Peter Pedersen v. Oracle

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Oracle Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00410, W.D. Tex., 04/22/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Oracle Responsys platform infringes a patent related to a system for managing the distribution of electronic messages based on profiles created by both message senders and recipients.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to targeted digital communication and marketing systems that aim to increase message relevance by allowing granular control over distribution rules.
• 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
2000-07-12	'920 Patent Priority Date
2005-11-15	'920 Patent Issue Date
2022-04-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 - "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued November 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and annoyance of untargeted mass electronic messaging (e.g., "spam e-mail") and the difficulty for end-users to manage their communication preferences across multiple information providers. (’920 Patent, col. 1:56-64). It notes that prior art systems did not adequately allow both message senders ("messengers") and recipients to define the rules governing message delivery. (’920 Patent, col. 2:8-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized electronic message management system where a recipient can create a profile specifying rules for "where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered." (’920 Patent, col. 11:27-32). Concurrently, messengers can submit content to the system, which then uses an "individual message generator" to process and distribute the content to recipients according to their pre-defined preferences. (’920 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This architecture is designed to give both parties to the communication control over the distribution process.
• Technical Importance: The described system represents an approach to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in digital communications by creating a rules-based intermediary, a key objective as digital marketing and automated communications became more prevalent. (’920 Patent, col. 2:26-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • An electronic computer system and an associated electronic message management database.
  • A "recipient profile application" for receiving and storing recipient-specified delivery parameters (where, when, how) for messages from specific messengers.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving and storing messenger data.
  • A "message input application" for receiving message files from a messenger.
  • An "individual message generator" that accesses the database to generate and send an individual message to a recipient according to their specified delivery parameters.
  • A message management server operating system.
  • The message management database comprising recipient and messenger profile databases and a message database.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Oracle's Responsys platform" as the Accused Instrumentality. (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Oracle develops, sells, and commercializes the Responsys platform. (Compl. ¶3, ¶7). It does not, however, provide specific details regarding the technical operation, features, or architecture of the Responsys platform.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Oracle’s Responsys platform directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’920 Patent. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint states that a claim chart, attached as Exhibit B, "describes how the elements of an exemplary claim 1 from the '920 Patent are infringed by the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶22). This exhibit was not provided. As such, the complaint itself does not contain specific factual allegations that map the features of the Responsys platform to the individual limitations of Claim 1. The infringement theory relies entirely on the referenced, but unavailable, exhibit.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a system with several distinct components: a "recipient profile application," a "messenger profile application," a "message input application," and an "individual message generator." A central question will be whether the Responsys platform is architected with these discretely identifiable components, or if its functionality is integrated in a manner that does not map to the claimed structure.
• Technical Questions: The "recipient profile application" is claimed as receiving delivery parameters "specified by a recipient." A primary technical question will be whether the Responsys platform provides functionality for the ultimate message recipient to directly define these delivery parameters (e.g., through a user-facing preference center), or if such parameters are exclusively controlled by the "messenger" (i.e., Oracle's customer, the marketer).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "recipient profile application"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The infringement analysis may turn on whether this "application" must be an interface directly accessible and controlled by the end-message-recipient, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover a toolset used by the marketer (the "messenger") to manage recipient data.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself broadly requires an "application for receiving recipient profile data from recipients via the global network." (’920 Patent, col. 11:24-27). This language, in isolation, might be argued to cover any means of collecting recipient data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background explicitly frames the problem as the difficulty a "customer/client" has in updating his profile with "information suppliers." (’920 Patent, col. 1:49-53). Furthermore, the patent's abstract and detailed description position the recipient as an active user who can "access a rule set and maintain the parameters of his/her own message profile." (’920 Patent, col. 2:27-30). This suggests the application is intended for use by the end-recipient.

• The Term: "individual message generator"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it requires a specific, singular software module or if its functions can be performed by a distributed or integrated process within the accused system. The claim requires this component to "generate an individual message" based on data from the database.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the generator to be "in communication with the database and operative to access and utilize data and files from the database to generate an individual message." (’920 Patent, col. 11:40-44). This functional language could potentially read on various software architectures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's block diagrams consistently depict the "Individual Message Processor" and "Message Output Filter" as a distinct functional block (400) that receives inputs from other subsystems and creates an output. (’920 Patent, Fig. 4, Fig. 8). This could support an interpretation requiring a more structurally distinct component.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations of indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent combined with actions encouraging infringement by others. (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "made no attempt to design around the claims" and "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '920 Patent were invalid." (Compl. ¶18-19). These allegations appear to form the basis for the request that the case be found "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. p. 6, ¶C). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• Architectural Equivalence: A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: does the Oracle Responsys platform contain the specific, multi-component system structure recited in Claim 1—requiring functionally distinct "recipient," "messenger," and "message input" applications, plus an "individual message generator"—or is it an integrated platform whose architecture does not align with the patent's claims?
• The Locus of Control: The case may turn on a question of definitional scope and function: can the term "recipient profile application," which the patent suggests is for an end-user to manage their own preferences, be construed to cover a back-end toolset used exclusively by a marketer to manage their contact lists? The resolution of this question will be fundamental to determining whether the accused platform performs a key function required by the patent.