DCT
2:20-cv-00349
DatRec v. Ancestrycom DNA
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DatRec, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Ancestrycom DNA, LLC; Ancestrycom Inc.; Ancestrycom Operations Inc. (collectively, "Ancestry") (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00349, D. Utah, 07/08/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district, have committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conduct substantial business in the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Ancestry.com website and associated services, including AncestryDNA, infringe patents related to constructing and using verified databases of personal genealogical data and enabling secure communication based on identity verification.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for building and managing large-scale, verified databases of individuals, including their relationships and personal data, for use in genealogical research and personalized services.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309 Priority Date |
| 2007-07-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,156,158 Priority Date |
| 2012-04-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,156,158 Issue Date |
| 2013-02-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309 Issue Date |
| 2020-07-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,156,158
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,156,158, "Method and System for Use of a Database of Personal Data Records," issued April 10, 2012 (’158 Patent).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of verifying the identity of individuals online, which poses challenges for secure transactions and for locating people, and notes a need for systems to provide personalized medicine services based on an individual's genetic makeup and authenticated personal data (’158 Patent, col. 1:28-40; col. 1:50-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for creating and using a "verified database" of identified individuals. The system permits users to input "individual-associated data bits" (IDBs) about themselves and their relatives, which are then processed to generate "individual-identifier data sets" (IDSs) that form the database (’158 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This verified database can then be processed according to specific parameters (e.g., medical conditions) to create sub-groups, allowing for the delivery of personalized services to those individuals (’158 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
- Technical Importance: The patent asserts a need for a technique that enables the real-time verification of personal data to support applications such as personalized medicine based on up-to-date, authenticated records (’158 Patent, col. 2:24-28).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts claims 1-23 of the ’158 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- providing a verified database of a plurality of identified individuals, the verified database comprising a plurality of individual-identifier data sets (IDSs) and relationship data;
- processing said verified database in accordance with one or more parameters or conditions selected in accordance with at least one medical application and creating a sub-group database including data records of the individuals from the verified database having said one or more selected parameters or conditions,
- thereby allowing collection of data comprising one or more selected parameters or conditions and delivery of at least part of the collected data to one or more users and enable to apply data from said verified database to provide personalized medicine service to at least one of said identified individuals.
- The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-23, which further specify elements such as the construction of the verified database and the nature of the medical application (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309, "Method and System for Ecure Communiocation Over a Public Network," issued February 19, 2013 (’309 Patent).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for communication channels over public networks that offer a high level of security and improve confidence in the identity of the communicating parties (’309 Patent, col. 1:21-25, col. 1:47-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a database of verified personal data is used to authenticate the identity of users. Based on this verification, the system defines "one or more levels of permitted communication" between individuals. A key aspect is enabling a user to define their own "self-exposure levels" to control what personal information is shared and with whom, thereby creating a personalized protection level for communication (’309 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4A).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a solution for secure communication over a public network that improves confidence in the identity of a party to an electronic communication (’309 Patent, col. 1:62-65).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts claims 1-17 of the ’309 Patent (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) providing a database with verified data relating to an individual's identity, accessible through a network, for authenticating that identity, where the database is constructed by permitting individuals to enter data (IDBs), generating data sets (IDSs), and verifying the IDSs by determining a level of reliability based on data similarity;
- (b) compiling the IDSs to construct the database and defining one or more levels of permitted communication between individuals in the database and the verified individual on the basis of the verification.
- The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-17, which add limitations such as providing users with a graded personalized receiving mechanism and a score for data reliability (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the Ancestry.com website and its associated products and services, including the AncestryDNA service (Compl. ¶¶11, 18).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint describes the accused services as providing users with an online platform to build family trees, research historical records, and engage in DNA testing to discover relatives and ethnic origins (Compl. ¶¶12, 19).
- A specific feature identified is the "Millennium File," which is alleged to be a database containing over 880,000 linked family records where "Source information is also provided... making it easier to verify the accuracy of the research done" (Compl. ¶12, p. 5).
- The AncestryDNA service is alleged to analyze users' "genetic, genealogical, and health information, to provide results" (Compl. ¶12, p. 7).
