Push Data LLC v. Johnny Rockets Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Johnny Rockets Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Seth W. Wiener
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06572, C.D. Cal., 09/14/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant maintaining multiple established places of business within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Johnny Rocket App mobile application infringes four patents related to location-based services, push notifications, and the management of wireless data sessions.
• Technical Context: The patents concern foundational methods for delivering geographically relevant information to mobile devices, including the use of multiple wireless networks and client-server synchronization techniques.
• Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit are all expired, with an alleged expiration date of November 17, 2018. Consequently, the dispute is centered on damages for past infringement. The patents stem from a common patent application filed in 1998 and share the same specification.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,395 - “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS”

• Issued: June 6, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, no technology existed to provide local broadcast information that could automatically control a network application, such as a web browser, by selectively filtering that information. Existing methods required a user to manually select an icon or navigate to access information specific to a local area (’395 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention enables a mobile device to maintain a primary network connection (e.g., cellular) with a central server while using information received on a secondary, "auxiliary channel" (e.g., a local broadcast from a Wi-Fi-like access point) to control the flow of information on the primary connection (’395 Patent, col. 4:25-30). As illustrated in Figure 1, a mobile unit (105) can receive local broadcasts (from 150) that trigger the downloading of relevant web pages or data over a separate network connection (112) managed by a virtual session server (120) (’395 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for mobile devices to receive geographically relevant, "pushed" information without requiring constant user interaction or maintaining a continuous, active client-server session, thereby improving efficiency (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 22.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method) include:
  • Receiving a user interest indication.
  • Receiving a location indication for a mobile unit.
  • Identifying an information item that comports with the user's interest and location.
  • Causing information related to the item to be wirelessly transmitted via one or more "unsolicited pushed messages" without needing to continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session.
• Essential elements of independent claim 22 (a method) include:
  • A mobile unit configured to wirelessly receive pushed information and present a selectable indication to the user.
  • Causing a communication push message to be transmitted to the mobile unit, which contains an application-program identifying field and information related to further content.
  • Receiving a client-request packet from the mobile unit in response to user selection.
  • Sending the further content to the mobile unit.
  • The communication push message acts as a notification to allow the user to selectively download content only if interested.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 4 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶ 78, 80).

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844 - “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS”

• Issued: November 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’844 Patent shares its specification with the ’395 Patent and addresses the same technical problems related to providing automated, location-based information to mobile devices (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-64).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on methods for managing communications where a mobile unit is configured with multiple applications and communicates with a server over a "virtual communication session." This session can be transitioned between active and inactive states, allowing for efficient, push-based data synchronization without maintaining a constant physical connection (’844 Patent, col. 23:25-47). The concept of a virtual session allows an application to maintain a communication session "in the absence of a physical communication path" (’844 Patent, col. 2:10-13).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a specific client-server protocol for background data synchronization, enabling applications to refresh content automatically in response to server-side notifications, a process that improves computer functionality for mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 25, 32, 37, and 46.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method) include:
  • A mobile unit configured to execute multiple applications and receive an incoming communication.
  • The communication includes an application-program identifying field and an address for further content.
  • The communication is coupled to the application via a "virtual communication session" implemented below the application layer.
  • The virtual session is configured to be transitioned between active and inactive states.
  • Receiving a client-request packet to download the content.
  • Sending the further content in response.
• Essential elements of independent claim 25 (a method) include:
  • A system with a handheld device having two transceivers for a cellular network and a low-power local area network (e.g., Wi-Fi).
  • A remote server receives a first request from the device via the first network (cellular).
  • The server transmits a response indicating content availability.
  • The server receives a second request, automatically generated by the device, via the second network (local/Wi-Fi).
  • The server couples the available content to the device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 101).

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, titled “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS,” issued May 1, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: Sharing a common specification with the other patents-in-suit, the ’811 Patent describes a system for providing location-based information to a mobile unit. It claims methods where unsolicited data packets are managed via a virtual communication session that can be suspended and resumed, improving the efficiency of client-server interactions for mobile devices (’811 Patent, col. 2:10-13, 4:25-30).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶ 120).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the client-server methods of the Johnny Rocket App, which allegedly perform a multi-step data request and delivery process in an environment with at least two wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶ 118-119).

