DCT
7:25-cv-00451
Ve Opening LLC v. Upland Software Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VE Opening LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Upland Software, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DIRECTION IP LAW
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00451, W.D. Tex., 10/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a place of business in Austin, Texas, where a portion of the alleged infringements occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Upland RightAnswers knowledge management product infringes a patent related to methods for searching and sharing information between different software applications.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses federated search within enterprise software, enabling a user in a primary application to search for, retrieve, and link to information stored in separate, siloed applications or data repositories.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 Priority Date |
| 2018-03-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 Issue Date |
| 2022-10-12 | Accused Product "RightAnswers X" Launch Mentioned |
| 2025-10-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 - Method and System for Enabling the Sharing of Information Between Applications on a Computing Device
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 (“the ’079 Patent”), "Method and System for Enabling the Sharing of Information Between Applications on a Computing Device," issued March 13, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty and inefficiency users face when needing to utilize several independent applications to perform a single task, noting that setting up information sharing between them can be confusing and tedious. (Compl. ¶¶12-13; ’079 Patent, col. 1:36-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user, operating within a "first application," can initiate a "global search" that queries not only the first application but also a "second application." The system then presents "candidate elements" (e.g., files, contacts, data entries) from the second application. The user can select one of these elements to generate a selectable link to it within the first application, thereby creating a streamlined way to access information across application boundaries. (Compl. ¶13; ’079 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-64).
- Technical Importance: This method aims to provide a more efficient and user-friendly way to perform tasks that require information from multiple, otherwise disconnected, software applications. (Compl. ¶13; ’079 Patent, col. 1:43-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- From a first application, initiating a global search covering the first and a second application.
- Receiving a search request, prompting for and receiving a search term.
- Automatically determining and presenting candidate elements from the second application based on the search term.
- Receiving a user's selection of a candidate element.
- Linking the selected element with the first application by generating a selectable link.
- Receiving the selection of that link through the first application.
- Presenting information related to the linked element through the first application.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Upland RightAnswers" product, including its "RightAnswers X" browser extension and its "Federated Knowledge" or "Connected Knowledge" technology. (Compl. ¶¶14-15, p. 6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes Upland RightAnswers as an AI Knowledge Management solution that connects a company’s disparate knowledge sources, such as internal databases, SharePoint, Confluence, and Salesforce. (Compl. ¶15, p. 5, p. 8). Its "Federated Knowledge" feature is alleged to perform a "best-in-breed search" that finds relevant information from these integrated sources and displays it "in a single window," thereby allowing users to search across multiple applications from a central interface. (Compl. ¶15, p. 5, p. 15). The complaint provides a screenshot from a product video showing a user initiating a global search from the main RightAnswers interface. (Compl. ¶16, p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’079 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| from the first application, initiating a global search... comprising: receiving a global search request through the first application... | A user initiates a global search by entering a query into the RightAnswers search bar, which serves as the "first application." | ¶16 | col. 7:42-54 |
| in response to the reception of the global search request, prompting for a search term from a user; receiving the search term; | The RightAnswers interface prompts for and receives a search term, such as "password reset," from the user. | ¶17 | col. 7:56-64 |
| based on the received search term, automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application and presenting the determined... candidate elements... for selection... | RightAnswers searches both its own knowledge base and external sources (the "second application," e.g., SharePoint), and presents "candidate elements" from those sources. A screenshot shows search results from "External Sources" presented to the user. | ¶18, p. 11 | col. 9:8-21 |
| receiving the selection of at least one of the candidate elements; | The user can select one of the returned candidate elements, such as a link to a document in SharePoint. | ¶19 | col. 11:9-14 |
| linking information between the first application and the second application... responsive to receiving the selection... linking the selected candidate element with the first application such that a user may access the selected candidate element from the first application; | The returned search results are presented as links that, when selected, can be used to access the file or element from the second application. | ¶20 | col. 11:46-53 |
| generating for the first application a selectable link that, when selected, is operable to enable access to information related to the second application; | RightAnswers provides "actual link icons to access each application," which serve as the selectable links. | ¶21 | col. 2:53-57 |
| responsive to the reception of the selection of the linked selected candidate element, presenting information related to the linked selected candidate element through the first application. | Upon user selection of a link, information from the second application (e.g., ServiceNow, Salesforce) is presented within the RightAnswers results, with the complaint alleging the data is displayed "in a single window." A diagram shows that agents can access knowledge from external CRM/ITSM tools "within the ticket window." | ¶22, p. 15 | col. 13:17-23 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the accused cloud-based enterprise platform (RightAnswers) and its connected data repositories (e.g., SharePoint) fall within the patent's definitional scope of a "first application" and "second application," which are frequently described in the context of a "personal information manager" (PIM) application on a single computing device (’079 Patent, col. 9:22-34).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that presenting information "in a single window" satisfies the final step of "presenting information... through the first application." A question may arise as to whether this functionality is equivalent to the process described in the patent, or if there is a technical distinction between displaying results in a unified view versus the specific linking and information presentation method claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "global search request"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed method. Its construction will determine the required breadth of the search function. The dispute may center on whether a federated search across a pre-configured set of enterprise data sources, as allegedly performed by the accused product, qualifies as "global."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term as "a request for information across a number of applications stored on or accessible by a computing device." (’079 Patent, col. 5:36-39). This language suggests that a search across any number of applications greater than one could meet the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "global" itself implies comprehensiveness. Embodiments describing a Personal Information Manager (PIM) application suggest a search across multiple different types of local data, such as email, calendar, contacts, and tasks, which could imply a more integrated, device-level search than querying external cloud services. (’079 Patent, col. 9:22-34).
The Term: "linking... with the first application"
- Context and Importance: The specific nature of the "linking" process is a core part of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether displaying a hyperlink in a list of search results constitutes the claimed multi-step linking process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires generating "a selectable link that, when selected, is operable to enable access to information." This could be read to cover a standard hyperlink that opens a document or webpage from an external source.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example where a link to an email is generated and presented within a "notes" information field of a separate calendar application. (’079 Patent, col. 12:44-56). This may suggest a more integrated form of linking than merely listing search results, where an element from one application is embedded into the data structure of another.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶24-26). The allegations are based on Defendant providing the Accused Instrumentality to its customers and providing marketing materials, videos, and user guides that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the infringing functionality. (Compl. ¶¶23-25).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not use the term "willful," but alleges Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the date of the service of the original Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶24-26). This forms a basis for potential post-suit enhanced damages, alleging that Defendant continued its infringing activities despite being aware of the ’079 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's framework of a "first application" and "second application," often exemplified in the context of a personal information manager on a single device, be construed to cover a cloud-based enterprise knowledge platform and its connected, external data repositories?
- A key question of technical interpretation will be whether the accused product's federated search results, presented as a list of hyperlinks, perform the specific, multi-step "linking" process required by Claim 1, or if the claim requires a more deeply integrated embedding of information from the second application into the first.