Peter Pedersen v. Wixcom Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peter Pedersen (Denmark)
  • Defendant: Wix.com, LTD (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00925, W.D. Tex., 12/22/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific street address in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s email marketing platform infringes a patent related to a profile-responsive electronic message management system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for managing the distribution of electronic messages, such as marketing emails, by allowing both message senders and recipients to establish profiles that govern message delivery.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-07-12	’920 Patent Priority Date
2005-11-15	’920 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-22	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 Nov. 15, 2005)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient and untargeted mass electronic communication, such as "spam e-mail" and "junk mail," which annoys receivers and may be ineffective for senders ('920 Patent, col. 1:60-65). The background notes the difficulty for organizations to maintain updated customer communication preferences and the resulting frustration for customers who receive irrelevant information or miss relevant information delivered at the wrong time or place (col. 1:40-52, col. 2:1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized message management system where both message initiators ("messengers") and message receivers ("recipients") can create and maintain profiles ('920 Patent, Abstract). A recipient can create a profile to specify which messengers they are willing to receive content from and define delivery parameters (e.g., via email, SMS) ('920 Patent, col. 2:26-32). Concurrently, a messenger can define its own profile and submit messages for distribution. The system then uses an "individual message generator" to match the messenger's content with the recipient's preferences to create and send a targeted, individualized message ('920 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:4).
• Technical Importance: This dual-profile approach aims to improve messaging relevance by giving both parties to the communication—the sender and the receiver—control over the distribution rules within a single, centralized system ('920 Patent, col. 2:32-43).

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, where the data includes "delivery parameters" specifying where, when, and how messages from specific messengers are to be delivered.
  • A "messenger profile application" for receiving profile data from messengers, including 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 their specified delivery parameters.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused product as an "email marketing platform" and provides a general URL to Defendant's website (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features or operation of this platform beyond this high-level description. No allegations are made regarding the specific market positioning or commercial importance of the email marketing platform itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an attached "Exhibit B" contains a claim chart detailing the infringement of "an exemplary claim 1" (Compl. ¶24). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint document. The narrative infringement theory presented in the body of the complaint is limited to the general assertion that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶17). Due to the lack of the referenced claim chart and the absence of specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements in the complaint's text, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "delivery parameters specified by a recipient"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's core concept of giving message recipients control over what they receive. The outcome of the case may hinge on whether the accused platform allows the ultimate end-user (the person receiving the marketing email) to specify these parameters, or if control over delivery is vested exclusively with the platform's user (the "messenger"). Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality it describes appears to distinguish the claimed invention from a conventional sender-controlled email list management system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not mandate a specific user interface or method for how the recipient specifies the parameters. One could argue this covers any system where a recipient's preferences are stored and used, such as through a standard preference center or an unsubscribe mechanism that allows for granular choices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures suggest a more active and comprehensive role for the recipient. The specification describes a process where a recipient logs into the system, performs a "lookup in the messenger ID and message profile database," selects messengers, and specifies delivery profiles for each ('920 Patent, col. 9:6-14; Fig. 5, steps 105-107). This could support a narrower construction requiring a system that allows recipients to proactively create and manage a detailed profile rather than merely reacting to messages sent to them.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing "product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its users to purchase and instructing them to use Defendant's Accused Products" (Compl. ¶18). This alleges that Wix instructs its customers (the messengers) on how to use the platform in an infringing manner.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the claims of the '920 Patent were invalid" and "has made no attempt to design around the claims of the '920 Patent" (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20). These allegations may form the basis for a later claim for enhanced damages.

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

• A central issue will be one of functional architecture: Does the accused "Wix email marketing platform" embody the dual-profile system required by claim 1? Specifically, does it possess a "recipient profile application" that allows the ultimate message recipient to proactively set "delivery parameters" dictating which messengers they receive content from, or is it a sender-centric system where the Wix user maintains exclusive control over their recipient lists?
• A key evidentiary question will follow from the first: Assuming the complaint survives dismissal, what evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce to show that the accused platform’s technical operation meets the specific limitations of the claims, particularly the function of the "individual message generator" in combining distinct recipient-defined and messenger-defined profiles to create a message? The current complaint's factual assertions are insufficient to resolve this question.