DCT
2:08-cv-02321
Real Estate Alliance Ltd v. LoopNet Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Real Estate Alliance Ltd. (Delaware)
- Defendant: LoopNet, Inc. (Delaware); Cityfeet.com Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP; Lipton, Weinberger & Husick
- Case Identification: 2:08-cv-02321, C.D. Cal., 04/08/2008
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants reside or do business in the State of California and the Central District, and because alleged acts of infringement occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ commercial real estate listing websites and related technologies infringe two patents related to computer-implemented methods for searching a property database using an interactive, map-based graphical interface.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using computer-displayed maps to define geographic search areas and to visualize property locations, a foundational feature of modern online real-estate search platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes its intent to seek coordination with two other related actions to which the Plaintiff is a party, suggesting a broader litigation campaign involving the asserted patents against other entities in the real estate industry.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1986-03-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,870,576 |
| 1986-03-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,032,989 |
| 1989-09-26 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,870,576 |
| 1991-07-16 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,032,989 |
| c. 2002 | Approximate start of LoopNet's and Cityfeet's six years of operation prior to the complaint |
| 2008-03-04 | LoopNet announces the launch of "LoopLink 7.0" |
| 2008-04-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 4,870,576 - “REAL ESTATE SEARCH AND LOCATION SYSTEM AND METHOD,” Issued Sep. 26, 1989
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of searching computer-based real estate listings ("multiple listing service"), which typically required "intricate knowledge of the local area, its political subdivisions, and informal housing tract designations" and often necessitated accessing diverse systems to conduct a complete search (’576 Patent, col. 1:16-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that allows a user at a remote computer to define a geographic search area on a displayed map using an interactive "graphical locator interface." A user can select a landmark, manipulate a "rubberband window box" over a map, and then "zoom" in to that area to define a more precise circular search area. This geographic specification is then combined with other criteria (e.g., price) and transmitted to a host system to search a property database ('576 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-68).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for users to define real estate searches geographically and visually, a departure from text-based searches limited by predefined area names or codes ('576 Patent, col. 1:21-27; Compl. ¶3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶28). Independent claim 1 is a method claim with the following key steps:
- (a) selecting a landmark as a reference point from a list of available landmarks;
- (b) displaying a map showing the landmark and a "first area selection cursor";
- (c) accepting commands to traverse the map with the cursor and change its size;
- (d) zooming the map to coincide with the cursor's boundaries to show a higher level of detail;
- (e) accepting completion of the cursor traversal and converting the enclosed area into geographic data;
- (f-g) transmitting this data to a host processor and receiving it;
- (h) searching a database of properties using the received data;
- (i) identifying properties that match the criteria; and
- (j) transmitting information about the identified properties.
- The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims but may implicitly reserve the right to do so.
U.S. Patent No. 5,032,989 - “REAL ESTATE SEARCH AND LOCATION SYSTEM AND METHOD,” Issued Jul. 16, 1991
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the '576 patent, the ’989 patent addresses the same fundamental problem of making computerized real estate searches more intuitive and geographically focused ('989 Patent, col. 1:19-30).
- The Patented Solution: The '989 patent refines the method by incorporating the use of a "pointing device such as a mouse" to designate search boundaries on a map. Crucially, it adds the step of pictorially displaying the locations of matching properties from the database as points on the map within the user-selected area, creating a direct visual feedback loop ('989 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-54).
- Technical Importance: This invention advanced the human-computer interface for property searches by integrating pointing devices and, most significantly, by plotting search results directly onto the interactive map display ('989 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶28). Independent claim 1 is a method claim with the following key steps:
- (a) creating a database of available real estate properties;
- (b) displaying a map of a desired geographic area;
- (c) selecting a first area having boundaries within the geographic area;
- (d) zooming in on the first area to display a higher level of detail;
- (e) displaying the zoomed first area;
- (f) selecting a second area having boundaries within the zoomed first area;
- (g) displaying the second area and a plurality of points within it, where each point represents the location of an available property; and
- (h) identifying the properties located within the second area.
- The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims but may implicitly reserve the right to do so.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the websites www.loopnet.com and its subsidiary www.cityfeet.com, as well as the "LoopLink" technology that LoopNet provides to third-party real estate organizations (Compl. ¶¶4, 5, 7).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The accused websites are described as using "the claimed methods to display on zoom-enabled maps on this website the locations of millions of commercial real estate properties" (Compl. ¶¶4, 7).
- The LoopLink technology allegedly enables LoopNet's customers to either implement the patented mapping and search methods on their own websites or to link to customized webpages hosted by LoopNet where the methods are employed (Compl. ¶5, ¶23).