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,139, titled “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS,” issued January 3, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’139 Patent, sharing the same specification, claims methods for delivering targeted information based on a user's location and interests. The invention distinguishes between systems using local broadcast domains (like Wi-Fi hotspots) and cellular networks to trigger and deliver push messages, which serve as notifications for available content (’139 Patent, col. 23:11-37).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 22, 43, and 90 (Compl. ¶ 141).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the methods performed by the Johnny Rocket App and its backend servers, which allegedly use cellular and Wi-Fi networks to send and receive requests and deliver content based on user location and interest profiles (Compl. ¶¶ 139-140).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Johnny Rocket App," a mobile device application provided by Defendant, along with the associated backend systems and methods (Compl. ¶ 74).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Johnny Rocket App is a mobile application that allows users to interact with the Johnny Rockets brand, presumably for services like ordering, finding locations, and receiving promotions (Compl. ¶¶ 74-75).
• The complaint alleges that the app and its supporting servers perform a multi-step client-server communication method. This allegedly involves a remote server receiving a first request from a mobile device, responding with content availability, receiving a second automatically generated request from the device, and then coupling the available content to the device (Compl. ¶ 76).
• The complaint includes a screenshot from the Johnny Rockets privacy policy, which states that the company may collect geographic location and use it to provide personalized messaging or content via push notification (Compl. Ex. E, p. 128). This screenshot suggests the app utilizes the type of location-based push services central to the patents-in-suit (Compl. Ex. E, p. 128).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’395 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "unsolicited pushed messages." The defense may argue that modern push notifications, delivered via persistent operating-system-level connections (like those used by Google's Firebase Cloud Messaging), do not meet the patent's definition of "unsolicited" or the requirement of not maintaining an "active user-interactive client-server application layer session."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system identifies an "information item" based on the combination of both user interest and location, as required by the claim, rather than just one or the other?

---

’844 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Does a modern TLS session, which can be established and resumed, meet the definition of a "virtual communication session" as contemplated by the patent? The patent describes this concept in the context of 1998-era technology, and its mapping to modern, persistent, encrypted connections may be a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence shows that the "incoming communication" (the push notification) itself "contains an address"? The defense may argue that the address is derived by the application after receiving the notification, rather than being contained within it as required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "unsolicited pushed messages" (’395 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it distinguishes the claimed invention from a standard client-server interaction where a server's transmission is a direct response to a client's request. The infringement theory depends on casting modern push notifications as "unsolicited." Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of modern operating system push services, which often maintain persistent background connections, could be argued to fall outside the patent's concept of an unsolicited message sent without an active session.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with systems that require a user to "select an icon or manually navigate" to get information, suggesting any server-initiated message not directly prompted by such user action could be "unsolicited" (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the message to be sent "without the need to continuously maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer session." Language in the specification about establishing a physical connection only "when data needs to be communicated" could support a narrower definition that excludes systems with persistent background connections (’395 Patent, col. 2:13-17).

The Term: "virtual communication session" (’844 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The patent's infringement theory maps this term onto modern TLS sessions. The viability of this mapping will be a central issue, as the term was defined in the context of technology from the late 1990s. The entire theory of infringement for the '844 patent rests on whether a modern TLS session is equivalent to the claimed "virtual communication session."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a virtual session as one where "an application layer program maintains a communication session in the absence of a physical communication path" (’844 Patent, col. 2:10-13). This could be argued to broadly cover any session where security and state parameters are preserved while the underlying physical connection is intermittent or managed independently, as in a resumable TLS session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses the virtual session in the context of specific technologies like CDPD and dial-up connections, where connections are explicitly established and terminated to save costs (’844 Patent, col. 4:51-54). This could support an argument that the term requires a complete termination of the physical layer, which may not occur in modern "always-on" mobile devices.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support separate counts of inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 95).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees, but does not explicitly seek enhanced damages for willfulness under § 284 (Compl. p. 25, Prayer ¶C).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of temporal claim construction: can claim terms like "unsolicited pushed messages" and "virtual communication session," which were defined in the context of late-1990s mobile technology (e.g., CDPD, dial-up), be construed to read on the architecture of modern push notification and security protocols, such as those built around persistent TLS sessions?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: what evidence will show that the Accused Instrumentality performs the precise, multi-step data synchronization methods as claimed? For example, does the initial server response merely indicate content availability, followed by a separate, automatically generated client request, or does the system operate in a technically distinct manner that falls outside the claim scope?