IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

MOUSEFLOW, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 3:22-cv-01979 

v. 

SAVANNAH LICENSING LLC, 

Defendant. 

Patent Case 

Jury Trial Demanded 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT 

COMES NOW Plaintiff Mouseflow, Inc. (“Mouseflow”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel of record, and by way of complaint for declaratory judgment regarding non-infringement 

and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 (“the ’777 Patent”) against Defendant Savannah 

Licensing, LLC (“Savannah Licensing”), hereby alleges and avers as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201, et seq., for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’777 Patent under the Patent 

Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§101, et seq. 

PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Mouseflow, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Washington that maintains its principal place of business at 501 Congress Ave, Suite 150, Austin, 

TX 78701. 

3. Defendant Savannah Licensing LLC is a non-practicing corporate entity organized 

and existing under the laws of Texas that maintains its principal place of business at 9901 Brodie 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
-2- 

Lane, Suite 160 PMB925, Austin, TX 78748. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the entire action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Mouseflow’s claims arise under an Act of Congress relating 

to patents, namely, 35 U.S.C. § 271. 

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Savannah Licensing because Savannah 

Licensing resides in Texas and brought an underlying action in this judicial district, Savannah 

Licensing LLC v. Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. (Case No. 3:22-cv-1180), thereby 

submitting itself to the Court’s jurisdiction. 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400, because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district. 

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION 

4. Savannah Licensing has asserted Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 (“the ’777 

Patent”) against several current and former customers of Mouseflow in materially identical 

complaints and infringement contentions (the “Actions”), asserting infringement by way of their 

use of Mouseflow’s User Feedback and Session Replay tools (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). 

See Savannah Licensing LLC v. Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc, Case No. 3:22-cv-1180; 

Savannah Licensing LLC v. Harbor Freight Tools, USA, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00555; Savannah 

Licensing LLC v. Hubzu USA, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00709; Savannah Licensing LLC v. Ross 

Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00710. 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
-3- 

Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent recites: 

1. A method to use feedback in a system implemented by a computing device, 

comprising: 

[a] receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a 

user frustration event indicator and an associated event indicator that indicates a 

level and a type of user frustration associated with a user frustration event, 

wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes 

an active operation of a device at a time when the user frustration event occurred; 

[b] determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the 

user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator; and 

[c] implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the 

determined feedback. 

5. Essentially, the claim recites four basic steps: [a] receiving information about user 

activity on a device that is associated with user frustration; [b] determining appropriate device 

operations responsive to the information about the user activity and corresponding device 

operations; and [c] implementing a network action based on the determined device operations. 

6. Savannah Licensing’s allegations of infringement have placed a cloud over 

Mouseflow’s business and relationships by attacking Mouseflow’s customers for their use of 

Mouseflow products and services. 

7. The use of Mouseflow to get analytics for a webpage, does comprise a method that 

will result in the determination and implementation of network feedback after receiving 

information about user frustration, as recited in the ’777 Patent. Savannah Licensing manipulates 

the word “feedback” in Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent in its infringement contentions to allege that 

Mouseflow is infringing, despite the fact that Mouseflow only allows for a user to input its own 

feedback after frustration. 

8. Under the circumstances, there exists a clear, substantial, and continuing threat to 

Mouseflow’s business as long as the current controversies remain unresolved. Accordingly, 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
-4- 

Mouseflow needs and seeks resolution of the issues raised in this complaint for declaratory relief. 

FACTS RELATING TO NON-INFRINGEMENT 

9. Mouseflow denies that it now infringes or in the past infringed, either directly, 

indirectly, literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’777 patent. 

10. Mouseflow’s User Feedback tool is a website plugin that provides “a method for 

communicating with users, passively or actively, to collect opinions, experiences, and 

perspectives” about a customer’s company, website, or products upon the occurrence of a 

triggering event. See https://mouseflow.com/features/user-feedback-tool/. 

11. Mouseflow’s Session Replay tool is a website plugin that tracks a user’s activity 

during that session and marks it in accordance with specific triggering events. 

https://mouseflow.com/features/session-recording-tool/. 

