Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00356
• Patent #: 6,606,581
• Filed: January 15, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Qualtrics, LLC and Qualtrics Labs, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): OpinionLab, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 31

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Measuring and Reporting User Reactions to Particular Web Pages of a Website
• Brief Description: The ’581 patent describes a system for collecting user feedback on specific web pages. The system uses a viewable icon on a webpage to solicit a subjective reaction from a user, with associated software that receives and reports that reaction to the website owner.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over CustomerSat - All challenged claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by CustomerSat.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (the CustomerSat.com website as publicly available on May 26, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the CustomerSat website, a prior art printed publication, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. CustomerSat offered a system for measuring user feedback via either a "Feedback" text link or a "Pop!Up" survey invitation, both qualifying as an "icon" under the patent's broadest reasonable construction. This icon appeared on web pages independent of user action after page load and was associated with software (HTML forms, Java applets) operable to receive subjective ratings and open-ended comments about the website. The system also disclosed real-time reporting capabilities, including analyzing results by segment, which allowed a website owner to identify notable feedback for particular web pages.

Ground 2: Obviousness over CustomerSat and Medinets - All challenged claims are obvious over CustomerSat in view of Medinets.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (website) and Medinets (a 1996 introductory guide to the PERL programming language).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that to the extent CustomerSat does not explicitly teach certain page-specific tracking and analysis features, Medinets provides these missing elements. CustomerSat taught the general system of using an on-page icon to solicit user feedback. Medinets explicitly disclosed a web page commenting system that invites page-specific feedback, captures a unique identifier for the page where feedback is given, and uses a database to track comments and see which web pages generate the most feedback.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they addressed the same problem (soliciting user feedback) using the same underlying technology (HTML forms, CGI scripts). CustomerSat encouraged analyzing feedback from different sections of a website, and Medinets, a standard technical guide of the era, provided the explicit instructions for implementing such page-specific data collection and analysis using Perl CGI scripts.
  • Expectation of Success: Because Medinets was a guide that detailed common, well-understood web technologies, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying its page-specific tracking methods to the user feedback system disclosed by CustomerSat.

Ground 3: Obviousness over CustomerSat, Medinets, and HTML 4.0 Spec - Claims 13 and 31 are obvious over CustomerSat and Medinets in further view of HTML 4.0 Specification.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (website), Medinets (PERL guide), and HTML 4.0 Specification (April 24, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed the limitation in claims 13 and 31 requiring the feedback icon to remain viewable as a user scrolls. Petitioner argued that the base feedback system is taught by CustomerSat and Medinets. The HTML 4.0 Specification, the governing web standard at the time, explicitly disclosed using HTML frames to keep certain information, such as a banner or navigation menu, constantly visible while the main content of the page is scrolled.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the feedback system from CustomerSat and Medinets would be motivated to use standard techniques from the HTML 4.0 Specification to improve usability. Keeping the feedback icon visible via a static frame was an obvious design choice to increase user engagement and survey response rates.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing HTML frames was a fundamental and widely documented web design practice at the time, ensuring a POSITA would have a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "icon": Petitioner proposed the construction "graphical image(s), optionally with text." This broad construction was critical to its argument that text-based links, such as the "Feedback" link disclosed in the CustomerSat reference, meet the claim limitation.
• "independent of input from [a/the] user": Petitioner proposed the construction "without requiring action by [a/the] user." This construction supported the argument that the prior art icons, which appeared automatically on page load, met the limitation, distinguishing them from systems requiring user action like a right-click to invoke a feedback menu.
• "page-specific": Petitioner proposed the construction "relating to a web page." This interpretation allowed feedback to be considered "page-specific" if it was simply collected on a particular page (e.g., by tracking the URL), even if the survey questions were about the website as a whole. This was crucial for mapping CustomerSat, which used general satisfaction surveys deployed on specific pages.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 31 as unpatentable.