DCT
7:25-cv-00451
Ve Opening LLC v. Upland Software Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 01/05/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a place of business in Austin, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Upland RightAnswers knowledge management product infringes a patent related to methods for enabling the sharing of information between different software applications on a computing device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns federated search systems that allow a user within a primary software application to search for and access data from other, separate applications without needing to switch between them.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The current filing is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2018-03-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 - Issue Date |
| 2022-10-12 | Upland announces release of RightAnswers X |
| 2026-01-05 | 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, “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 addresses the difficulty and inefficiency users face when needing to share information between multiple software applications that typically operate independently in "siloed environments." (Compl. ¶12; ’079 Patent, col. 1:21-46). Setting up such information sharing can be confusing for typical users and tedious for advanced users. (Compl. ¶13; ’079 Patent, col. 1:39-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user, from within a "first application," can initiate a "global search" that queries not only the first application but also a separate "second application." (’079 Patent, col. 2:50-54). The system then automatically determines and presents "candidate elements" (e.g., files, contacts, emails) from the second application to the user within the first application's interface. (’079 Patent, col. 2:55-60). The user can then select one of these elements to create a link, enabling them to access information from the second application directly through the first. (’079 Patent, col. 2:60-63; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a more integrated and user-friendly way to perform tasks across disparate applications, reducing the need for users to manually switch contexts or copy and paste information. (Compl. ¶13; ’079 Patent, col. 1:43-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 5. (Compl. ¶20).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- From a first application, receiving a global search request that requests information across the first and a second application.
- Prompting for and receiving a search term from a user.
- Based on the search term, automatically determining and presenting corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application for user selection.
- Receiving the user's selection of a candidate element.
- Linking information between the applications by generating a selectable link in the first application that enables access to information from the second application.
- Presenting information from the second application through the first application upon selection of the link.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Upland RightAnswers, including its RightAnswers X browser extension, is the Accused Instrumentality. (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
Functionality and Market Context
- Upland RightAnswers is described as an "AI Knowledge Management solution" that performs a "federated search" to connect multiple "trusted knowledge sources." (Compl. ¶21). It allows a user to search across its own internal data as well as integrated third-party applications like ServiceNow and Salesforce. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a high-level architectural diagram from Defendant's marketing materials showing RightAnswers (the first application) connecting to various external data sources (the second applications) to create a "Connected knowledge experience." (Compl. p. 8).
- The stated purpose is to find relevant information from these disparate sources and "display it in a single window," eliminating the need for users to "jump from screen to screen to find the answer." (Compl. ¶21, ¶29, p. 18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| from the first application, initiating a global search covering the first application and the second application by performing steps comprising: receiving a global search request... | A user initiates a search from within the Upland RightAnswers interface (the first application) by using its search bar, which allegedly searches both its own database and integrated external applications. | ¶22, ¶23 | col. 8:1-4 |
| in response to the reception of the global search request, prompting for a search term from a user; receiving the search term; | The RightAnswers search bar prompts for user input, and the user enters a search term, such as "password reset." A screenshot from a product video shows a user typing this term into the search bar. (Compl. p. 12). | ¶23 | col. 8:56-58 |
| based on the received search term, automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application and presenting the determined one or more corresponding candidate elements... | RightAnswers allegedly searches integrated third-party applications (e.g., external websites, SharePoint) and automatically identifies and displays a list of search results, or "candidate elements," from those sources. A screenshot shows a list of results under the heading "External Sources." (Compl. p. 14). | ¶24 | col. 10:1-6 |
| receiving the selection of at least one of the candidate elements; | A user selects one of the presented search results from the second application. | ¶25, ¶26 | col. 11:21-25 |
| linking information between the first application and the second application... generating for the first application a selectable link that, when selected, is operable to enable access to information related to the second application; | The returned search results are presented as selectable links within the RightAnswers interface, which, when selected, allegedly allow the user to access the underlying file or information from the second application. A product screenshot shows a list of hyperlinked results from "External Sources." (Compl. p. 16). | ¶27 | col. 11:46-53 |
| 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 a user's selection of a link, information from the second application (e.g., ServiceNow or Salesforce) is allegedly displayed "in a single window" within the RightAnswers (first application) interface. | ¶28 | col. 13:21-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of a "first application" and a "second application." The patent describes these in the context of distinct programs on a computing device, such as a calendar app and an email app within a personal information manager. (’079 Patent, col. 1:25-28). The dispute may focus on whether the accused client-server architecture, where RightAnswers communicates with third-party services via APIs, constitutes separate "applications" in the manner claimed by the patent.
- Technical Questions: Claim 4, which is asserted, requires the second application to be in a "non-active state." (Compl. ¶29; ’079 Patent, col. 15:20-23). The analysis will raise the question of whether a third-party service like Salesforce, which is accessible via an API and presumably always running on a server, can be considered "non-active" as that term is used in the patent. The complaint alleges these applications do not need to be started to be searched. (Compl. ¶29).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"global search request"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 1. Its construction will determine the type of user action required to trigger the claimed method. The parties may dispute whether a standard search query in a federated search bar qualifies as the specific "global search request" envisioned by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the request simply as a "request for information across a number of applications." (’079 Patent, col. 6:35-38). This language could support Plaintiff’s view that any search initiated from one application that queries others meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific embodiments for initiating the request, such as "detecting a swiping in a first predetermined direction" on a touch screen. (’079 Patent, col. 2:21-24; Fig. 3). Defendant may argue that these embodiments suggest the term implies a special, distinct user action beyond typing in a standard search field.
"application" (as in "first application" and "second application")
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory rests on RightAnswers being the "first application" and its integrated services being the "second application." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples involve self-contained programs like email and contacts within a "personal information manager," which may be technologically distinct from the accused web-service architecture. (’079 Patent, col. 10:25-40).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines an "application" broadly as "a program or programs that perform one or more particular tasks on a computing device." (’079 Patent, col. 4:51-53). This definition does not explicitly exclude client-server or API-based interactions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background consistently refers to "applications installed on computing devices" and contrasts them, suggesting distinct, locally-managed software entities. (’079 Patent, col. 1:22-23). The specification also discusses "secure applications" in a way that suggests discrete programs subject to modification or "wrapping." (’079 Patent, col. 13:36-39).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement based on Defendant providing the Accused Instrumentality to its customers. (Compl. ¶32, ¶34). It alleges intent is shown through Defendant's advertising, marketing materials, and product videos that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the infringing federated search functionality. (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but alleges that Defendant became aware of the infringement "at least as of the date of the service of the original Complaint" and continued its allegedly infringing activities. (Compl. ¶33). This forms a basis for a potential post-suit willfulness claim.
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," developed in the context of mobile device software, be construed to cover the accused federated knowledge base architecture where a primary web service (RightAnswers) calls on external, third-party web services (e.g., Salesforce) via APIs?
- A key technical question will be one of operational state: what is the meaning of a "non-active state" as required by asserted claim 4? The case may turn on whether a third-party application, always available on a remote server to respond to API calls, can be considered "non-active" simply because it is not open on the end-user's screen.
- A central claim construction question will be one of user action: does the term "global search request" require a specific, designated user gesture as shown in the patent's embodiments, or does it broadly cover any user-initiated query in a system that searches multiple data sources?