Peter Pedersen v. Mondaycom Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Monday.com, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00923, W.D. Tex., 09/08/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having "regular and established places of business" in the district, specifically an office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 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 filtered and targeted electronic messaging systems designed to reduce unwanted messages ("spam") by giving both senders and receivers control over message distribution rules.
• 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 Earliest Priority Date
2005-11-15	U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 Issued
2022-09-08	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, "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System," issued November 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient and untargeted mass electronic communication, such as "spam e-mail," which annoys receivers and is ineffective for senders (’920 Patent, col. 1:60-64). Existing systems were described as lacking a mechanism for both the sender ("messenger") and the recipient to define parameters controlling message delivery (’920 Patent, col. 2:17-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized message management system that allows both recipients and messengers to create and maintain profiles in a central database (’920 Patent, Abstract). Recipients create profiles specifying which messengers they wish to receive messages from and how those messages should be delivered (’920 Patent, col. 2:26-33). Messengers create profiles defining the types of messages they offer (’920 Patent, col. 2:58-62). An "individual message generator" then accesses both sets of profiles to combine and distribute messages only to the appropriate, consenting recipients according to their specified preferences (’920 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:3).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to improve messaging efficiency by creating a dual-permission system, giving recipients granular control over incoming communications while providing messengers a way to reach a pre-qualified and interested audience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • An electronic computer system with a database.
  • A "recipient profile application" for receiving and storing recipient profile data, including delivery parameters (where, when, how) specified by a recipient.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving and storing messenger profile data, including messenger identifying data.
  • 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 the specified delivery parameters.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is "Monday.com's email marketing platform" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides very little specific technical detail on the functionality of the accused platform, referring to it generally as an "email marketing platform" and providing a URL to the company's main website (Compl. ¶15). Based on this general identification, the platform is a tool used by businesses (messengers) to create, manage, and distribute communications to their contacts (recipients). The complaint does not describe the specific features or user interfaces through which this functionality is accomplished. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that a claim chart describing the infringement of Claim 1 is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶24). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. The body of the complaint makes only a conclusory allegation of infringement without providing an element-by-element mapping of the claim to the accused product's features (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue will be whether the accused email marketing platform meets the claim requirement of having distinct "recipient profile" and "messenger profile" applications that interact as the patent describes. The infringement theory may raise the question of whether a standard customer list managed by a Monday.com user (the "messenger") can be considered a "recipient profile application" as claimed, especially since the patent describes recipients proactively defining their own delivery parameters for various messengers (’920 Patent, col. 3:11-23).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused platform includes an "individual message generator" that functions as claimed. The patent describes this component as actively accessing and utilizing data from both the recipient and messenger profiles to generate and configure a message for delivery (’920 Patent, col. 11:40-45). The case may turn on what evidence is presented to show that the accused platform performs this specific matching and generation process, rather than simply sending a pre-composed message from a messenger to a static mailing list.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "recipient profile application"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the recipient-side control that is a core concept of the invention. Its construction will determine whether a simple mechanism like an "unsubscribe" feature or a contact list managed by the messenger meets the limitation, or if a more sophisticated, recipient-driven interface for setting granular preferences is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself broadly recites the application as being "for receiving recipient profile data from recipients... and storing the recipient data in the database" (’920 Patent, col. 11:26-29), which could arguably cover any mechanism where a recipient provides data that is stored.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that this application allows a recipient to specify "one or more messengers, type of messages and type of content the recipient wishes to receive from each messenger" and associated delivery profiles (’920 Patent, col. 8:57-63). Figure 5, which details the process of creating a recipient profile, shows a multi-step flow where the recipient selects messengers and specifies message types, suggesting an interactive and granular control system (’920 Patent, Fig. 5, steps 105-107).

• The Term: "individual message generator"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the engine that connects the messenger's content with the recipient's preferences. The dispute will likely focus on whether this requires a dynamic, rule-based process or if it can read on a more standard bulk-mailing function. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the functional heart of the claimed system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the generator is "operative to access and utilize data and files from the database to generate an individual message" (’920 Patent, col. 11:41-43), which could be argued to cover any process that pulls a message and a recipient address from a database.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the generator as combining message data with "delivery profile data for all recipients matching the profile" and creating an "output file" for a distribution server (’920 Patent, col. 11:3-8). This, along with the overall system architecture, suggests a process of actively matching message attributes against recipient-defined rules, rather than simply sending a static message to a list.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges 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," which it characterizes as acts of direct infringement but which may be intended to support a claim for induced infringement (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful," but it alleges that Defendant "has 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). These allegations may form the basis for a later claim of willfulness or a request for enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused Monday.com platform, a tool primarily controlled by the "messenger" (the user), embody the dual-control architecture of the '920 patent, which requires a "recipient profile application" for recipients to proactively and granularly define message delivery rules from multiple potential messengers?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will be adduced to show that the accused platform's "individual message generator" performs the claimed function of dynamically matching messenger content to recipient-defined profiles, as opposed to executing a standard bulk-send of a pre-defined message to a messenger-controlled list?
• Finally, the case may raise a definitional question regarding claim scope: can the term "recipient", in the context of the patent's system, be construed to mean a contact on a marketing list who has minimal control (e.g., only an unsubscribe option), or does the specification limit the term to a proactive user who configures a detailed profile within the system?