2:18-cv-08541
Corrino Holdings LLC v. Facebook Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Corrino Holdings LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm; Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-08541, C.D. Cal., 10/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Facebook maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts continuous business there, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook website and mobile application infringe nine U.S. patents related to location-based information delivery, targeted advertising, context-aware search, and social network analytics.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for providing users with information that is relevant to their specific geographic location, personal context, or social environment, which are core functionalities of modern mobile and social networking platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant validity challenges. It does establish extensive and overlapping prosecution histories for two distinct families of patents, with several patents-in-suit claiming priority back to common parent applications filed in 1999 and 2007, respectively.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-10-22 | Earliest Priority Date for ’398, ’331, ’599, ’450, ’685 Patents |
| 2002-03-05 | U.S. Patent No. 6,353,398 Issues |
| 2006-04-11 | Priority Date for ’149 Patent |
| 2007-03-08 | Earliest Priority Date for ’104, ’533, ’164 Patents |
| 2009-04-28 | U.S. Patent No. 7,525,450 Issues |
| 2010-05-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,716,149 Issues |
| 2010-11-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,843,331 Issues |
| 2010-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,847,685 Issues |
| 2011-06-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,958,104 Issues |
| 2011-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,982,599 Issues |
| 2016-02-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,262,533 Issues |
| 2017-09-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,767,164 Issues |
| 2018-10-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,353,398 - “System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that while conventional Global Positioning Systems (GPS) provide location and directional information, "more specific and detailed information related to the location is often needed" (’398 Patent, col. 1:21-24; Compl. ¶19). It posits that a "more powerful system is therefore necessary to provide mobile users with specific information relating to the point in time the user is at a specific location" (’398 Patent, col. 1:34-37; Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that links geographically relevant information from databases, such as the internet, to a user's location determined by GPS and automatically transmits that information to the user (’398 Patent, col. 2:53-67). This is achieved using "push technology" that is triggered when a user's movement is detected within a predetermined proximity of a specific region (’398 Patent, col. 3:48-56; Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Importance: The technology proposed a shift from passive location-finding tools to active, context-sensitive information delivery systems, forming an early basis for modern location-based services (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶102).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A system for directing region-specific information;
- comprising a system for locating and transmitting information to location-specific users;
- and a directed information system for linking information related to the location-specific users, the directed information system having access to a regionally defined data base for directing region-specific information to location-specific users, and employing push technology to push information to the location-specific users.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,843,331 - “System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint incorporates the problem description from the ’398 Patent, addressing the deficiency of conventional GPS systems in providing timely, location-specific, detailed information (’331 Patent, col. 1:38-41; Compl. ¶30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where an index of information sources is maintained, with each source being associated with a geographic region (’331 Patent, Abstract). The system then initiates the transmission of data to a user's device specifically when the device's geographic position "changes from a first position that is greater than a predefined distance... to a second position that is within a predefined distance" from that region (’331 Patent, col. 10:14-22; Compl. ¶32). An example describes information being pushed to a user "as the user drives by the restaurant" (’331 Patent, col. 4:11-13).
- Technical Importance: This technology describes a specific trigger for location-based information delivery: the act of crossing a virtual boundary, a concept now widely known as geofencing (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶117).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A method comprising:
- maintaining an index of information sources, wherein each information source is associated with at least one geographic region; and
- initiating the transmission of data from at least one of the information sources to a communications device if the communications device’s indicated geographic position changes from a first position that is greater than a predefined distance from a geographic region associated with the at least one information source to a second position that is within a predefined distance from a geographic region associated with the at least one information source.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,982,599 - “System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system”
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes an apparatus that builds on the geofencing concept by adding a time-based constraint. It initiates the transmission of digital content to a device only when the device moves into a predefined geographic area during a predefined timeframe associated with that content (Compl. ¶39).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶132).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Facebook’s Location Targeting service, which allows advertisers to define both a geographic target and a specific timeframe (e.g., particular days and times) for ad delivery (Compl. ¶¶132(c), 51).
U.S. Patent No. 7,525,450 - “System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system”
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a system that combines location-based targeting with demographic targeting. The system maintains an index of information sources associated with both location codes and demographic codes, and an index of user devices also associated with demographic codes, initiating transmission when both location and demographic criteria are met (Compl. ¶¶46, 147(b), 147(c)).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶147).
Accused Features
The complaint targets Facebook’s "Core Audiences" advertising features, which allow advertisers to target users based on a combination of their location and detailed demographic information (Compl. ¶¶147(b), 56).
