Akoloutheo LLC v. Sense Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Akoloutheo, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Sense Corp. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: RWBurns & Co., PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00032, W.D. Tex., 01/14/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically an office in Austin, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sense-Ability" Platform as a Service (PaaS) infringes a patent related to a generalized framework for processing transactions between disparate information services.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a middleware architecture for integrating various data sources and services, a foundational concept in service-oriented architecture (SOA) and modern cloud-based data platforms.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,426,730 - Method and System for Generalized and Adaptive Transaction Processing Between Uniform Information Services and Applications

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of integrating information from multiple, disparate online sources in a flexible and scalable way. At the time of the invention, integrating services (e.g., combining map data with live traffic data) required custom, hard-coded software solutions that were difficult to extend or adapt. (’730 Patent, col. 1:59-2:8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a generalized transaction framework managed by a "Transaction Processing Function" (TPF). This TPF acts as an intermediary that receives a "transaction definition" (TD) from a consumer. Using a standardized classification model (the "Uniform Specification Model") and contextual information (the "Transaction Situation Context"), the TPF can dynamically discover, select, and orchestrate the appropriate information service providers to fulfill the request without the consumer needing to know the specifics of the providers. (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a model for a service-oriented architecture that decouples service consumers from service providers, enabling more flexible and automated integration of networked information services. (’730 Patent, col. 3:4-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 15, and 17.
• Independent Claim 1 (System): A networked computer system comprising:
  • a "resource transaction processing module";
  • a plurality of remote "resource providers";
  • a "resource information registry" for storing information about the providers' resources;
  • wherein the module responds to a transaction request by: constructing a "transaction situation context", "dynamically" selecting a resource, determining operations to perform, obtaining the resource, and processing it to generate a result.
• Independent Claim 15 (System): A networked computer system for requesting a resource, comprising:
  • a "resource registry";
  • a "transaction request entry module" for creating a request;
  • a "transaction situation context module";
  • a "resource transaction processing module" for selecting a resource;
  • a "transaction processing agent" to translate the request into executable instructions.
• Independent Claim 17 (Method): A computer-implemented method for generating a resource, comprising the steps of:
  • obtaining a transaction request;
  • constructing a "transaction situation context";
  • analyzing the request to "dynamically" create a set of input resources, determine operations, obtain the resources, and execute the operations to generate an output resource.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Sense-Ability platform as a service (PaaS) systems" (the "Sense Systems") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Sense-Ability platform is a cloud-based, server-hosted technology for accessing, integrating, analyzing, and managing data from multiple networked resources (Compl. ¶¶12, 14, 16). The platform is presented as a big data solution that provides integration, analytics, visualization, and reporting functions to end-users through various access points like browsers and mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶17-18). A diagram in the complaint depicts the Sense-Ability architecture, showing data moving from various "SOURCES" through "INTEGRATION," "BIG DATA PLATFORM," and "APPLICATIONS" layers to "ACCESS POINTS" (Compl. p. 3). The complaint alleges the platform offers "Analytics, visualization and multi-channel support" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’730 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Questions: A central question will be whether the architecture of the modern "Sense-Ability" big data platform maps onto the specific "Transaction Processing Function" (TPF) framework described in the '730 patent. The complaint alleges the Sense Systems contain a "resource information registry", but the evidence cited—general features like "Data Engineering" and "Big Data Management" (Compl. ¶19)—raises the question of whether this is equivalent to the patent's specific concept of a registry for discovering and classifying discrete, third-party services.
• Technical Questions: The patent's claims require the system to "dynamically select" a resource based on a "transaction situation context". The complaint alleges the Sense Systems "select one or more data resources" (Compl. ¶28), but provides no detail on the mechanism. The case may turn on what evidence is presented to show that the accused platform performs selection at runtime based on contextual data, as opposed to using pre-configured data pipelines or integrations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "resource information registry"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the system's knowledge base. Its construction will determine whether any system that manages metadata about data sources infringes, or if the term requires a more specific implementation akin to the service directories (like UDDI) discussed in the patent's background. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations point to general data management features rather than a specific service discovery mechanism.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the corresponding "Uniform Specification Repository" (USR) broadly as "a means to store and access information in a format consistent with the USM" (’730 Patent, col. 5:4-7), which could support an argument that any structured data store for service metadata meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the registry in the context of classifying services for automated discovery and integration, similar to UDDI (’730 Patent, col. 2:48-52). This context may support a narrower construction tied to a formal, taxonomic classification system for selecting among competing external services.

The Term: "dynamically selects"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the inventive concept of an adaptive system. The dispute will likely hinge on whether "dynamically" implies a specific type of run-time decision-making based on context, or if it can cover any non-static data retrieval process. The strength of the infringement case depends on mapping the accused platform's actual operations to the construed meaning of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with limiting language, which may allow for a broader reading covering any selection that is not permanently hard-coded.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a system that "dynamically integrates a plurality of service providers and consumers based on transaction context data" (’730 Patent, col. 5:14-16). The detailed description shows the TPF analyzing a transaction and context to select from a pool of available services, suggesting "dynamically" requires a run-time choice between alternative providers based on situational data, not merely executing a pre-defined workflow.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶12) but offers no specific factual allegations to support the required elements of knowledge or intent, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct customers to perform infringing acts.

Willful Infringement

The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement, but bases the allegation on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d). This asserts only post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused "Sense-Ability" big data platform, designed for enterprise data integration, embody the specific architecture claimed in the '730 patent, including a "resource information registry" for classifying services and a "transaction situation context" for orchestrating them? Or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's early-2000s service-oriented framework and the modern PaaS product?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mechanism: does the accused platform perform the claimed step of "dynamically" selecting resources? The case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals that the Sense-Ability platform makes run-time choices between competing data sources based on contextual data, or whether it primarily executes pre-configured data integration workflows, raising a question of whether its operation meets the specific functional requirements of the claims.