- The platform enables communication between users, with the complaint referencing features like "Member Connect" and messaging capabilities that are allegedly tiered based on membership status (Compl. ¶19, pp. 13-14). A screenshot from a FamilySearch blog post shows icons on an Ancestry.com profile, including the 'Ancestry Hints leaf' and an icon indicating a connection to FamilySearch.org (Compl. ¶19, p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’158 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a verified database of a plurality of identified individuals, the verified database comprising a plurality of individual-identifier data sets (IDSs) and relationship data; | Ancestry allegedly provides the "Millennium File," described as a database of linked family records. The complaint alleges this is a "verified database" because "Source information is also provided... making it easier to verify the accuracy." | ¶12 | col. 8:10-14 |
| processing said verified database in accordance with one or more parameters or conditions selected in accordance with at least one medical application and creating a sub-group database... | The AncestryDNA service is alleged to analyze users' "genetic, genealogical, and health information, to provide results," which the complaint maps to the processing for a "medical application." | ¶12 | col. 4:45-48 |
| ...allowing collection of data... and delivery of at least part of the collected data to one or more users and enable to apply data from said verified database to provide personalized medicine service to at least one of said identified individuals; | The complaint alleges that by analyzing users' genetic and health information to provide results, Ancestry is providing a "personalized medicine service." A screenshot of Ancestry's legal terms describing the analysis of users' genetic, genealogical, and health information is provided as support. | ¶12 | col. 4:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the term "personalized medicine service" can be construed to read on the AncestryDNA service. The complaint itself includes a screenshot of Ancestry's terms stating the service is "not to provide you individual medical or diagnostic purposes" (Compl. ¶12, p. 7), raising a direct question about the scope and intent of the claimed "service."
- Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the "Millennium File," which the complaint alleges is "verified" because source information is provided, meets the patent's more specific requirements for constructing a "verified database," which involves processing user-submitted data bits (IDBs) and generating identifier sets (IDSs) (’158 Patent, col. 3:1-6).
’309 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...a server system associated with a database comprising verified data... said server system being configured and operable to verify at least some of the data so as to authenticate an identity of the individual; | Ancestry's system allegedly authenticates identity by allowing users to import data from partner sites like FamilySearch to create an Ancestry account, thereby verifying data through a trusted third-party source. | ¶19 | col. 2:4-7 |
| determining a level of reliability in authenticity based on correspondence between data on said individual entered by a plurality of related individuals; | The system allegedly determines reliability by providing "Ancestry Hints," which indicate a "match" with other information at Ancestry.com, and by displaying an icon when a person's profile is "connected to FamilySearch.org." | ¶19 | col. 4:4-8 |
| ...the system being configured to define one or more levels of permitted communication between individuals in the database and the verified individual on the basis of said verification. | The complaint alleges that Ancestry's tiered messaging system, where non-members have different communication abilities than paying members, constitutes the claimed "levels of permitted communication." A screenshot from an Ancestry support article explaining the different requirements for messaging other users is provided as evidence. | ¶19 | col. 3:33-37 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether a membership-based paywall for messaging constitutes "levels of permitted communication on the basis of said verification," as required by the claim. The defense may argue the patent contemplates a more granular, identity-based permission system, not a commercial subscription model.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the "Ancestry Hints" feature performs the specific function of "determining a level of reliability" as taught in the patent? The patent describes a process of comparing data bits and ascribing scores, which may be technically distinct from a system that flags potential record matches (’309 Patent, col. 4:4-8, Fig. 3A).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
U.S. Patent No. 8,156,158
- The Term: "personalized medicine service"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical, as the infringement allegation rests on its interpretation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant's own service terms, cited in the complaint, explicitly disclaim providing "individual medical or diagnostic purposes" (Compl. ¶12, p. 7).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly defines "Personalized medicine" as "providing a medical service to an individual, matched to his genetic makeup" (’158 Patent, col. 1:55-58). A plaintiff may argue this covers any health-related information service based on genetic data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific examples, such as a "personalized treatment service," "personalized prevention service," and determining optimal drug dosages, which suggests a direct clinical or diagnostic application (’158 Patent, col. 4:26-29, col. 32:19-24).
U.S. Patent No. 8,381,309
- The Term: "levels of permitted communication... on the basis of said verification"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine whether a standard tiered-access or subscription model can infringe. The causal link—"on the basis of said verification"—is central to the dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any system that differentiates communication rights between users (e.g., verified members vs. unverified guests) meets the limitation, as verification is a prerequisite for the higher-level tier.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system of user-defined "self exposure levels" (e.g., allowing exposure of a general profile vs. a financial profile) that are directly tied to the type of communication and recipient, suggesting a more granular, identity-based control mechanism rather than a simple paywall (’309 Patent, Fig. 4B, col. 14:42-51).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The factual basis for these claims is the allegation that Ancestry "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner, for example through its online help and support services (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 20-21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Ancestry's infringement has been willful, asserting that Ancestry has known of the patents-in-suit and the underlying technology "from at least the date of issuance of the patent" (Compl. ¶¶13, 14, 20, 21). This allegation supports a claim for enhanced damages and is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "personalized medicine service," which the ’158 Patent links to tailored medical treatments, be construed to cover a service that provides health-related information but explicitly disclaims any "individual medical or diagnostic purposes" in its user terms?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does Ancestry's system of providing "Hints" for record matching and tiered, membership-based messaging perform the same specific functions as the ’309 Patent's claimed methods of "determining a level of reliability" and defining "levels of permitted communication" on the precise basis of that verification?
- The case may also turn on a question of technical implementation: is the evidence presented in the complaint—primarily high-level descriptions from websites and user terms—sufficient to plausibly allege that Ancestry's systems perform the specific, multi-step data processing, verification, and database construction methods detailed in the patent specifications?