DCT
6:21-cv-00532
Medallia Inc v. Content Square SAS
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Medallia Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Content Square SAS (France)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rimon, P.C.; Gillam & Smith, LLP
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00532, W.D. Tex., 05/26/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an office and employees in the district, conducts continuous business activities including sales and marketing, and the alleged infringing acts give rise to liabilities within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s web analytics platform infringes a patent related to methods for collecting, analyzing, and reporting on structured user feedback from websites.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the digital experience analytics field, where businesses use software to understand user behavior on websites and applications to improve user experience and business outcomes like sales conversion.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit due to a pre-existing "Technology Partner" relationship with the Plaintiff, a fact which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,886,552 Priority Date |
| 2012-01-01 | Content Square Founded |
| 2014-11-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,886,552 Issued |
| 2021-05-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,886,552, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE USER FEEDBACK ON WEBSITES AND SOFTWARE, issued November 11, 2014.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide improved systems and methods for collecting and analyzing user feedback on websites, moving beyond simple, unstructured feedback mechanisms. (’552 Patent, col. 1:30-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that generates structured, categorized feedback forms for website users. A key aspect is the ability to predict when a user is abandoning a process (e.g., an online purchase) and automatically present a targeted feedback form. (’552 Patent, Abstract). The system then aggregates feedback from many users and can integrate it with web analytics data to produce structured reports, allowing website administrators to identify specific points of failure in a user process. (’552 Patent, col. 9:28-62).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide website operators with more actionable, quantifiable data on user experience issues than was available from generic feedback forms or raw behavioral data alone. (Compl. ¶9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A computer system comprising "website user structured feedback form generation functionality" for creating forms with categorized and nested user-selectable messages.
- A "website user cancellation or abandonment prediction functionality" that determines a user’s intent to cancel or abandon a process and, upon that determination, automatically presents a feedback form.
- A "website user feedback analyzing functionality" to automatically collect and analyze the feedback to provide a structured analysis report.
- A "web analytics interfacing functionality" to receive web behavior analysis from an analytics service.
- The system’s automatic analysis must include "factoring the received web behavior analysis" to produce a report that shows an "integration" of the two data types.
- The analysis functionality is further operative to analyze feedback related to "two or more stages" in a website process separately for each stage.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant’s “web analytics platform(s),” referred to as the “Accused Product.” (Compl. ¶15).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a platform that helps companies analyze customer behavior on their digital properties. (Compl. ¶15).
- Its alleged technical functions include generating structured feedback forms (Compl. ¶16), monitoring user behavior to detect "site abandonment or conversion" events (Compl. ¶17), automatically collecting and analyzing user feedback to generate reports (Compl. ¶18), and providing functionality to "Link behavior analysis with those who have left feedback" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website describing how the product helps "Scrutinize and quantify negative feedback" by linking behavior analysis with voice-of-customer feedback. (Compl. ¶15, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’552 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| website user structured feedback form generation functionality operative to generate structured feedback forms ... comprising user selectable feedback messages provided in a categorized and nested structure; | The Accused Product allegedly "generates and provides structured feedback forms for providing website user feedback on website user interaction that includes selectable feedback messages provided in a categorized and nested structure." A screenshot shows a "Voice of customer" feedback form interface. | ¶16; p. 6 | col. 1:35-42 |
| website user cancellation or abandonment prediction functionality operative to determine, based on a website action of a given user, that the given user intends to cancel a transaction ... or abandon the website-based process and, upon making said determination, automatically present the given user with at least one of the generated website user structured feedback forms... | The Accused Product allegedly "determines that a given user intends to cancel a transaction or abandon the website based on a website action of a given user, and upon making such determination, presents a feedback form to the user in order to collect and analyze feedback data." | ¶17 | col. 9:28-40 |
| website user feedback analyzing functionality operative to automatically collect and analyze website user feedback entered in said structured feedback forms and to provide at least one analysis report ... comprising a structured analysis report... | The Accused Product allegedly "automatically collects and analyzes website user feedback including functionality to provide at least one analysis report based on multiple website users, including a structured analysis report." A screenshot of a "Reverse Journeys" analysis dashboard is provided as evidence. | ¶18; p. 7 | col. 9:40-49 |
| a web analytics interfacing functionality operative to interface with a web analytics service and receive web behavior analysis relating to behaviors of the multiplicity of website users; | The Accused Product allegedly provides "a web analytics interfacing functionality to receive web behavior analysis of the user" to make design and coding "data-driven." | ¶19 | col. 9:50-54 |
| wherein, said automatic analysis of website user feedback includes factoring the received web behavior analysis in said automatic analysis and producing at least one analysis report that includes an integration of said received web behavior analysis | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's automatic analysis "includes factoring the received web behavior analysis" and that its marketing materials promote the ability to "Link behavior analysis with those who have left feedback." | ¶20; ¶15 | col. 9:55-62 |
| wherein said analyzing functionality is further operative to analyze website user feedback in relation to each of two or more stages in the website-based process separately for each stage... | The Accused Product allegedly "analyzes user feedback in multiple stages, factors into the stage specific analysis web behavior analysis relating to each of the stages, and reports the results of the analysis in relation to each of the stages separately for each stage." | ¶21 | col. 9:62-10:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Product’s functionality meets the "cancellation or abandonment prediction" limitation. The defense may argue that its product reports on abandonment events after they occur rather than predicting a user’s intent and automatically presenting a form as a direct consequence of that specific prediction, as the claim language requires.
