Peter Pedersen v. Madwire LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Madwire, LLC (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00590, W.D. Tex., 06/08/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including an office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Marketing360 email marketing 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 concerns centralized management systems for targeted digital communications, a field critical for digital marketing, customer relationship management, and reducing unwanted electronic messages ("spam").
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Priority Date
2005-11-15	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Issued
2022-06-08	Complaint Filed

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, issued November 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and annoyance of mass communication methods like "spam e-mail" and "junk mail," which fill a recipient's mailbox without regard to their interests (’920 Patent, col. 1:58-64). It also notes the difficulty for customers to manage communication preferences across many different organizations, as these preferences are typically stored in separate, inaccessible systems ('920 Patent, col. 1:45-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized electronic message management system where both "messengers" (senders) and "recipients" can create and manage profiles ('920 Patent, Abstract). A recipient creates a profile specifying which messengers they want to receive messages from and defining "delivery parameters" for how, when, and where those messages are delivered ('920 Patent, col. 2:26-32). A messenger submits content to the system, which then uses an "individual message generator" to distribute the content to appropriate recipients according to their pre-defined preferences ('920 Patent, col. 2:62-68).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provides a dual-control framework intended to improve message relevance for recipients while offering messengers a more targeted and effective distribution channel.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An electronic message management system with a computer system and a database.
  • A "recipient profile application" for receiving profile data from recipients, including "delivery parameters" specifying where, when, and how messages from specific messengers are delivered.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving profile data from messengers.
  • A "message input application" for receiving message files from a messenger.
  • An "individual message generator" that accesses the database to generate an individual message for a recipient according to their specified delivery parameters.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as "Madwire's Marketing360 email marketing platform" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Products as an "email marketing platform" (Compl. ¶15). It alleges that Defendant provides information and technical support to its users, including manuals, brochures, and videos that instruct them on how to use the platform (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific features or operation of the Marketing360 platform, but its identification as an "email marketing platform" suggests it is a service used by businesses to manage and send marketing communications to lists of subscribers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit B that purportedly describes the infringement of claim 1 (Compl. ¶24). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document. The narrative allegations state that Defendant infringes by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing into the United States Defendant's Accused Products" (Compl. ¶17). Without the claim chart, a detailed, element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the accused platform, several points of contention may arise.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will likely be the scope of the "recipient profile application". The infringement allegation raises the question of whether a standard email marketing preference center or unsubscribe mechanism, typically controlled by the messenger on behalf of the recipient, meets the claim requirement for an application where the recipient provides profile data specifying "where, when and how" messages are delivered.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the Marketing360 platform's architecture maps to the distinct "applications" (recipient profile, messenger profile, message input) and the "individual message generator" recited in the claim. A key factual question will be what level of control a message recipient actually has over their "delivery parameters" within the accused system and whether that control is equivalent to what is described in the ’920 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "recipient profile application"

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the invention's recipient-centric control mechanism. The definition will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case will likely turn on whether a typical marketing platform's subscriber-facing features (e.g., a preferences page) can be characterized as the claimed "application."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires an application "for receiving recipient profile data from recipients" ('920 Patent, col. 12:25-26). An argument could be made that any web form or interface that accepts subscriber preferences fulfills this function, regardless of how it is implemented.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a more robust, independent system where "each individual recipient could access a rule set and maintain the parameters of his/her own message profile" ('920 Patent, col. 2:27-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring a system that gives recipients direct and granular control, distinct from a simple interface managed by the messenger.

The Term: "delivery parameters specified by a recipient"

Context and Importance

This term defines the type of control a recipient must have. Its construction will determine how much customization is required to infringe. The dispute will likely involve whether simple choices (e.g., opting in or out of a list) satisfy the limitation, or if more granular control is needed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly limited in the claim. A party could argue that any choice a recipient makes that affects delivery, such as selecting "HTML" vs. "plain text" emails, constitutes a specified delivery parameter.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim provides examples of parameters: "where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered" ('920 Patent, col. 12:29-32). The specification and other claims list delivery means such as "electronic mail, voice telephone, facsimile transmission, and digital transmission" ('920 Patent, col. 12:65-col. 13:1), suggesting the term implies control over the communication channel and timing, not just content format.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its users to purchase and instructing them to use Defendant's Accused Products" (Compl. ¶18).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint contains conclusory allegations 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. ¶¶ 19-20). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of the patent’s scope and the specific functionality of the accused platform. Key questions for the case include:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "recipient profile application", as described in the patent, require a system where recipients have direct, granular control over their delivery rules, or can it be construed to cover the subscriber preference centers common in modern email marketing platforms, which are ultimately managed by the messenger?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: What specific evidence will show that the Marketing360 platform contains the distinct "recipient profile application", "messenger profile application", and "individual message generator" as separate functional modules required by the claim, and how precisely do subscribers "specify" the "where, when and how" of message delivery within that system?