DCT
6:22-cv-01132
Savannah Licensing LLC v. Comoto Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Savannah Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Comoto Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01132, W.D. Tex., 10/27/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s CycleGear e-commerce website infringes patents related to detecting user frustration on a device and using that data to trigger responsive actions.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for monitoring user-device interactions to infer frustration and automatically package and transmit this data for analysis and system improvement.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution for both patents-in-suit, the applicant amended the claims to include specific limitations related to associating a frustration event with an active device operation and packaging that data for transmission, which reportedly led to the USPTO allowing the claims. This prosecution history may be relevant for interpreting the scope of the asserted claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-03 | Priority Date for ’992 and ’777 Patents |
| 2013-09-19 | Applicant amendment filed during '992 Patent prosecution |
| 2014-03-25 | ’992 Patent Issued |
| 2016-06-21 | Applicant amendment filed during '777 Patent prosecution |
| 2016-09-27 | ’777 Patent Issued |
| 2022-10-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,680,992 - “Measuring and Improving the Quality of a User Experience” (Issued March 25, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art methods for evaluating user experience, noting they "may be network based and may be delayed from the user's experience" (Compl. ¶21; ’992 Patent, col. 1:12-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method implemented on a user's device that detects a "user frustration event," such as shaking the device or angry button presses. This event is then associated with a specific "device event" (e.g., a slow software operation) occurring concurrently. The system forms an "event package" containing data about both events, including the type and level of frustration and network routing information, and transmits this package for analysis (’992 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:26-42).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a device-centric, real-time feedback mechanism to capture user experience data at the moment of frustration, rather than relying on delayed, network-side analytics (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’992 Patent, col. 14:18-29; Compl. ¶19).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- detecting a user frustration event;
- associating the user frustration event with a device event that includes an active operation of the device at a time when the user frustration event occurred;
- forming an event package based at least in part on the user frustration event and the device event that includes information indicating a level, a type of user frustration, and information related to routing the event package through a network; and
- transmitting the event package.
- The complaint focuses its allegations on Claim 1 and does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 - “Measuring and Improving the Quality of a User Experience Upon Receiving a Frustration Event Package” (Issued September 27, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '992 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of improving user experience by analyzing frustration data (’777 Patent, col. 1:23-27).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on the receiving end of the system. It describes a method where a computing device (e.g., a server) receives the "frustration event package," determines feedback based on the indicators within that package, and then implements a "network action" based on the determined feedback. This creates a closed loop where frustration detected on a client device can trigger a response from the network or system (’777 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:45-59).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a mechanism for automated or semi-automated network responses to user frustration, such as reallocating network resources to improve performance for users experiencing issues (Compl. ¶50; ’777 Patent, col. 8:7-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’777 Patent, col. 14:45-59; Compl. ¶51).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a user frustration event indicator and an associated event indicator that indicates a level and a type of user frustration associated with a user frustration event, wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes an active operation of a device at a time when the user frustration event occurred;
- determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator; and
- implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback.
- The complaint focuses its allegations on Claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "CycleGear" website (www.cyclegear.com), which the complaint refers to as the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶6, ¶74).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality uses a third-party service, "Datadog," for providing session reports (Compl. ¶75). This system is alleged to detect "rage click events," defined as a user repeatedly clicking on a particular website element. Upon detection, the system allegedly auto-captures session replays and generates a real-time "session event report" that includes "frustration signals." This report is then transmitted to Defendant's technical teams to help identify and resolve frontend website errors (Compl. ¶76). Defendant is described as being in the business of selling motorcycle products and services via this website (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint describes information contained in Exhibits E and F but does not include the exhibits themselves. The infringement allegations are summarized below based on the narrative in the complaint.
’992 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting a user frustration event | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly detects "rage clicks" when a user clicks repeatedly on a website element. | ¶76 | col. 3:56-61 |
| associating the user frustration event with a device event that includes an active operation of the device at a time when the user frustration event occurred | The "rage clicking" is allegedly associated with the active operation of the website at the time the clicks occurred. | ¶77 | col. 4:30-35 |
| forming an event package...that includes information indicating a level, a type of user frustration, and information related to routing... | A "session event report" is allegedly generated, which includes session replays ("level"), rage clicks ("type"), and the IP address of the server ("routing"). | ¶78 | col. 5:1-11 |
| transmitting the event package | The session event report is allegedly transmitted to Defendant's teams over the Internet. | ¶76 | col. 5:5-11 |
’777 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package... | A server of the Accused Instrumentality allegedly receives the "session event report" containing the rage click data. | ¶93 | col. 7:12-14 |
| determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator | The server allegedly determines feedback from the report's indicator that the event is a rage click and from the session replay data. | ¶94 | col. 7:22-28 |
| implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the determined feedback | The server allegedly implements a network action by notifying the respective team of the Accused Instrumentality about the session report. | ¶95 | col. 8:7-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether detecting "rage clicks" on a website falls within the scope of a "user frustration event," as the ’992 Patent's specification provides physical examples like shaking a device or shouting (col. 3:1-3, 58-60). A second major question relates to the ’777 Patent: does "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶95) constitute "implementing... a network action," when the patent specification provides technical examples such as "increasing a network service" or "beam steering" (col. 8:9-12)?
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on "internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶75). This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff possesses or will seek in discovery to demonstrate that the Accused Instrumentality, through its use of Datadog, performs every element of the asserted claims as alleged.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "user frustration event" (from ’992 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against the website depends on whether "rage clicks" are construed as a "user frustration event." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples differ from the accused activity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes user frustration as causing "non-productive actions by the user" (’992 Patent, col. 3:2-3), a general phrase that could be argued to encompass more than just the listed examples.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's explicit examples are primarily physical interactions with a mobile device, such as "shaking the device," pressing a button "harder or longer," "shouting," or "sighing" (’992 Patent, col. 3:2-3, 58-60). A party could argue these examples limit the term's scope to such physical manifestations.
- The Term: "implementing... a network action" (from ’777 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory for the ’777 Patent hinges on construing "notify[ing] the respective team" as a "network action." The definition of this term is critical to determining if there is a functional match.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "network action," potentially leaving it open to any action implemented over or in response to the network.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, technical examples of a "network action," including "increasing a network service in a local area," "increasing a power modulation," or "beam steering toward the area" (’777 Patent, col. 8:9-12). These examples suggest an automated, technical adjustment to network operation, not a human-directed notification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations for induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶84-85, ¶101-102). It alleges Defendant encourages infringement but does not provide specific facts, such as citations to user manuals or developer documentation, that would allegedly instruct or encourage the infringing acts.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶82, ¶99). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willfulness but does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents or infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "user frustration event", described in the patent’s specification with examples of physical device manipulation like shaking, be construed to cover "rage clicks" on a website, a purely software-based interaction?
- A second key issue will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused "network action" of "notify[ing] the respective team" (Compl. ¶95) meet the claim limitation of "implementing... a network action," which the patent specification exemplifies with automated, technical network adjustments like increasing bandwidth or redirecting signals?
- An important evidentiary question will be one of proof of operation: given that the allegations are based on "internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶75), what evidence can be adduced in discovery to prove that the accused website’s use of the Datadog service performs all the specific steps of the patented methods, particularly the formation of the complete "event package" and the implementation of a qualifying "network action"?