Medallia v. EchoSpan: $200,000 Rule 68 Judgment in 360-Degree Feedback Patent Dispute
Medallia, Inc. sued EchoSpan, Inc. in the Northern District of Georgia alleging infringement of US10963639B2, a patent covering 360-degree feedback platform technology. EchoSpan accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment, resulting in a $200,000 judgment in Medallia’s favour — resolved in 395 days without proceeding to trial.
Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Ends Medallia’s 360-Feedback Patent Claim
On 22 August 2023, Medallia, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against EchoSpan, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. Medallia asserted US10963639B2, a patent directed at 360-degree feedback platform technology, against EchoSpan’s competing 360-degree feedback product. EchoSpan is a specialist provider of employee performance and 360-degree feedback software — placing it in direct competition with Medallia in the enterprise feedback market.
The case resolved on 20 September 2024 when EchoSpan tendered a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $200,000, which Medallia accepted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, once a plaintiff accepts an offer of judgment, the court enters judgment for the accepted sum without further litigation. This mechanism ended the case on the merits in Medallia’s favour, without a full infringement determination at trial. The $200,000 judgment represents a binding, enforceable monetary award against EchoSpan.
At 395 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for patent litigation in the Northern District of Georgia — suggesting the parties may have assessed early that a negotiated resolution was preferable to the cost and uncertainty of full merits adjudication. The public record does not reveal whether the $200,000 reflects licensing value, litigation cost avoidance, or a compromise on infringement scope. No injunctive relief or ongoing royalty obligation is visible from the public record, leaving questions open about EchoSpan’s continued use of the patented technology.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 395 days
395 days — resolved before trial, faster than median patent district court litigation
Rule 68 judgment entered: what the $200,000 award means for both parties
Rule 68 offer of judgment: how it works
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, a defendant may serve an offer to allow judgment against them for a specified sum. If the plaintiff accepts within 14 days, the court enters judgment for that amount. No trial occurs and no infringement finding is made. The mechanism is strategically used by defendants to cap exposure and potentially shift costs if the plaintiff later recovers less than the offer at trial. Here, EchoSpan’s acceptance of Medallia’s claim produced a binding $200,000 judgment.
Judgment on merits — no trialMedallia secures $200,000 judgment without trial risk
Medallia obtained a judgment on the merits, establishing a formal court record of infringement liability against EchoSpan. The $200,000 award is enforceable as a civil judgment. Crucially, US10963639B2 remains in force — the case did not result in any invalidity finding. Medallia can use this judgment as precedent in future enforcement actions, though the absence of an injunction means the public record does not confirm EchoSpan has ceased the accused conduct.
Patent survives — enforceability intactEchoSpan caps liability but faces lingering IP risk
By tendering a Rule 68 offer, EchoSpan avoided trial and constrained its monetary exposure to $200,000. However, EchoSpan did not obtain a finding of non-infringement or invalidity of US10963639B2. This means the patent remains a potential threat to EchoSpan’s 360-degree feedback platform. If EchoSpan continues to operate the accused product without a licence or design-around, future infringement exposure could arise. The judgment on the merits also creates a litigation history that could affect EchoSpan’s position in any subsequent proceedings.
No invalidity ruling — risk persists360-degree feedback IP: enforcement signal for the sector
Medallia’s willingness to litigate and secure a judgment reinforces that its 360-degree feedback patent portfolio is actively enforced. Competitors and adjacent SaaS providers in the employee performance management space should treat US10963639B2 as a live enforcement risk. The relatively quick resolution — under 13 months — suggests Medallia may pursue a programmatic licensing or enforcement strategy. Product teams developing feedback, survey, or performance appraisal platforms should assess design-around options or seek FTO clearance against this patent.
Active enforcement — FTO recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Medallia, Inc. | Company | Enterprise feedback & CX software company — holder of US10963639B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | EchoSpan, Inc. | Company | SaaS provider of 360-degree employee performance feedback platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin I. Fink | Attorney | Counsel for Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel B Ravicher | Attorney | Counsel for Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremy L. Kahn | Attorney | Counsel for Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ognian V. Shentov | Attorney | Counsel for Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Berman Fink Van Horn, PC | Law Firm | Representing Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Ognian V. Shentov | Law Firm | Representing Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Zeisler PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Medallia, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew J. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Rebecca Virostko | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan R. Chally | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Wendell Staley | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Anthony Knox | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Lockamy | Attorney | Counsel for EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe PA | Law Firm | Representing EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Councill, Gunnemann & Chally, LLC | Law Firm | Representing EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP | Law Firm | Representing EchoSpan, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict entered on 20 September 2024 reflects a Rule 68 consent judgment — not a contested infringement finding. The court’s entry of judgment ‘on the merits for Plaintiff’ establishes a formal liability record against EchoSpan, but the phrasing does not constitute a judicial determination that specific claims of US10963639B2 were infringed or valid. For Medallia, the judgment is enforceable and adds to the patent’s enforcement history. For EchoSpan, the absence of any invalidity ruling means the patent’s scope and the precise conduct at issue remain legally unresolved beyond the monetary award.
