Qualtrics LLC v. OpinionLab Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00406
• Patent #: 7,085,820
• Filed: January 31, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Qualtrics, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): OpinionLab, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 25-32, 35, 39, and 42

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 ’820 patent describes a system for collecting subjective user feedback about specific web pages. The system uses a viewable icon on a webpage that, when selected, launches software to present a user with a feedback interface for entering ratings and comments, which are then stored in a database for reporting to the website owner.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of All Challenged Claims - Claims 1-8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 25-32, 35, 39, and 42 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by CustomerSat.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat (the CustomerSat.com website as of May 26, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the CustomerSat website, a publicly available prior art reference, disclosed every element of the challenged claims. CustomerSat offered surveying services and featured a "Feedback" link (a viewable icon) on its web pages that presented a user satisfaction survey. This system collected page-specific reactions, including multi-level ratings (e.g., "Excellent" to "Poor") and open-ended comments about the website "as a whole." The collected data was stored in a database and analyzed via a "Real-Time Results" reporting module, which generated reports with charts, tables, and statistics, allowing a website owner to identify notable reactions for particular pages. Petitioner asserted this system directly maps to the limitations of independent claims 1 and 25 and their respective dependent claims.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Multiple Claims - Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35, 39 and 42 are anticipated under §102 by Medinets.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Medinets (PERL 5 by Example, a 1996 programming guide by David Medinets).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative anticipation argument, Petitioner contended that Medinets taught a complete system for collecting page-specific user feedback. Medinets explicitly described placing a button (a viewable icon) on "every Web page" of a site. Clicking this button would summon a "Web Page Comment Form" generated by a CGI Perl script, which automatically identified the page from which the user provided feedback. Medinets taught storing this feedback in a database to make it "much easier for you to track the comments and see which web pages generate the most feedback," thereby disclosing a reporting function. The form solicited both general and specific comments (e.g., "General Comments," "Found Typo"), satisfying limitations related to feedback on the page "as a whole" and its specific characteristics.

Ground 3: Obviousness over CustomerSat in view of Medinets - All challenged claims are obvious under §103 over CustomerSat in view of Medinets.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: CustomerSat and Medinets.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that even if neither reference anticipates the claims alone, their combination renders all challenged claims obvious. CustomerSat provided the high-level framework for a commercial web-based feedback system, including user surveys, database storage, and a "Real-Time" reporting module. Medinets provided the specific, well-known technical implementation details for creating such a system on a page-specific basis using standard technologies like HTML forms and CGI scripts, which were the de facto standard at the time.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they addressed the identical problem of soliciting website feedback using the same fundamental technology. A POSITA seeking to implement the system described in CustomerSat would have naturally turned to a technical guide like Medinets to learn how to create the necessary page-specific feedback forms and database interactions using Perl scripts.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying the standard, well-understood web technologies detailed in Medinets to implement the known concept of web-based surveys shown in CustomerSat.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "page-specific subjective user reactions": Petitioner argued for a broad construction where "page-specific" means "relating to a web page." This construction is supported by the patent owner's litigation positions, which contended the limitation is met when a user simply navigates to a particular page and then selects a feedback icon, making the subsequent feedback inherently "page-specific" even without explicit confirmation.
• "icon": Petitioner proposed the construction "graphical image(s), optionally with text." This broad interpretation is critical to their argument as it encompasses not only graphical buttons but also simple text-based hyperlinks like the "Feedback" link disclosed in the CustomerSat reference.
• "as a whole": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "overall." This construction allows prior art that solicits general feedback about a page (e.g., "Overall, how would you rate CustomerSat.com?") to meet the claim limitation, distinguishing it from feedback systems focused only on discrete elements within a page.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 11, 15, 18, 20, 25-32, 35, 39, and 42 of Patent 7,085,820 as unpatentable.