2:05-cv-01013
Timeline Inc v. Proclarity Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Timeline, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendants: ProClarity Corporation (Idaho); Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rohde & Van Kampen PLLC; Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:05-cv-01013, W.D. Wash., 09/29/2006
- Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that venue is proper in the judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) without providing a specific factual basis.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ business intelligence and database software products infringe five patents related to methods for automatically retrieving and structuring data from multiple, disparate data sources.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automating the creation of unified databases (akin to data warehouses or OLAP cubes) from various underlying data systems, a foundational process for business intelligence and data analytics software.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint outlines a complex history between Plaintiff and Microsoft, beginning with a 1995 agreement and a subsequent 1999 patent license agreement. Plaintiff alleges Microsoft breached the 1999 agreement, leading to state court litigation where a Washington Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 against Microsoft's interpretation of the license scope. Plaintiff claims it subsequently terminated the license and alleges that Defendants' ongoing activities constitute infringement. The complaint also alleges that Defendant ProClarity had notice of the patents as early as 1999.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1994-Fall | Timeline alleges it invented the core database software technology |
| 1996-01-02 | Earliest Priority Date for ’511, ’694, ’392, ’382, and ’617 Patents |
| 1998-09-01 | U.S. Patent No. 5,802,511 Issues |
| 1998-Late | Microsoft releases preliminary versions of SQL Server 7.0 |
| 1999-Early | Microsoft releases preliminary versions of SQL Server 7.0 |
| 1999 | Plaintiff allegedly informs ProClarity of potential infringement |
| 1999 | Microsoft and Timeline execute the 1999 patent license agreement |
| 2000-02-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,023,694 Issues |
| 2000-02-15 | U.S. Patent No. 6,026,392 Issues |
| 2000 | Timeline's President communicates with ProClarity's President regarding patents |
| 2002-03-04 | Washington Court of Appeals rules on 1999 Agreement interpretation |
| 2003-09-23 | U.S. Patent No. 6,625,617 Issues |
| 2003-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,631,382 Issues |
| 2005 | Microsoft and ProClarity allegedly enter formal agreement to challenge patents |
| 2006-09-29 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,802,511 - "Data Retrieval Method and Apparatus with Multiple Source Capability," issued September 1, 1998 (’511 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the significant difficulty, labor, and time required to access, coordinate, or combine information stored in different types of computer data sources (e.g., relational databases, flat files, spreadsheets) due to their varying structures, formats, and organization schemes (’511 Patent, col. 1:40-57). This process traditionally required manual analysis by a human expert (’511 Patent, col. 2:42-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system that uses distinct software "drivers" tailored for different types of data sources (’511 Patent, Abstract). Each driver is designed to automatically analyze the structure of its corresponding source data, extract the information, and use that structural information to define and populate a new, uniform database optimized for reporting and analysis (’511 Patent, col. 3:26-42). This allows data from disparate sources to be standardized and combined without requiring manual intervention to understand each source's unique format (’511 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to automate the creation of unified data repositories, a foundational step in data warehousing and business intelligence that was previously a highly customized and labor-intensive process (’511 Patent, col. 2:42-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶24). Representative independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A first step for providing a first driver containing program instructions configured for use with a first data source.
- A second step for using the driver to automatically obtain first information about the data structure of the first data source by automatically accessing its content.
- Using the first information to define a structure for a new, different database that did not exist before the process began.
U.S. Patent No. 6,023,694 - "Data Retrieval Method and Apparatus with Multiple Source Capability," issued February 8, 2000 (’694 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent, from the same family as the ’511 Patent, addresses the same general problem of accessing disparate data sources but adds the complexity of handling data stored in different human languages (’694 Patent, col. 15:1-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention extends the driver-based system to support multi-lingual data integration. The claimed method involves automatically analyzing a source database having data identifiers (e.g., field names, captions) in a first language and creating a new database with corresponding identifiers in a second, different language (’694 Patent, claim 1). The system can also use a common user interface to solicit user input to guide the mapping and creation of the new database structure (’694 Patent, col. 13:30-41).
