DCT
2:18-cv-00853
Simio v. FlexSim Software Products
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Simio, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: TRASKBRITT, PC; Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00853, D. Utah, 10/30/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because the Defendant is a Utah corporation with its headquarters in Orem, Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s simulation software, FlexSim 2016, infringes a patent related to an object-oriented, computer-based system for developing simulation models using graphical processes.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns software tools for creating discrete-event simulation models, a field used to model and analyze complex systems in manufacturing, logistics, and other industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a significant history between the parties. Plaintiff Simio alleges it provided notice of infringement to Defendant FlexSim in July 2016. This was followed by a declaratory judgment action filed by FlexSim in Utah (dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction) and an infringement suit filed by Simio in Pennsylvania (dismissed for improper venue after TC Heartland). Subsequently, FlexSim initiated an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The complaint states that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected FlexSim’s challenges and confirmed all asserted claims without amendment in September 2018, approximately one month before this complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468 Priority Date |
| 2011-12-11 | Winter Simulation Conference where Defendant's CEO allegedly learned of the pending patent application |
| 2012-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8156468 Issued |
| 2016-07-08 | Plaintiff provides notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2016-07-20 | Defendant files "Prior Utah Action" for declaratory judgment |
| 2016-11-14 | Plaintiff files "Pennsylvania Action" for patent infringement |
| 2017-03-15 | "Prior Utah Action" is dismissed |
| 2017-11-09 | "Pennsylvania Action" is dismissed without prejudice |
| 2018-01-03 | Defendant files Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the patent-in-suit |
| 2018-09-21 | Reexamination concludes, confirming claims 1-13 of the patent-in-suit |
| 2018-10-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468 - “System and Method for Creating Intelligent Simulation Objects Using Graphical Process Descriptions”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468, “System and Method for Creating Intelligent Simulation Objects Using Graphical Process Descriptions,” issued April 10, 2012 (the “’468 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge in the field of computer simulation: traditional object-oriented modeling required users to have programming skills, making it complex and inaccessible for many practitioners who were accustomed to more abstract, process-flow modeling paradigms (’468 Patent, col. 3:10-18). Existing graphical tools were often based on a process orientation, not a true object orientation (’468 Patent, col. 2:20-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that allows users to create new, intelligent simulation "objects" without writing code. Instead of programming, a user graphically defines an object’s behavior by creating and assigning "process flows"—essentially flowcharts—to base objects (’468 Patent, Abstract). This approach is designed to merge the intuitive nature of graphical modeling with the power of object-oriented design, using a specific three-tiered data structure (definition, instance, realization) to manage the objects (’468 Patent, col. 12:29-40).
- Technical Importance: The invention aimed to make object-oriented simulation modeling dramatically easier by enabling non-programmers to build and customize complex simulation objects, thereby expanding the user base for this powerful modeling approach (’468 Patent, col. 4:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’468 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A computer-based system for developing simulation models on a physical computing device.
- The system comprises one or more graphical processes and one or more base objects created from those graphical processes.
- A new object is created from a base object by a user assigning one or more of the graphical processes to the base object.
- The new object is implemented in a 3-tier structure comprising: an "object definition" (which includes behavior), one or more "object instances" related to the definition, and one or more "object realizations" related to the instances.
- The behavior of the object definition is shared by the object instances and object realizations.
