7:24-cv-00236
MOV ology LLC v. Mouseflow ApS
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MOV-ology LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mouseflow ApS (Denmark) and Mouseflow Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Hoover LLP; Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00236, W.D. Tex., 09/23/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Mouseflow ApS, a foreign company, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). For Mouseflow Inc., a Texas corporation, venue is based on its alleged principal place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s form tracking and analytics software infringes a patent related to capturing data from electronic forms that users abandon before submission.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the commercial problem of losing sales leads when potential customers start filling out an online web form but leave the page without formally submitting the data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has publicly identified its patents on its website since at least March 2016. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-11-25 | '282 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/908,349) |
| 2014-06-18 | '282 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2016-03-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 Issues |
| 2024-09-23 | 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 28, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of business entities losing potential online customers who begin to fill out an electronic form but fail to complete and submit it, resulting in lost data and revenue. ('282 Patent, col. 1:15-34; Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where computer-executable instructions (e.g., a script) are embedded in a webpage containing a form. ('282 Patent, col. 2:19-21, Fig. 5). These instructions are designed to determine when a user has "abandoned" the form and to capture, or "scrape," the data already entered by the user. ('282 Patent, col. 2:4-7). This captured data, which would otherwise be lost, can then be stored and used for remarketing efforts. ('282 Patent, col.2:50-57, Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes an approach to capture lead data without requiring the user to click a "submit" button or to be logged into a pre-existing account, which the complaint frames as an improvement over conventional data gathering techniques at the time. (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claims Asserted: 1 and 9. (Compl. ¶26).
- Claim 1 (Method):
- determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user;
- the form has embedded computer-executable instructions, fields for user-entered text, and at least one HTML element with an attribute;
- obtaining data from the abandoned form with the embedded instructions by building a data structure based on the form;
- parsing the data structure to obtain the HTML element; and
- storing the HTML element, its attribute, and the user-entered text.
- Claim 9 (Apparatus): A corresponding apparatus claim with computer hardware configured to perform the steps of the method in Claim 1. (’282 Patent, col. 20:5-23).
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Mouseflow’s "Form Analytics software and its Mouseflow Tracking Code." (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product functions by having a customer insert a "snippet of JavaScript code" onto their website. (Compl. ¶27).
This code allegedly "sends small periodic and highly compressed data packages... from the visitor's session to the Mouseflow platform while a visitor is active." (Compl. ¶27).
The complaint states that this process records the "whole user experience," including "all user interaction and also any changes to the HTML document that occurs throughout the visitor journey," not just a snapshot. (Compl. ¶27).
The product is marketed as a tool to help businesses increase conversion rates, improve user experience, and increase revenue across various industries. (Compl. ¶5). A screenshot in the complaint shows Mouseflow Inc.'s office and mailing addresses in Austin, Texas. (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" which was not attached to the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶29). The following summary is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
'282 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms... determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user... | The complaint alleges Mouseflow's products can capture data from incomplete forms, which implies a determination of abandonment. | ¶2, ¶27 | col. 4:13-18 |
| ...the electronic form having embedded computer-executable instructions... | Mouseflow's product allegedly "functions by inserting a snippet of JavaScript code onto your website." | ¶27 | col. 6:62-65 |
| ...the electronic form comprising at least one hypertext markup language (HTML) element associated with the one or more fields, the at least one HTML element having at least one attribute; | The complaint alleges Mouseflow's product records "any changes to the HTML document that occurs throughout the visitor journey." | ¶27 | col. 2:21-24 |
| 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 to obtain the at least one HTML element; and | Mouseflow's JavaScript code allegedly "sends small periodic and highly compressed data packages" based on "all user interaction," which Plaintiff contends meets this limitation. | ¶27 | col. 2:25-28 |
| storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text. | The complaint alleges that "data from the whole user experience is recorded" on the Mouseflow platform. | ¶27 | col. 2:28-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question may be whether Mouseflow’s general session-recording functionality, which captures "the whole user experience," performs the specific, structured steps recited in the claims. The defense may argue that recording a user session is technically distinct from the claim's requirements of "building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form" and then "parsing" that specific structure.
- Scope Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused product "determin[es]" that a form has been "abandoned." The construction of this term, and the evidence of how the accused product performs this step, will be central to the infringement analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "abandoned"
- Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the entire claimed method. Its definition is critical because if the accused product does not "determine" abandonment in a manner covered by the claims, there can be no direct infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether "abandoned" requires a specific event (e.g., navigating away, session timeout) or can be met by the continuous data capture alleged in the complaint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists several non-limiting examples of what can trigger a determination of abandonment, including "length of time, leaving the website, canceling the transaction, [and] failure to input needed data." ('282 Patent, col. 4:15-18). This list suggests the term is not limited to a single type of user action.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "determining that an electronic form... has been abandoned," which suggests a discrete event or conclusion is reached by the system. The defense might argue this requires more than simply capturing data from an active but incomplete form, but a positive confirmation that the user has ceased interaction.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Mouseflow provides instructions and case studies on how to use its products via its online "Resource Hub" and educates customers on integrations via its "Integrations" page. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges Mouseflow had knowledge of the '282 patent "since at least the date of service of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶30). This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willfulness. The complaint also includes a screenshot of Plaintiff's website from "at least March 2016" which lists the '282 patent, potentially forming a basis for an argument of pre-suit notice via patent marking statutes. (Compl. ¶4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the accused Mouseflow product, which is alleged to record the "whole user experience," perform the specific sequence of "building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form" and "parsing" it as required by the claims, or does it operate via a technically distinct method of general session replay?
A second key question will be one of claim scope and proof: How will the term "abandoned" be construed, and what evidence will show that the accused system makes a "determination" of abandonment as required by the claims, rather than simply recording all user interactions continuously?
The case will also examine knowledge and intent: While the complaint pleads post-suit knowledge for willfulness, a key question will be whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '282 patent, potentially through the public notice on Plaintiff’s website, to support a claim for enhanced damages.