- Technical Importance: The invention addresses the challenges of data globalization by providing a method to create unified analytical databases from international data sources that use different languages, thereby facilitating cross-border business intelligence (’694 Patent, col. 15:1-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims (Compl. ¶24). Representative independent claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- Providing a driver for a first data source that includes data identifiers in a first language.
- Using the driver to automatically obtain information about the first data source's structure.
- Determining a structure for an object database based on the source structure.
- Creating a database with the new structure that includes data identifiers in a second language, different from the first language.
U.S. Patent No. 6,026,392 (’392 Patent) - "Data Retrieval Method and Apparatus with Multiple Source Capability," issued February 15, 2000
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes an automated method for extracting data from disparate sources, focusing on the creation of a new database that is "optimized for speed and/or flexibility of output" (’392 Patent, col. 15:20-31). This optimization is achieved by creating a new structure of category tables and detail tables, which provides for enhanced reporting capabilities not present in the original source data (’392 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
Not specified in the complaint (Compl. ¶24).
Accused Features
The "ProClarity" software's functionality for creating OLAP cubes, particularly when used with Microsoft Data Transformation Services (DTS) and Analysis Services (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25).
U.S. Patent No. 6,631,382 (’382 Patent) - "Data Retrieval Method and Apparatus with Multiple Source Capability," issued October 7, 2003
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a method for automatically obtaining information about a source data structure to define a new, optimized database. A disclosed aspect is the use of "intelligent interrogation" of the source data to automatically determine its architecture and the data elements needed for standardized reporting and analysis (’382 Patent, col. 14:21-39).
Asserted Claims
Not specified in the complaint (Compl. ¶24).
Accused Features
The "ProClarity" software's ability to work with Microsoft DTS and Analysis Services to design and use OLAP cubes, and Microsoft's SQL Server products (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 31).
U.S. Patent No. 6,625,617 (’617 Patent) - "Modularized Data Retrieval Method and Apparatus with Multiple Source Capability," issued September 23, 2003
Technology Synopsis
This patent focuses on a modular approach to the data retrieval process. It describes a method using a driver composed of distinct functional modules for different steps (e.g., obtaining structure, defining the new database, populating the database), which allows for flexible accommodation of new data source types by reusing common procedures across different drivers (’617 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:51-67).
Asserted Claims
Not specified in the complaint (Compl. ¶24).
Accused Features
The "ProClarity" software in conjunction with Microsoft DTS and Analysis Services, and Microsoft SQL Server products (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names Defendant ProClarity Corp.'s "ProClarity" software and Defendant Microsoft Corp.'s "SQL Server" products (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be used for creating online analytical processing databases ("OLAP Cubes") (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges ProClarity's software works in conjunction with Microsoft's Data Transformation Services (DTS) and Analysis Services to perform this function (Compl. ¶25). This process allegedly involves accessing underlying databases, automatically analyzing their data structures, and creating a new, structured database (the OLAP cube) for business intelligence analysis (Compl. ¶13, ¶23). The complaint alleges a "strategic partnership" between Microsoft and ProClarity to promote these combined solutions (Compl. ¶20, p.5).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement of the language-specific limitations of claim 1 of the ’694 Patent. The following summary is based on the allegations related to the ’511 Patent.
