same technical steps as the patent's method of resolving a set of discrete identifiers to a single, pre-existing "identical subscriber record"? The case may turn on whether these two operations are found to be fundamentally different.