DCT
6:22-cv-00591
Peter Pedersen v. SAP America
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
- Defendant: SAP America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00591, W.D. Tex., 06/08/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SAP Marketing Cloud 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 at issue falls within the field of customer relationship management (CRM) and targeted digital marketing, addressing methods for personalizing communications to avoid unsolicited or irrelevant messages.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or 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. 6965920, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued November 15, 2005 (’920 Patent). (Compl. ¶12).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and complexity of mass communication, which often results in recipients receiving unwanted "spam e-mail" and "junk mail." (’920 Patent, col. 1:61-64). Existing systems were seen as inadequate because they either did not allow recipients to easily manage their communication preferences or did not allow message senders ("messengers") to participate in defining the rules for message delivery. (’920 Patent, col. 2:10-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized message management system that allows both "recipients" and "messengers" to create and maintain profiles. A recipient can specify rules for what messages they are willing to receive from particular messengers and how those messages should be delivered. (’920 Patent, col. 2:27-32). Concurrently, messengers can submit their own profiles and message content. An "individual message generator" then reconciles the recipient's preferences with the messenger's content to create and send a personalized message. (’920 Patent, col. 2:62-67). The system architecture, depicted in Figure 4, shows distinct modules for managing recipient profiles (100), messenger profiles (200), message input (300), and message processing (400).
- Technical Importance: This dual-profile approach was presented as a way to give both consumers and businesses control over digital communications, thereby increasing relevance and reducing the frustration associated with untargeted messaging. (’920 Patent, col. 2:32-42).
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 message management system comprising an electronic computer system and a message management database.
- A "recipient profile application" for receiving profile data from recipients, with the data including delivery parameters (where, when, how) for messages from specific messengers.
- A "messenger profile application" for receiving profile data from messengers, including their identifying data.
- A "message input application" for receiving message files from a messenger.
- An "individual message generator" that accesses the database to generate and send a message to the recipient as specified by the messenger, but in accordance with the recipient's delivery parameters.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "SAP's Marketing Cloud email marketing platform" as the Accused Instrumentality. (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as an "email marketing platform," providing a URL for more information. (Compl. ¶15). Based on this description, the platform is a service used by businesses (the "messengers" in the patent's terminology) to create, manage, and distribute marketing communications to their customers and prospects (the "recipients"). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the platform's features or its market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B but does not include the exhibit in the filing. (Compl. ¶24). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations and the general function of the accused platform.
’920 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a recipient profile application for receiving recipient profile data from recipients via the global network and storing the recipient data in the database, the profile data including delivery parameters specified by a recipient of where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to the recipient | The SAP Marketing Cloud platform allegedly provides functionality for its users (messengers) to manage recipient data, including communication preferences that constitute delivery parameters. | ¶¶15, 17, 24 | col. 11:25-32 |
| a messenger profile application for receiving messenger profile data from messengers via the global network and storing the messenger data in the database, including messenger identifying data | The platform allegedly allows its users (messengers) to create and manage their own company or brand profiles for use in marketing campaigns. | ¶¶15, 17, 24 | col. 11:33-36 |
| a message input application for receiving message files from a messenger via the global network and storing the message files in the database | The platform allegedly provides an interface for its users (messengers) to create or upload content for their email marketing messages. | ¶¶15, 17, 24 | col. 11:37-40 |
| an individual message generator in communication with the database and operative to access and utilize data and files from the database to generate an individual message to be sent to the recipient specified by the messenger via the global communications network according to the delivery parameters | The platform's back-end systems allegedly process the messenger's content and recipient data to generate and distribute individualized emails according to the stored parameters. | ¶¶15, 17, 24 | col. 11:41-46 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused platform satisfies the "recipient profile application for receiving recipient profile data from recipients" limitation. The analysis may focus on whether this requires a direct interface for the end-recipient to input their own preferences, or if it is sufficient for SAP's platform to provide its customers (the messengers) with tools to manage recipient data that was collected elsewhere.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the SAP Marketing Cloud generates messages "according to the delivery parameters" that were "specified by a recipient," as required by the claim? The infringement analysis will likely require evidence that the platform’s logic is constrained by recipient-defined rules, rather than solely by rules established by the platform's user (the messenger).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of most claim terms. However, based on the technology and the nature of the accused product, the following term is likely to be central.
- The Term: "recipient profile application for receiving recipient profile data from recipients"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining infringement. The dispute may turn on the required source of the "recipient profile data." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is a business-to-business platform sold to "messengers," raising the question of how it "receiv[es]... data from recipients."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require a direct, real-time interface between the recipient and the application. One could argue that receiving data "from recipients" could encompass data that was originally provided by a recipient to a messenger, who then uploads it to the system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of the recipient profile system (100) and its associated flow chart (Fig. 5) details a process where a recipient logs on and directly inputs profile and delivery information. (’920 Patent, col. 8:50-57, FIG. 5). This description of direct interaction by the recipient could support a narrower construction requiring a recipient-facing interface as part of the claimed system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that SAP induces infringement by providing "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its users to purchase and instructing them to use" the accused platform. (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’920 Patent. It does, however, request enhanced damages and attorneys' fees for an "exceptional case," which are remedies often associated with findings of willfulness. (Compl. Prayer ¶¶B-C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court's answers to the following high-level questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation "recipient profile application for receiving... data from recipients" be met by a marketing platform that primarily provides tools for messengers to manage recipient data, or does the claim require a system with a direct, recipient-facing interface for preference management?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of source and control: can the Plaintiff prove that the accused SAP platform uses delivery parameters that were verifiably "specified by a recipient" to generate messages, as required by Claim 1, or is the platform’s delivery logic exclusively controlled by its direct users (the messengers)?