U.S. Patent No. 7,847,685 - “System for dynamically pushing information to a user utilizing global positioning system”
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses problems with conventional search engines returning too many irrelevant results by claiming a location-based search system (Compl. ¶52). The system receives a query from a user's device that includes four specific components: a device identifier, a geographic position, a search distance, and a search term, and returns results within that specified distance (Compl. ¶¶58, 162(b)).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶162).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Facebook's search functionality, particularly when used on the mobile app to find local places of interest (e.g., "pizza") within a defined map area (Compl. ¶168).
U.S. Patent No. 7,716,149 - “Method, device, and program product for a social dashboard associated with a persistent virtual environment”
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the need for tools to monitor the "social health" of online communities (Compl. ¶¶65-66). It claims a method for displaying a "visualization" that represents a social aspect (e.g., interactivity level) of a virtual environment, which is responsive to a metric. Upon receiving a selection command, the system displays a second, "drill-down" visualization associated with that metric (Compl. ¶68).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶177).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Facebook's "Page Insights" analytics dashboard, which provides page administrators with visualizations of metrics like "Page Likes" and "Post Reach" and allows them to click for more detailed, drill-down information (Compl. ¶¶177(b), 177(d)).
U.S. Patent No. 7,958,104 - “Context based data searching”
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses deficiencies in conventional search by disclosing a method of using a user's "context chain" to process search requests (Compl. ¶¶76-77, 79). The context chain includes multiple contexts (e.g., locations, user history) that can be public or private. The system obtains a search result from at least one context within that chain to provide a more relevant result (Compl. ¶83).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶192).
Accused Features
The complaint targets Facebook's search system, alleging it uses a user's "Location History" as a context chain to process searches and provide personalized results (Compl. ¶192(c)).
U.S. Patent No. 9,262,533 - “Context based data searching”
Technology Synopsis
This patent builds on the '104 patent's context-chain search method, adding the specific limitation that the system examines contexts in the chain in a "last-in-first-out" (LIFO) order. This means more recently added contexts (e.g., more recent locations) are examined before older ones (Compl. ¶92).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶207).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Facebook’s search feature of processing a user's context chain (such as Location History) in a LIFO manner, thereby prioritizing results from more recent contexts (Compl. ¶207(d)).
U.S. Patent No. 9,767,164 - “Context based data searching”
Technology Synopsis
This patent describes a method where "first context information" (e.g., user profile data like friends and liked pages) is used to select and process "second context information" (e.g., a universe of available content) to determine responsive actions. A key step is applying a "ranking rule"—such as a most-preferred, most-personal, or most-popular rule—to the responsive actions (Compl. ¶99).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶222).
Accused Features
The complaint targets Facebook's search result ranking algorithm, which allegedly uses a user's personal context (friends, groups) to filter content and then applies ranking rules based on factors like popularity to order the results (Compl. ¶¶222(h), 222(j)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Facebook mobile application and the www.facebook.com website (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶101).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint targets several functionalities within the Accused Products that are central to Facebook's social networking and advertising platform.
- Location Targeting and "Core Audiences": This service allows advertisers to deliver advertisements to Facebook users based on their location, demographics, interests, and behaviors (Compl. ¶¶102, 117(b), 147(b)). The complaint alleges that advertisers can define specific geographic areas, such as a custom radius around a business, and that ads are initiated when a user's device enters that area (Compl. ¶117(c)). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for defining an audience in San Francisco and Berkeley with 50-mile and 25-mile radii, respectively (Compl. p. 32).
- Location-Based Search: The Accused Products allegedly include a search function that allows users to find local points of interest. A screenshot shows a search for "pizza" within a map view on a mobile device, which the complaint alleges includes the user's geographic position, a search term, and a defined search distance (Compl. p. 69).
- "Page Insights" Analytics: This feature is described as a dashboard providing page administrators with visualizations of social metrics like "Page Likes," "Post Reach," and "Engagement" (Compl. ¶177(b)). The complaint includes a screenshot of the "Page Insights" overview, which displays graphs of these key metrics (Compl. p. 80). The feature allegedly allows users to click on these high-level visualizations to receive more detailed, "drill-down" information (Compl. ¶177(d)).