’511 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first step for providing a first driver containing program instructions configured for use with a first data source... | The combination of ProClarity software with Microsoft's DTS and Analysis Services allegedly accesses underlying data sources and performs the function of the claimed "driver" (Compl. ¶25, ¶27). | ¶25, ¶27 | col. 9:22-48 |
| a second step for using said first driver to automatically obtain first information about the data structure of said first data source... by automatically accessing content of information stored in said first data source | The accused products allegedly automate the extraction of data structure information from an existing database for the purpose of creating a new database, such as an OLAP Cube (Compl. ¶13, ¶23). | ¶13, ¶23 | col. 10:48-56 |
| using said first information to define a structure for a first database different from said data sources wherein said first database did not exist before said step for using said first driver... | The creation of OLAP cubes is alleged to constitute the creation of a new database with a new structure based on the automatically obtained information from the source database (Compl. ¶23). | ¶23 | col. 14:52-68 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for claim construction may be whether the term "driver", as described in the patent as a specific software module with multiple functions (e.g., a "dBase II® driver"), can be construed to read on the alleged combination of a general-purpose toolset (Microsoft DTS and Analysis Services) with an analytics front-end (ProClarity software).
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of what evidence the complaint provides to show that the accused products "automatically obtain" data structure information as required by the claims, versus being wizard-driven tools that require significant user input and configuration to map data from a source to a target.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "driver"
Context and Importance
The definition of this term is central, as the infringement theory relies on mapping this term to a combination of accused products. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue that a combination of general-purpose ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools is not the specific, modular, data-source-specific "driver" contemplated by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes drivers functionally as "processes having multiple functions for analyzing and accessing different types of source data" and notes they can be implemented as "dynamic link libraries (DLLs)" (’511 Patent, col. 9:29-37). This may support a construction focused on the functions performed rather than a specific software architecture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments in the patent depict drivers as discrete, modular components (e.g., Fig. 8, items 804a-d) that are specifically configured for particular data sources, such as a "dBase II®" driver or a "Microsoft Access®" driver (’511 Patent, col. 10:60-65). This may support a narrower construction requiring a purpose-built software module for a specific data source type.
The Term: "automatically obtain first information about the data structure"
Context and Importance
The degree of automation required by this term will be a critical point of dispute. The patent’s asserted novelty is in replacing manual human analysis, and the scope of "automatically" will define the boundary between infringement and non-infringing, user-driven processes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background contrasts the invention with the prior art need for a human expert to ""manually" analyzed each "source" data file or database to understand its structure" (’511 Patent, col. 2:44-46). This may support a construction where "automatically" means free from the need for a developer to analyze source code or file formats, even if an end-user must make selections within a graphical user interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the process as an "intelligent interrogation in the sense that it can conform to virtually any data source and identify what is required" (’511 Patent, col. 14:30-34). This language may support a narrower construction that requires the software to perform a high degree of independent analysis with minimal user guidance.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement against ProClarity based on its "teaching and directing users" via "promotional and instructional materials" to use its software in an infringing manner with Microsoft's tools (Compl. ¶25). Inducement is alleged against Microsoft based on its encouragement of third parties to develop and market products that create infringing combinations with Microsoft products (Compl. ¶32).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged against ProClarity based on pre-suit knowledge dating to "as early as 1999," citing "several occasions" where Plaintiff informed ProClarity of its infringement, including communications between the company presidents in 2000 and a letter to ProClarity's General Counsel (Compl. ¶26). Willfulness is alleged against Microsoft based on its knowledge of the patents from the 1999 license negotiations and the subsequent state court litigation, which concluded in 2002 (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17, 33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "driver", which is rooted in the patent’s description of discrete, data-source-specific modules, be construed to cover the alleged combination of general-purpose data transformation tools (Microsoft DTS) and a separate analytics application (ProClarity)?
- A key legal and factual question will be the impact of the prior license: how does the 1999 license agreement between Timeline and Microsoft, its alleged breach by Microsoft, and its contested termination by Timeline affect the claims for infringement against both Microsoft and ProClarity, particularly with respect to the potential period of damages?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of proving automation: given the complaint's high-level allegations, the case may turn on whether Plaintiff can present technical evidence demonstrating that the accused products perform the "automatic" data structure analysis claimed in the patents, as opposed to being conventional, user-configured data-mapping tools.