DCT
6:23-cv-00046
WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforcecom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Delaware)
- Defendant: Salesforce.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP; Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC; RADE, LLC
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00046, W.D. Tex., 06/12/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Salesforce maintains an office in Austin, employs over 600 people within the district, and operates community groups in Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that caller ID configuration features within Defendant’s Sales Cloud and Service Cloud platforms infringe a patent related to the flexible presentation of alternate caller information.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns telecommunications systems that allow a calling party to dynamically select and display an alternate name, number, or message to the called party, departing from the static caller ID information typically assigned to a phone line.
- Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint follows a related case between the parties (6:20-cv-01163) involving the same patent but different accused product features. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has been on notice of the patent-in-suit since at least February 2021. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that a 2016 license agreement between Salesforce and non-party “Uniloc Entities” does not provide Salesforce a license to the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-08-31 | ’731 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-06-23 | ’731 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-12-XX | Salesforce and Uniloc Entities enter License Agreement |
| 2021-02-27 | Alleged notice of '731 Patent to Salesforce via related case |
| 2023-06-12 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,551,731 - “Flexible caller ID and calling name information presentation,” issued June 23, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in conventional telecommunications systems where end-users have minimal control over the caller ID name and number (ANI/CNAP) displayed to a called party. Existing systems typically only allowed the display of a preassigned name/number or a generic privacy restriction. (’731 Patent, col. 2:11-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a network-supported method allowing a user to “enter a command” to use an “alternate caller name, an alternate caller number and an alternate caller message” instead of the default, preassigned information. The network then looks up and uses this alternate information for the outgoing call, providing flexibility on a per-call basis or based on pre-set conditions like the time of day. (’731 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-29). For example, an individual could make a call from their home phone but have it display their business's name and phone number. (’731 Patent, col. 4:46-54).
- Technical Importance: The described technology provides greater contextual flexibility for business and personal communications, allowing a caller's identity to be presented differently based on the purpose of the call. (’731 Patent, col. 4:46-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts “one or more claims,” focusing on what it terms the “Exemplary '731 Patent Claims” without specifying claim numbers in the body text (Compl. ¶12). The infringement theory aligns with the elements of independent method claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key elements:
- Entering a command to use at least one of an alternate caller name, number, or message instead of a preassigned one.
- Looking up the alternate information, where the lookup is “based on at least one of a hour, minute, second and day.”
- The alternate information is “changeable by at least one of the calling terminal and a network.”
- Using the alternate information “in place of the preassigned caller name and caller number for the calling terminal.”
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Salesforce's Sales Cloud and Service Cloud platforms, specifically the “custom caller ID feature for Lightning Experience and Lightning Dialer for Sales Cloud” and the “caller ID configuration feature for Service Cloud Voice for Service Cloud.” (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these features are part of Salesforce's core Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platforms (Compl. ¶33). The accused functionality provides a “calling infrastructure for communicating between Sales reps and customers” and allows a user to “add a custom phone number ... which is used as the caller ID for outbound calls to customers.” (Compl. ¶30). This enables sales and service agents using the Salesforce platform to control the phone number displayed when they contact customers. (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint incorporates an external claim chart (Exhibit 2) by reference, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶24). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations provided in the body of the complaint.
'731 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| entering a command to use at least one of an alternate caller name, an alternate caller number and an alternate caller message for a calling terminal, instead of a preassigned caller name and caller number for the calling terminal | Salesforce platforms allow users to enter a command “to add a custom phone number ... which is used as the caller ID for outbound calls to customers.” | ¶30 | col. 6:41-43 |
| looking up, based on at least one of a hour, minute, second and day, the at least one of an alternate caller name, an alternate caller number and an alternate caller message | The complaint alleges that the feature allows matching callers to “End User Records” and saving customer phone numbers and names, which suggests a lookup function. | ¶30 | col. 6:43-45 |
| the at least one of an alternate caller name, an alternate caller number and an alternate caller message being changeable by at least one of the calling terminal and a network | The feature is described as allowing users to “configure caller ID” and “add a custom phone number,” which suggests the information is changeable by the user via the network-based platform. | ¶30 | col. 6:47-50 |
| using the at least one of an alternate caller name, an alternate caller number and an alternate caller message in place of the preassigned caller name and caller number for the calling terminal | The complaint alleges the added custom phone number is “used as the caller ID for outbound calls to customers,” implying it is used in place of a default or preassigned number. | ¶30 | col. 6:51-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether a user configuring a setting in a GUI, as described for the Salesforce products, constitutes “entering a command” in the manner contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's description of the accused functionality does not explicitly allege that the lookup of alternate caller information is “based on at least one of a hour, minute, second and day,” which is a specific limitation in claim 1. This raises the question of whether the accused products perform this time-based function required for literal infringement of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: “command”
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central, as it will determine whether configuring a setting in the accused software GUI meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's context could be read to imply a more discrete, action-oriented input than filling a settings field.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly refers to “entering a command to use the at least one of an alternate caller name...” without specifying the form of the command. (’731 Patent, col. 5:46-47).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background section discusses user actions like pressing a “recall” button or a key sequence like “*9” as examples of initiating a function, which could suggest that “command” implies a specific, discrete user action rather than a persistent configuration setting. (’731 Patent, col. 1:60-63).
The Term: “looking up, based on at least one of a hour, minute, second and day”
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a primary point of contention, as the complaint does not explicitly map any accused functionality to it. The viability of the infringement claim may depend entirely on whether the accused system performs this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that “a fixed set of settings may be invoked based on a day and/or a time,” which supports the idea that the invention covers time-based rules. (’731 Patent, col. 4:27-29). Plaintiff may argue that the term “based on” is satisfied if time is merely one available parameter in a larger system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 requires the “looking up” step itself to be “based on” time and/or day. Defendant may argue this requires the system to actively use time-based criteria to select the alternate caller ID, a specific function not alleged in the complaint's description of the accused products. (’731 Patent, col. 6:43-45).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Salesforce encourages and instructs customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner through marketing materials, operating manuals, and “how-to” articles on its website. (Compl. ¶19-20).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported actual knowledge of the ’731 patent since at least February 27, 2021, derived from the service of a complaint in a related case. The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement since that date constitutes an “unjustifiably high risk” of infringement. (Compl. ¶16, 18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused Salesforce functionality perform the specific time-based lookup (“looking up, based on at least one of a hour, minute, second and day”) that is an explicit limitation of independent claim 1? The complaint's current allegations do not appear to directly address this element, which may be a central focus of discovery and dispositive motions.
- A second core issue will be one of contractual scope: does the 2016 license agreement between Salesforce and the non-party “Uniloc Entities” cover the ’731 patent and bind the Plaintiff in this case? The resolution of this issue, which Plaintiff raises in its count for declaratory judgment, could be dispositive of the entire dispute irrespective of the technical infringement analysis.