Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2015-00164
• Patent #: 6,421,724
• Filed: July 23, 2015
• Petitioner(s): Qualtrics LLC
• Patent Owner(s): OpinionLab, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Measuring User Reactions Concerning One or More Particular Web Pages of a Website
• Brief Description: The ’724 patent describes a "web site response measurement tool" for collecting subjective user feedback on a page-by-page basis. The system uses a sequence of icons and multi-level rating scales to capture user reactions, which are then reported to the website owner to improve website effectiveness.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Unpatentability Under §101 - Claims 1-9 are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Petitioner did not rely on specific prior art patents for an anticipation or obviousness challenge. Instead, the argument was based on the legal standard under 35 U.S.C. §101, asserting that the claimed invention is an implementation of a long-standing, fundamental business practice (collecting customer feedback) using generic computer components. The petition used an analogy to pre-internet, in-person mall surveys to demonstrate the abstract nature of the claimed process.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Abstract Idea Mapping: Petitioner argued that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of soliciting and collecting customer feedback. The petition mapped the elements of claim 1 to a pre-internet implementation to illustrate this point. For example, a "first icon viewable on the particular web page" was analogized to a survey table and interviewer at the front of a store. The "second icon comprising a plurality of multi-level rating scales" was analogized to a paper survey form with questions and rating scales (e.g., "Very Poor" to "Very Good"). Finally, the "software...for reporting to a website owner" was analogized to collecting the survey forms and reporting the compiled results to the mall's owner.
  • Lack of Inventive Concept: The petition asserted that the claims lacked an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. It argued that implementing the familiar process of a customer survey on a computer, using conventional elements like web pages, icons, and generic software for data gathering, was not inventive. The limitations were described as merely "token postsolution components" that did not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea itself. The specification's description of using standard Internet technologies like browsers, servers, and JavaScript was cited as evidence that the implementation was routine and conventional at the time of filing.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that all challenged claims (1-9) were unpatentable for the same core reason. It argued that dependent claims added only minor, non-inventive limitations, such as rating specific characteristics like "content, design, and usability" (claim 2), using common symbols like "+" or "-" (claim 3), or making the feedback icon consistent across multiple pages (claim 4). These were framed as mere field-of-use limitations or conventional design choices that did not confer patentability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed several constructions, arguing they represented the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.

• "icon": Proposed as "graphical image(s), optionally with text." This construction was central to defining the primary user interface elements of the claimed system.
• "independent of input from a user": Proposed as "without requiring action by a user." This term was critical, as Petitioner noted it was used during prosecution to distinguish prior art where a user had to perform an action (like a right-click) to initiate feedback.
• "subjective user reaction to the particular web page": Proposed as "user opinion about the web page for which user opinion is being collected." This construction defined the fundamental type of data the patented system was designed to collect and process.
• "as a whole": Proposed as "overall." Petitioner asserted this construction was consistent with the prosecution history, where the applicant distinguished prior art that collected feedback on specific items on a page rather than the page overall.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

A central contention of the petition was that the ’724 patent qualified as a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent and was not directed to a technological invention.

• Financial Product or Service: Petitioner argued the patent was directed to a financial product or service because its stated purpose was to improve the effectiveness of commercial websites for marketing, customer communication, and valuation. The collection of user feedback was framed as an ancillary activity to a financial service, directly related to increasing a website's return on investment (ROI) and assessing business value for investors. The patent's disclosure of operating the tool for a fee was also highlighted as evidence of its financial nature.
• Not a Technological Invention: Petitioner asserted that the patent did not solve a technical problem with a technical solution. The problem addressed—unpredictable or inconsistent user feedback—was characterized as a marketing or commercial problem, not a technical one. The solution proposed in the patent was argued to rely entirely on generic, well-known technology components (e.g., HTML, icons, JavaScript) without any novel or non-obvious technological innovation.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of a Covered Business Method review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’724 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.