DCT

6:23-cv-00391

MOV ology LLC v. Temenos AG

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00391, W.D. Tex., 05/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the U.S.-based Defendant entities because they are registered to do business in Texas and operate at least one office within the Western District of Texas. Venue is alleged to be proper for the foreign parent company, Temenos AG, because it may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Journey Manager software platform infringes patents related to capturing and utilizing data from incomplete or abandoned online forms.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the commercial problem of "form abandonment" in online lead generation by enabling businesses to capture user-entered data in real-time, even if the user never clicks "submit."
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Temenos, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Avoka (USA), Inc., received notice of MOV-ology's patents and engaged in correspondence regarding a potential patent license in March 2017. This history is relevant to the allegations of knowing and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-11-25 Earliest Priority Date for '282 and '358 Patents
2016-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 Issues
2017-03-01 Alleged correspondence with Defendant's subsidiary re: patent license
2020-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,769,358 Issues
2023-05-22 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 - "Obtaining Data from Abandoned Electronic Forms," issued March 15, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of business entities losing potential online customers who begin filling out electronic forms but fail to complete and submit them, resulting in lost data and revenue (Compl. ¶31; ’282 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system that determines when a user has "abandoned" an electronic form and, upon such a determination, captures the data already entered. This is accomplished by building a data structure based on the form, parsing that structure to extract HTML elements and user-entered text, and storing the captured information for later use, such as "remarketing" ('282 Patent, col. 2:15-30). This process allows data to be salvaged without the user ever submitting the form.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this technology improved upon conventional techniques which required users to formally submit a form or log in with credentials before any data could be captured by the website owner (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 9 (an apparatus) (Compl. ¶37).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user;
    • the electronic form comprising at least one hypertext markup language (HTML) element with at least one attribute;
    • obtaining data from the abandoned form by building and parsing a data structure based on the form to obtain the HTML element; and
    • storing the HTML element, its attribute, and the user-entered text.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 10,769,358 - "Obtaining Data from Incomplete Electronic Forms," issued September 8, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its related patent, the ’358 Patent addresses the loss of prospective customers who do not complete online forms ('358 Patent, col. 1:13-34).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent describes a more proactive system that not only captures data from incomplete forms but also uses it for immediate remarketing. The method involves writing a script tag to a webpage to locate HTML elements, building a data structure with the user's text, communicating with external databases to enrich this data, storing a "contact profile," and then sending a personalized message back to the user based on the collected information ('358 Patent, col. 2:20-34, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint posits that this integrated approach of capture, enrichment, and remarketing provided a novel technical solution that was not conventional at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (Compl. ¶47).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 17 (a method) include:
    • assessing an incomplete electronic form with an HTML element and user-entered text;
    • obtaining a protocol of a webpage and writing a script tag to that webpage, with the script configured to locate the HTML element;
    • building a data structure based on the user-entered text;
    • communicating with databases to obtain additional user information;
    • storing contact profile information comprising both the user-entered text and the additional information; and
    • sending a personalized message to the user based on the HTML element and profile information.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Defendant's "Journey Manager platform" and associated applications, software, and services as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶39, ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Journey Manager platform as a "SaaS platform for retail banking" that "enables banks to create a seamless orchestration between the acquisition of customer data and the back-end system of record" (Compl. ¶5, ¶39). It is alleged to be used by over 3,000 firms globally, suggesting significant market presence (Compl. ¶5). The core infringing functionality is alleged to be the platform's ability to capture data from users as they interact with online forms, in a manner that purportedly practices the methods of the asserted patents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’282 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user, the electronic form having embedded computer-executable instructions and one or more fields... The complaint alleges that the Journey Manager platform determines when a user has abandoned an electronic form provided to a customer of the Defendant. ¶38, ¶39 col. 19:14-21
obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer-executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parsing the data structure... The complaint alleges the Journey Manager platform obtains data from the abandoned form by building and parsing a data structure. ¶38, ¶39 col. 19:22-26
storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text. The complaint alleges the Journey Manager platform stores the data obtained from the abandoned form, including HTML elements, attributes, and user-entered text. ¶38, ¶39 col. 19:27-29

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing specific technical evidence of how the Journey Manager platform operates. A central question will be whether discovery shows that the platform actually performs the specific steps of (1) "determining" abandonment under the patent's definition, (2) "building a data structure" from the form, and (3) "parsing" that structure.
  • Scope Questions: The definition of "abandoned" will be critical. The patent specification provides several examples, including the passage of time or the user leaving the website ('282 Patent, col. 2:32-39). The litigation may turn on whether the accused platform's triggering conditions fall within the proper construction of this term.

