Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00366
• Patent #: 8,041,805
• Filed: January 17, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Qualtrics, LLC; Qualtrics Labs, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): OpinionLab, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 17-19, 22, 25-27, 30, 33

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Reporting to a Website Owner User Reactions to Particular Web Pages of a Website
• Brief Description: The ’805 patent discloses a system for collecting page-specific user feedback on a website. The system provides a user-selectable graphical element (e.g., an icon) on a webpage, which, when selected, presents a second element (e.g., a pop-up window) for the user to submit subjective ratings and open-ended comments about that specific page.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: The challenged claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by CustomerSat.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (archived pages of the CustomerSat.com website, publicly available as of May 26, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that CustomerSat taught every limitation of the challenged claims. CustomerSat disclosed providing either a static "Feedback" link or a dynamic "Pop!Up" survey invitation on its web pages, which served as the claimed "user-selectable element." The pop-up could be configured to intercept every "Nth visitor." Selecting either element presented a user satisfaction survey (the "second element") that solicited both ratings (e.g., "Overall, how would you rate CustomerSat.com?") and open-ended comments ("What did you like about CustomerSat.com?"). The system received this feedback into a database and provided real-time reporting capabilities, including charts, tables, and cross-tabs, allowing for analysis by webpage.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that CustomerSat’s pop-up window implementation allowed users to provide feedback while remaining on the original webpage, and its robust reporting features inherently enabled page-specific analysis, thus meeting all claim limitations.

Ground 2: The challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over CustomerSat in view of Medinets.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (archived website) and Medinets (a 1996 introductory guide to PERL programming, "PERL 5 by Example").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that to the extent CustomerSat was found not to explicitly teach every detail of page-specific feedback collection and analysis, Medinets supplied the missing elements. Medinets disclosed a webpage commenting system using a button on "every Web page" that, when clicked, generated a feedback form via a CGI Perl script. The script was designed so the form "automatically knows which page the user was on when the button was pressed," for instance, by pre-populating the subject field with the page title. Medinets expressly taught storing this page-identified feedback in a database to "track the comments and see which web pages generate the most feedback."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they addressed the identical problem of soliciting user feedback from a webpage using the same basic technology (HTML forms, CGI scripts). A POSITA seeking to implement the page-specific feedback analysis suggested by CustomerSat would have naturally looked to a programming guide like Medinets for a known, explicit method of implementing such a page-specific system.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying the well-understood CGI scripting and database storage techniques from Medinets to the survey framework of CustomerSat, which would have been a straightforward implementation with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: The challenged claims are obvious over CustomerSat and Medinets in further view of HTML 4.0 Specification.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (archived website), Medinets (1996 PERL guide), and HTML 4.0 Specification (a W3C Recommendation dated April 24, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed the claim limitation "remains viewable within the browser window... regardless of user scrolling." Petitioner argued that the HTML 4.0 Specification explicitly disclosed the use of HTML frames as a standard and common technique to "keep certain information visible, while other views are scrolled or replaced," such as displaying a "static banner" or "navigation menu."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the feedback systems of CustomerSat or Medinets would be motivated to use HTML frames to ensure the "user-selectable element" remained visible at all times. This was a well-known design choice to improve usability and increase survey response rates, a goal inherent in deploying any feedback system. The ’805 patent itself acknowledged this as a design alternative.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a static frame was a fundamental and well-documented feature of HTML at the time, presenting no technical challenge to a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner dedicated a substantial portion of the petition to claim construction, arguing that several terms required specific constructions that were critical to the invalidity analysis, contrasting its proposals with the Patent Owner's positions in related litigation.

• "user-selectable element": Petitioner proposed construing this as a "graphical image(s), optionally with text, which may be selected by the user." This construction was argued to be broad enough to encompass the hyperlink ("Feedback") and pop-up invitation disclosed in CustomerSat, as well as the form button in Medinets.
• "solicit[ing]": Petitioner proposed construing "solicit" as "invite." This was argued to be the plain meaning and was contrasted with the Patent Owner's allegedly overbroad construction of "allow the user to provide." Petitioner contended this distinction was important because the prior art actively invited feedback, meeting the narrower construction.
• "page-specific": Petitioner proposed "relating to a web page." This construction was based on the patent's specification and was argued to be met by prior art that asked questions about the specific page the user was viewing. Petitioner contended the Patent Owner's position—that feedback is "page-specific" if the system merely tracks the URL, regardless of the feedback's content—was untenable.
• "as a whole": For dependent claims requiring a rating of the webpage "as a whole," Petitioner proposed the construction "overall." This was supported by the patent's specification and prosecution history, where the applicant distinguished prior art as being limited to specific items on a page rather than the page "as a whole."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 17-19, 22, 25-27, 30, and 33 of the ’805 patent as unpatentable.