- An executable process can add a new behavior directly to a single object instance without changing the object definition.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s simulation software known as FlexSim 2016 (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that FlexSim 2016 incorporates a "Process Flow" module, described by the Defendant as a "revolutionary" new product that "replaces nearly all computer code with a flowchart" (Compl. ¶13). This feature allegedly allows users to create custom logic for simulation objects without programming (Compl. ¶27). Specifically, the complaint points to documentation explaining how a user can create a "custom FR [Fixed Resource] object" by defining its "brain" using a process flow to add functionality beyond the standard logic (Compl. ¶¶29-30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’468 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| wherein a new object is created from a base object of the one or more base objects by a user by assigning the one or more graphical processes to the base object... | The complaint alleges that FlexSim 2016 allows a user to create a new "custom FR object" from a base "Fixed Resource" object by using the "Process Flow" module to add functionality. | ¶¶29-30 | col. 4:8-12 |
| wherein the new object is implemented in a 3-tier structure comprising: an object definition... one or more object instances... and one or more object realizations... | The complaint alleges that FlexSim's architecture maps to the claimed 3-tier structure, equating FlexSim's "brain" to the "object definition," its "instance" to the "object instance," and its dynamic state information (managed via "labels") to the "object realization." | ¶¶31-33 | col. 12:29-40 |
| wherein the behavior of the object definition is shared by the one or more object instances and the one or more object realizations; | This functionality is alleged to be a necessary consequence of the 3-tier structure that FlexSim allegedly employs. | ¶34 | col. 12:32-34 |
| an executable process to add a new behavior directly to an object instance... without changing the object definition and the added new behavior is executed only for that one instance of the object. | The complaint alleges that FlexSim 2016 allows logic to be added to an instance of an object by triggering a process to execute when an event is fired, such as computing a custom processing time for an item at a specific processor instance. | ¶¶35-36 | col. 15:50-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary point of contention will likely be terminological. The complaint itself anticipates a dispute over whether FlexSim's architecture, using terms like "brain," "instance," and "labels," falls within the scope of the patent's more formally defined terms "object definition," "object instance," and "object realization" (Compl. ¶32). The case may turn on whether these are merely different names for the same underlying structures and functions.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that FlexSim's "Process Flow" module functions as the claimed "graphical processes" to create base objects, as recited in the claim, versus merely modifying them? Further, does FlexSim's use of "labels" to store dynamic state information constitute an "object realization" as a distinct tier in the claimed structure, or is it merely a conventional attribute of an object instance?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "object realization"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to the dispute. The complaint alleges that FlexSim's system contains this element, but acknowledges a difference in terminology, suggesting that FlexSim's "instance" and "labels" together perform the function of the claimed "instance" and "realization" (Compl. ¶32). The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether FlexSim's method of storing dynamic, instance-specific state information meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "realization" as being "used to represent a specific realization of an instance within an expanded model hierarchy" and holding "the model state variables" ('468 Patent, col. 12:40-54). Plaintiff may argue this language is broad enough to cover any data structure that holds instance-specific, dynamic state within a hierarchical model, regardless of what it is called.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly introduces the term as the third part of a "three tiered object structure" ('468 Patent, col. 12:30). A defendant could argue that to be a "realization," the data structure must be architecturally distinct from the "object instance," not merely a component or property of it, as might be argued for FlexSim's "labels."
The Term: "graphical processes"
- Context and Importance: The invention's core is the use of graphical methods instead of code. The complaint alleges FlexSim’s "Process Flow" feature is a "graphical process" (Compl. ¶13). The viability of the infringement claim depends on this equivalence.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a graphical process as being built "as a flowchart depicting one or more process steps" ('468 Patent, col. 9:3-5). The accompanying figures (e.g., FIG. 2) show simple block-and-arrow diagrams, which could support construing the term to cover a wide range of flowchart-like interfaces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also details specific types of process steps (e.g., Seize, Delay, Release) in Table 3 ('468 Patent, col. 9). A defendant may argue that a "graphical process" must be constructed from these specific types of functional blocks, potentially narrowing the scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides FlexSim 2016 with instructions, such as user guides, that direct users to perform the claimed methods (Compl. ¶38). It also pleads contributory infringement (Compl. ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant’s CEO was aware of the technology from a 2011 conference where the patent was pending (Compl. ¶15) and that Simio provided direct notice of infringement on July 8, 2016 (Compl. ¶14). The complaint emphasizes that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this notice and even after its own challenges to the patent's validity were rejected in an ex parte reexamination (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural and terminological equivalence: can the architecture of FlexSim 2016, which uses concepts like a "brain" and "Process Flow," be mapped onto the specific three-tier structure ("definition," "instance," "realization") and "graphical processes" required by Claim 1 of the '468 Patent? The outcome may depend on whether the court views these as functional equivalents with different labels or as fundamentally different technical implementations.
- A second central question will be one of willfulness and damages: given the extensive pre-suit history alleged in the complaint—including early awareness, formal notice, and a failed reexamination proceeding initiated by the Defendant—if infringement is found, a jury will have to determine whether the conduct was willful. The confirmation of the patent's claims in reexamination presents a significant factual hurdle for the Defendant to overcome in contesting willfulness.