’358 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
assessing an incomplete electronic form comprising at least one hypertext markup language (HTML) element and user-entered text entered by a user; The complaint alleges that the Journey Manager platform assesses incomplete electronic forms containing user-entered text. ¶48, ¶49 col. 21:10-13
writing a script tag associated with a script file to the at least one webpage according to the protocol, the script file configured to locate the at least one HTML element; The complaint alleges the platform causes a script to be written to the webpage to locate HTML elements within the incomplete form. ¶48, ¶49 col. 21:16-22
communicating with one or more databases to obtain additional information about the user based at least in part on the user-entered text... The complaint alleges the platform communicates with databases to enrich the initially captured user data. ¶48, ¶49 col. 22:1-5
storing contact profile information that comprises at least a portion of the user-entered text obtained from the incomplete electronic form... The complaint alleges the platform stores an aggregated "contact profile" for the user. ¶48, ¶49 col. 22:6-9
sending to the user, a personalized messaged based at least in part on the at least one HTML element and the contact profile information. The complaint alleges the platform uses the captured and enriched data to send a personalized message to the user. The complaint includes a screenshot of the plaintiff's "Patents" webpage, displaying graphical icons for its issued U.S. patents, including the '282 and '358 patents (Compl. ¶4). ¶48, ¶49 col. 22:10-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The infringement case for the ’358 Patent hinges on a series of specific, sequential software operations. Key questions will be whether the accused platform actually (1) "writes a script tag" to a webpage in the manner claimed, (2) "communicates" with external databases to obtain new information, and (3) "sends" a personalized message as part of its automated workflow.
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires "obtaining additional information about the user" from databases. The nature and source of this "additional information" may be a point of dispute, raising the question of whether routine data processing within the platform meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "abandoned" (’282 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term serves as the trigger for the entire data-capturing method in the ’282 Patent. Its scope will determine what user actions or inactions constitute infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates when the patented method is practiced.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the determination can be "based on a variety of factors" ('282 Patent, col. 4:18-19), suggesting a flexible and non-exhaustive list of triggers.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific, though not explicitly limiting, list of examples for abandonment: "length of time, leaving the website, canceling the transaction, failure to input needed data, etc." ('282 Patent, col. 4:20-22). A party could argue these examples imply a more definitive action or event is required beyond simple inactivity.

The Term: "writing a script tag ... to the at least one webpage" (’358 Patent, Claim 17)

  • Context and Importance: This is a specific technical step for implementing the data capture mechanism. Whether the accused platform performs this action as claimed is a potentially dispositive infringement question.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this phrase should be construed broadly to cover any dynamic injection of executable script code into the webpage’s Document Object Model (DOM) that accomplishes the goal of locating the HTML element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific embodiment using the document.write command to insert the script ('358 Patent, Fig. 9, col. 16:11-14). A party could argue that this specific implementation narrows the claim to methods that directly modify the HTML source of the page, as opposed to manipulating the DOM with an already-loaded script.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Temenos induces infringement by providing the Journey Manager platform along with instructions to its partners, developers, and customers, intending them to use the platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶43, ¶53). It also alleges contributory infringement by providing a product that, when configured, directly infringes (Compl. ¶44, ¶54).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint claims that Temenos's subsidiary, Avoka, was notified of the patents and discussed a potential license with MOV-ology in March 2017 (Compl. ¶42). The complaint further alleges constructive notice by pointing to its own public website, which identifies the patents-in-suit as covering its products (Compl. ¶4).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: The complaint's allegations are conclusory. The case will likely depend on whether discovery can produce evidence that the accused Journey Manager platform performs the specific, multi-step technical processes recited in the asserted claims, such as "parsing a data structure" ('282 patent) and "writing a script tag" to a webpage ('358 patent).
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The proper construction of the term "abandoned" will be central to the infringement analysis of the '282 patent. Whether this term is interpreted broadly to include passive user timeouts or narrowly to require an affirmative user action could be dispositive.
  • A third pivotal question relates to pre-suit knowledge: The allegation that a Temenos subsidiary was approached for a license in 2017, years before the suit was filed, raises a significant issue of pre-suit knowledge. If infringement is found, the resolution of this factual question will be critical to the determination of willfulness and the potential for enhanced damages.