US10963639B2 — 360-degree feedback platform technology
US10963639B2 (application number US16/297137) is a granted U.S. patent held by Medallia, Inc. covering technology in the 360-degree feedback and employee performance assessment domain. The patent protects aspects of how multi-rater feedback is collected, processed, or presented within a software platform — a core functional layer in enterprise HR and employee experience software. The patent’s grant from application number US16/297137 places its filing in the 2019 timeframe, consistent with a wave of SaaS-era IP filings in the HR technology sector.
In the enterprise feedback software market, 360-degree review functionality is a standard competitive differentiator. Medallia’s decision to assert this patent directly against EchoSpan — a specialist 360-degree feedback provider — signals that the patent is considered commercially significant and broadly enough scoped to cover competitor implementations. For adjacent platform vendors including performance management, engagement survey, and learning management system providers, US10963639B2 represents a live IP risk that warrants proactive monitoring and FTO clearance before feature development in multi-rater feedback workflows.
Should you run an FTO against US10963639B2?
Any SaaS or enterprise software team developing 360-degree feedback, multi-rater performance review, peer assessment, or structured employee feedback features should treat US10963639B2 as a priority FTO target. Medallia has demonstrated it will enforce this patent against direct competitors — and the $200,000 judgment with no invalidity ruling leaves the patent’s full claim scope intact. HR tech vendors, employee experience platforms, and LMS providers with overlapping functionality are all potentially within the enforcement perimeter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the specific claim elements of US10963639B2 against their own product architecture — identifying which features may fall within the patent’s scope and where design-around options exist. Eureka can also surface related Medallia patent filings, prosecution history insights, and similar litigation patterns, giving in-house IP counsel a comprehensive clearance picture before product launch or feature expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10963639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: 360-degree feedback and HR tech software disputes
Explore related patent infringement actions involving employee feedback, performance management, and HR SaaS technology litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the employee feedback software IP landscape
Medallia’s enforcement of a 360-degree feedback patent against a direct competitor signals intensifying IP competition in the enterprise HR software space.
Rule 68 tactics are increasingly common in software patent disputes
EchoSpan’s use of Rule 68 to cap a $200,000 judgment reflects a pragmatic defence strategy when defendants assess that full merits litigation would cost more than the settlement value. Patent plaintiffs should calibrate their enforcement demands accordingly — overly aggressive damages claims may simply be met with Rule 68 offers that limit recovery.
US10963639B2 remains enforceable — competitors should reassess FTO
The case ended without any challenge to the validity of US10963639B2. Any SaaS company with a 360-degree feedback, multi-rater performance review, or structured employee feedback product should run a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent, particularly given Medallia’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in the Northern District of Georgia.
Medallia v EchoSpan — key questions answered
The case resolved on 20 September 2024 with a $200,000 judgment entered in favour of Medallia, Inc. EchoSpan accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment, resulting in a judgment on the merits for the plaintiff without a trial. No invalidity finding was made against US10963639B2.
Medallia asserted US10963639B2 (application number US16/297137), a patent covering technology related to 360-degree feedback platforms. The accused product was EchoSpan’s 360-degree feedback software platform. The patent remains in force following the case’s resolution.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, a defendant may offer to allow judgment against itself for a fixed sum. If the plaintiff accepts, the court enters judgment without trial. In patent cases, this means no infringement or validity determination is made — the patent survives intact and the judgment is enforceable as a civil award. It is often used to cap defendant exposure.
No. The Rule 68 judgment entered in this case does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. US10963639B2 remains a granted, enforceable patent. EchoSpan did not challenge the patent’s validity in a manner that resulted in any claim cancellation or judicial invalidity ruling.
Medallia’s successful enforcement of US10963639B2 against EchoSpan signals active patent enforcement in the 360-degree feedback and HR technology space. Competing platforms with multi-rater feedback, peer review, or structured performance assessment features should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against US10963639B2 and monitor Medallia’s broader patent portfolio for related filings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.