12. Claim 1 includes at least one step that neither Mouseflow, nor its customers, 

incorporates in any system. Specifically, neither of the Accused Instrumentalities implement a 

specific network action based on determined feedback. 

13. Use of Mouseflow's User Feedback tool does not meet any of the claim limitations 

of Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. With respect to claim limitation 1[a], the User Feedback tool does 

not record device operations associated with user frustration as required for the creation of a 

frustration event package. The User Feedback tool does not even record website operations. A 

computing device will not receive a frustration event package during the operation of the User 

Feedback tool as would be required for infringement of Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. 

14. With respect to claim limitation 1[b] and 1[c], the User Feedback tool only triggers 

the appearance of a pop-up requesting user feedback upon a triggering event, rather than 

implementing some network action. No network action is determined or implemented in the 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
-5- 

course of making the pop-up appear. The User Feedback tool is only an open survey tool for 

website users. It does not determine any feedback based on a frustration event package as required 

by Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. It does not implement the determined feedback as required by 

Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. The User Feedback tool is already integrated into a website and device 

operations are not relevant to the pop-up appearing at all, only user activity. 

15. Use of Mouseflow's Session Replay tool does not meet any of the claim limitations 

of Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. With respect to claim limitation 1[a], the Session Replay tool only 

records user activity in a specific user session, not device operations, and simply adds a tag to that 

user session in accordance with a triggering event. A frustration event package is not created that 

records both user activity and associated device operations. Beyond the fact that the ’777 Patent 

is directed at device operations, not website operations, a computing device will not receive a 

frustration event package during the operation of the Session Replay tool as would be required for 

infringement of Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. 

16. With respect to claim limitation 1[b] and 1[c], the Session Replay tool neither 

determines nor implements any network action while tagging a specific recorded user session with 

an indicator of frustration. The Session Replay tool only records user activity and marks some 

user activity in association with specific conditions set by a website owner. It does not “determine” 

any feedback based on a frustration event package as required by Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. It 

does not “implement” the determined feedback as required by Claim 1 of the ’777 Patent. 

COUNT 1: DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT 

17. Mouseflow repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 

15 above as if fully set forth herein. 

18. Based on the Savannah Licensing’s filing of several patent infringement lawsuits 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
-6- 

in the Western District of Texas and the Northern District of Texas against Mouseflow customers 

regarding their use of Mouseflow’s User Feedback tool and Session Replay tool, an actual 

controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether Mouseflow has infringed 

either directly or indirectly (through contributory infringement or inducement of infringement) the 

’777 patent. 

19. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

Mouseflow requests a declaration by the Court that it does not infringe any claim of the ’777 

patent, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

20. Mouseflow respectfully requests a judgment against Savannah Licensing as 

follows: 

A. A declaration that Mouseflow and its customers do not infringe the ’777 

patent; 

B. That Savannah Licensing take nothing by their various Actions; 

C. That the Court enter judgment against Savannah Licensing and in favor of 

Mouseflow and the defendants in the various Actions and that the various Actions 

be dismissed with prejudice; 

D. That the Court award Mouseflow costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this 

action; and 

E. Further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Mouseflow hereby demands trial by jury on all issues. 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
-7- 

Dated: September 6, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay

Eric H. Findlay 

TX Bar No. 00789886 

R. Brian Craft 

TX Bar No. 04972020 

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 

102 N. College Ave., Ste. 900 

Tyler, TX 75702 

(903) 534-1100 

(903) 534-1100 Fax 

efindlay@findlaycraft.com 

bcraft@findlaycraft.com 

Clement Seth Roberts (pro hac vice 

forthcoming) 

(California State Bar No. 209203) 

Isaac Sawlih Behnawa (pro hac vice 

forthcoming) 

(California State Bar No. 342441) 

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

LLP 

405 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 

Telephone: (415) 773-5700 

Email: croberts@orrick.com 

Email: ibehnawa@orrick.com 

Bas de Blank (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

(California State Bar No. 191487) 

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94205 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Email: basdeblank@orrick.com

Case 3:22-cv-01979-E Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7