- Contextual Search and Ranking: The complaint alleges that Facebook's general search functionality processes queries by using a user's "context chain," such as their "Location History," to generate and rank results (Compl. ¶¶192(c), 207(c)). A screenshot of a user's Location History view is presented as an example of this "context chain" (Compl. p. 90).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,353,398 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for directing region-specific information; comprising— | Facebook’s Location Targeting service, which provides a platform for advertisers to target users with region-specific advertisements (Compl. ¶102(a)). | ¶102(a) | col. 1:4-13 |
| a system for locating and transmitting information to location-specific users; and— | Facebook servers are configured to monitor the geographic position of users' wireless devices (locating) and transmit advertisements to those devices (transmitting) based on that location data (Compl. ¶102(b)). | ¶102(b) | col. 2:62-67 |
| a directed information system for linking information related to the location specific users, the directed information system having access to a regionally defined data base... and employing push technology | Facebook servers link advertiser information (stored in a database) to geographic regions defined by the advertiser and employ push technology to deliver advertisements to users' devices located in those regions (Compl. ¶102(c)). | ¶102(c) | col. 2:46-52 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,843,331 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method comprising: maintaining an index of information sources, wherein each information source is associated with at least one geographic region; and— | Facebook servers maintain an index of advertisers (information sources) and their associations with one or more advertiser-defined geographic regions for ad targeting (Compl. ¶117(b)). | ¶117(b) | col. 5:1-7 |
| initiating the transmission of data... if the communications device’s indicated geographic position changes from a first position that is greater than a predefined distance from a geographic region... to a second position that is within a predefined distance from a geographic region associated with the at least one information source. | Facebook's servers monitor a user's geographic position and initiate the transmission of an advertiser's advertisement when the user's device moves from outside a predefined radius (first position) to inside that predefined radius (second position) associated with the advertiser (Compl. ¶117(c)). | ¶117(c) | col. 4:48-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue for the ’398 Patent is the scope of "push technology," a term from the late 1990s. The infringement analysis may question whether Facebook's complex, algorithm-driven ad delivery system, which involves auctions and relevance scoring, constitutes the "push technology" described in the patent. For the ’331 Patent, a key question may be whether the term "changes from a first position... to a second position" requires the system to detect the specific event of a boundary crossing, as opposed to periodically determining that a user is simply located within a predefined zone.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on public-facing marketing materials and help center articles to describe the functionality of the Accused Products. A central technical question is what evidence exists that the underlying architecture of Facebook's systems actually operates in the manner required by the claims. For example, for the ’331 Patent, what evidence does the complaint provide that Facebook’s system initiates transmission because a position changes from outside to inside a geofence, rather than for other reasons such as a periodic location check that finds a user is now inside the geofence?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "push technology" (’398 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory for the ’398 Patent. Its definition will determine whether Facebook's modern ad-serving architecture falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning in the context of 1999 technology could be narrower than the server-initiated content delivery common today.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the technology is "based in part on movement detection" and that the system "pushes information to the user in connection to the movement" (’398 Patent, col. 3:51-56). This suggests a functional definition tied to user movement rather than a specific technical protocol.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment describes an "audio message may alert the driver to a sale for motor oil" as an example of pushed information (’398 Patent, col. 3:25-28). This could support an argument that "push technology" was intended to mean direct, real-time user alerts rather than the asynchronous, auction-based delivery of advertisements.
The Term: "if the communications device’s indicated geographic position changes from a first position... to a second position" (’331 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase recites the specific trigger for the claimed method. The infringement case for the ’331 Patent depends on whether Facebook's system is configured to act based on this precise condition—a detected state change from outside to inside a boundary.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system pushing information "as the user drives by the restaurant" (’331 Patent, col. 4:11-13, incorporated from parent). This language implies a dynamic, event-driven action tied to movement relative to a location, which could support a broader reading covering various methods of geofence triggering.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's "if... then" logical structure and its use of the word "changes" may support a narrower construction requiring the system to affirmatively detect the boundary-crossing event itself, rather than merely ascertaining a user's state of being "within a predefined distance" at a given moment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis is that Facebook provides the Accused Products and gives instructions and tools (e.g., its ad manager interface, search bar, and help pages) that allegedly encourage and enable its users to perform the claimed infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶106-107, 118, 121).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint asserts that Facebook knew or should have known of the patents, or was willfully blind, and that it has had actual knowledge since at least the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶104, 110, 119).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological scope: can terms from patents filed in 1999 ("push technology") and 2004 ("initiating... if... position changes") be construed to cover the sophisticated, multi-layered, and algorithmically-driven advertising and search systems of a modern social media platform like Facebook? This raises a fundamental question of whether the accused technology is merely a new embodiment of the old invention or a different technology altogether.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: the complaint relies heavily on user-facing documentation, help articles, and interface screenshots to allege infringement. The case may turn on whether discovery into Facebook's source code and internal technical specifications confirms that its systems actually operate according to the specific steps and conditions recited in the claims (e.g., detecting a boundary crossing event for the '331 patent; using a LIFO context chain for the '533 patent), or reveals a different, non-infringing method of operation.
- A central case management question will be one of patent redundancy and distinction: with nine patents from two families asserted against a small set of overlapping product features, the parties and the court will likely focus on forcing the Plaintiff to distinguish the asserted claims and identify the precise, non-redundant contribution of each. The outcome may depend on whether each patent can be shown to cover a distinct, identifiable aspect of the accused systems.