- The complaint alleges that these mapping functions are a "key determinant" of the defendants' success and an "indispensable tool in the real estate industry" (Compl. ¶¶13-14). LoopNet is positioned as operating the "largest and most heavily trafficked commercial real estate listing service online," containing over $500 billion of property for sale (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'576 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) selecting a landmark as a reference point from a list of available landmarks | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | N/A | col. 14:56-58 |
| (b) displaying a map showing said selected landmark, a first area selection cursor having boundaries... | The accused websites display "zoom-enabled maps" to show property locations (Compl. ¶4). | ¶4 | col. 14:59-64 |
| (c) accepting commands to cause the location of said cursor to traverse said displayed map... and to change the size of said first cursor | The websites are "zoom-enabled" and allow users to search via an "interactive map" (Compl. ¶¶4, 26), which suggests the system accepts user commands to manipulate the map view. | ¶¶4, 26 | col. 14:65-68 |
| (d) zooming said displayed map to coincide with the boundaries of said first cursor thereby displaying a higher level of detail | The websites use "zoom-enabled maps" (Compl. ¶4), and the associated LoopLink technology has tools to show "street, aerial and bird's-eye views" (Compl. ¶6), implying different levels of detail. | ¶¶4, 6 | col. 15:1-4 |
| (h) searching a database of properties by said host processor using said received data set | The accused websites enable users to "search sale and lease listings" (Compl. ¶6) by using a "map-based search capability" (Compl. ¶26). | ¶¶6, 26 | col. 15:14-16 |
| (j) transmitting by said host processor, information about said identified properties | The websites "display... the locations of millions of commercial real estate properties" (Compl. ¶4), which constitutes transmitting information about identified properties to the user. | ¶4 | col. 15:21-23 |
'989 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) creating a database of the available real estate properties | LoopNet operates a marketplace with a database of listings submitted by property owners and agents (Compl. ¶20), containing "millions of... property listings" (Compl. ¶4). | ¶¶4, 20 | col. 16:34-35 |
| b) displaying a map of a desired geographic area | The accused websites "display on zoom-enabled maps" property locations (Compl. ¶4). LoopLink 7.0 provides "interactive map" search results (Compl. ¶26). | ¶¶4, 26 | col. 16:36-37 |
| c) selecting a first area having boundaries within the geographic area | The complaint does not detail the specific steps of area selection but alleges use of "zoom-enabled maps" for searching, which implies a user selects an area of interest (Compl. ¶4). | ¶4 | col. 16:38-39 |
| d) zooming in on the first area... to display a higher level of detail | The use of "zoom-enabled maps" (Compl. ¶4) and mapping tools with "street, aerial and bird's-eye views" (Compl. ¶6) alleges this functionality. | ¶¶4, 6 | col. 16:40-43 |
| g) displaying the second area and a plurality of points within the second area, each point representing the appropriate geographic location of an available real estate property | The websites "display on zoom-enabled maps... the locations of millions of available commercial real estate property listings" (Compl. ¶4, ¶24). | ¶¶4, 24 | col. 16:47-52 |
| h) identifying available real estate properties within the database which are located within the second area | The purpose of the accused map-based search is to identify available properties within a given area for potential buyers and tenants (Compl. ¶¶2, 20). | ¶¶2, 20 | col. 16:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The '576 patent requires "selecting a landmark" as an initial step. A key question will be whether entering an address or city into a search bar, as is common in modern interfaces, meets the definition of selecting from a "list of available landmarks" as taught by the patent (col. 14:56-58).
- Technical Questions: Both patents claim specific, sequential processes for defining a search area (e.g., '576 patent's window box followed by a zoomed-in circle; '989 patent's first area selection followed by a zoomed-in second area selection). A central question is whether the accused websites' user interfaces, which may use a more fluid pan-and-zoom model, actually perform these distinct, ordered steps as claimed. The complaint's general allegation of using "zoom-enabled maps" does not provide evidence of this specific sequence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selecting a landmark as a reference point" ('576 Patent, Claim 1(a))
- Context and Importance: This is the first step of the method in claim 1 of the '576 patent. The infringement analysis for that claim depends entirely on whether the accused systems perform this step. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern map interfaces often allow users to begin navigation without selecting a formal "landmark," raising a potential mismatch with the claim language.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's theory section describes a "selected landmark location" without strictly limiting how it is selected ('576 Patent, col. 2:47-48). A plaintiff could argue this covers any user action that establishes a geographic point of reference, such as typing an address.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself refers to selecting a landmark "from a list of available landmarks" ('576 Patent, col. 14:57-58). The specification reinforces this, stating, "The user can change the landmark location from a menu of landmarks" ('576 Patent, col. 2:48-49). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a pre-defined menu or list, as depicted in Figure 3A.
The Term: "a plurality of points within the second area, each point representing the appropriate geographic location of an available real estate property" ('989 Patent, Claim 1(g))
- Context and Importance: This element captures the core improvement of the '989 patent—plotting results on the map. The construction of "point" and "appropriate geographic location" will be important for determining the scope of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent refers to properties appearing as "dots on the map" ('989 Patent, col. 1:52), suggesting any simple visual indicator (e.g., a pin, icon, or dot) could constitute a "point." The term "appropriate geographic location" could be broadly construed to mean any location sufficiently accurate for a user to identify the property's position on the map.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "appropriate" implies a certain level of precision that must be proven. The complaint itself describes displaying the "approximate location" of properties (Compl. ¶2), which could be contrasted with the claim's use of "appropriate" to suggest a potential difference in meaning and precision.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LoopNet induces infringement by providing its "LoopLink" technology to over 1,000 other real estate companies (Compl. ¶5, ¶30). The factual basis for inducement is that LoopNet provides tools that enable customers to use the patented methods and documentation that encourages this use, such as by highlighting the benefits of map-based search for "allow[ing] prospective buyers... to more quickly and easily understand a property's location" (Compl. ¶¶23, 26). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the LoopLink technology is a material part of the invention especially adapted for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants acted with "a knowing or reckless disregard of REAL's rights" (Compl. ¶32, ¶39). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as prior notice letters or citation of the patents in other contexts.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of procedural mismatch: do the accused websites' interactive mapping functions perform the specific, sequential steps recited in the patent claims, particularly the "landmark"-based, two-stage selection process of the '576 patent, or is there a fundamental difference in their technical operation that places them outside the scope of the claims?
- A key question for validity, should the issue be raised, will be the state of the art in computerized geographical information systems (GIS) and database searching before the 1986 priority date. The case may turn on whether prior art systems taught the claimed combination of interactively defining a search area on a computer map to query a database, even if not specifically for real estate listings.
- An evidentiary question will be one of divided infringement: for acts of infringement involving LoopNet's "LoopLink" customers, the case will require determining whether LoopNet directs or controls its customers' actions to a degree sufficient to attribute all steps of the claimed methods to LoopNet under prevailing legal standards.