- Technical Questions: The interpretation of "factoring the received web behavior analysis in said automatic analysis" will be critical. The complaint relies on marketing language like "Link behavior analysis" (Compl. ¶15). The court will need to determine if the technical operation of the Accused Product constitutes the specific "factoring" and "integration" recited in the claim, or if it performs a less-coupled correlation or side-by-side presentation of data that falls outside the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "website user cancellation or abandonment prediction functionality"
Context and Importance: This term is crucial because it requires an active, predictive capability, not just a reactive or reporting one. The infringement case hinges on whether the Accused Product is shown to "determine... that the given user intends to cancel" and then "automatically present" a form, a potentially high bar to prove. Practitioners may focus on this term because the evidence cited in the complaint (Compl. ¶17) speaks to analyzing past events like "site abandonment," which may not be equivalent to predicting future intent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes scenarios where a user's action, like clicking a "feedback" button after a long wait, initiates the feedback process, which could be argued as an implicit form of abandonment detection. (’552 Patent, col. 5:40-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself requires "prediction functionality" that "determines" intent and "automatically" presents a form. An embodiment shows the system prompting for feedback after a user explicitly clicks a "cancel" button, which could be interpreted as a direct trigger rather than a probabilistic prediction. (’552 Patent, Fig. 3C; col. 6:45-50).
The Term: "factoring"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between behavioral data and feedback data. The outcome could depend on whether "factoring" requires a specific algorithmic combination or can be satisfied by a looser "linking" or contextual display of data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific mathematical formula for "factoring," potentially allowing for a broader definition that includes any analysis where behavioral data is considered alongside feedback data to produce an integrated report. The overall goal is to "provide to the website administrator various statistics regarding user feedback." (’552 Patent, col. 6:8-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires that the automatic analysis "includes factoring" the behavior analysis "in" said automatic analysis to produce an "integration." This language suggests that the behavioral data must be an input that modifies or is algorithmically combined within the feedback analysis itself, not merely presented alongside it in a dashboard.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by dissemination of "promotional materials, marketing materials, instructions, [and] product manuals" that allegedly instruct customers to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶24). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the product is especially made for practicing the invention and not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’552 Patent "through its relationship with Medallia (as a Technology Partner)," in addition to knowledge from the filing of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of predictive functionality: does the evidence show that the accused platform performs the claimed function of predicting a user's intent to abandon a transaction and automatically presenting a feedback form as a direct result, or does it merely provide post-hoc reporting on user journeys that include abandonment events?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical integration: does the accused product's method of "link[ing] behavior analysis with... feedback" (Compl. ¶15) meet the specific claim requirement of "factoring" behavioral data into the feedback analysis to produce an "integration," or does it represent a different, non-infringing form of data correlation or presentation?
- A third critical question, relevant to willfulness, will be factual: what specific knowledge of the ’552 Patent, if any, did the alleged "Technology Partner" relationship (Compl. ¶23) provide to the Defendant prior to this lawsuit?