Push Data LLC v. Smashburger IP Holder LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Push Data LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Smashburger IP Holder LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices Of Seth W. Wiener
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-06580, C.D. Cal., 09/14/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant’s commission of infringing acts within the district and its maintenance of multiple established places of business in the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Smashburger mobile application infringes patents related to location-based services and push notifications for mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using a mobile device's geographical location and user preferences to automatically deliver relevant digital content, a foundational concept in the modern mobile application market.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents, which expired in 2018, claim priority to an application filed in November 1998. The complaint alleges that the infringing features became common in the market by 2014. As the patents are expired, the dispute is retrospective, focusing exclusively on monetary damages for past infringement. The patents incorporate by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,574,239, which details concepts of "virtual sessions" central to some asserted claims.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Patent Identification: 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 invention, mobile devices lacked the ability to automatically receive and display locally relevant information. To find information specific to a local area, a user was required to manually select an icon or navigate a browser application. Furthermore, location data from cellular networks was too coarse to provide precise, individualized content. (’395 Patent, col. 2:62-64; col. 3:23-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "geographical web browser" that allows a user to navigate a network by physically moving. The system enables a mobile unit to maintain a network connection with a central server and uses information from an auxiliary channel, such as local broadcast packets or GPS data, to control the flow of information. This allows web pages or other content relevant to the user's immediate location to be automatically accessed and displayed, effectively enabling a user to "surf the web" by physically navigating through different geographical areas. (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-45).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided an early framework for location-based services by linking a user's physical position to the automatic delivery of relevant digital content, a concept that is now foundational to a wide range of modern mobile applications. (Compl. ¶11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 4 and 22. (Compl. ¶78, ¶82).
• Claim 4 (Method):
  • A mobile unit is configured to receive pushed information and read an application-program identifying field to identify a particular application.
  • The mobile unit presents a selectable indication to the user via a graphical user interface.
  • When the user makes a selection, further content related to the application is downloaded.
  • A server causes a communication push message to be sent to the mobile unit, which includes the identifying field and information about the further content.
  • The push message is not a direct server response to a client request.
  • A client-request packet is received from the mobile unit in response to the user's selection.
  • The server sends the further content in response to the client-request packet.
  • The push message acts as a notification to allow the user to selectively download the content.
• Claim 22 (Method):
  • A mobile unit is configured to receive pushed information and present a selectable indication to the user.
  • Upon user selection, further content is downloaded.
  • The method involves identifying an information item that comports with a user interest indication.
  • A server causes a communication push message to be sent containing information about the further content, which relates to the identified information item.
  • The push message is not a direct server response to a client request.
  • The server receives a client-request packet and sends the further content in response.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶80).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,844, “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS,” issued November 6, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As the '844 patent shares its specification with the '395 patent, it addresses the same technical problem: the lack of systems to automatically control a network application based on a mobile user's precise geographical location, which previously required manual user navigation. (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-64; Compl. p. 3, fn. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a mobile unit's location is used to trigger client-server communications that deliver geographically relevant content. The '844 patent claims focus on specific client-server interactions, including the use of an "application-program identifying field" to target specific applications and the use of a "virtual communication session" to manage the connection between the mobile device and a server. (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:23-24:12).
• Technical Importance: This technology helped define protocols for location-based push notifications directed to specific applications on a mobile device, a key feature of modern mobile operating systems and app ecosystems. (Compl. ¶45-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25, and dependent claims 32, 37, and 46. (Compl. ¶99, ¶103).
• Claim 1 (Method):
  • A mobile unit is configured to execute multiple applications and wirelessly receive an incoming communication.
  • The mobile unit reads an "application-program identifying field" within the communication to identify a target application.
  • The server causes the incoming communication to be sent, containing the identifying field and an address for further content.
  • The communication is coupled to the target application via a "virtual communication session" implemented below the application layer.
  • The virtual session is configured to transition between active and inactive states.
  • The mobile unit sends a client-request packet to download the further content from the provided address.
  • The incoming communication acts as a notification to allow the download.
• Claim 25 (Method):
  • A system comprises a handheld device with two transceivers for a cellular network and a smaller-coverage-area local network (e.g., WiFi).
  • The 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, automatically generated request from the device via the second network (local/WiFi) in response to the server's response.
  • The server couples the available content to the device via the second network.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶101).

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811 - “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,811, “GEOGRAPHICAL WEB BROWSER, METHODS, APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS,” issued May 1, 2007.

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the technical challenge of providing mobile users with timely, location-relevant information without requiring manual navigation. The patented solution is a system where a server sends a targeted communication (a push message) to a specific application on a mobile device, which can then present an option for the user to download further content, with the communication managed through a "virtual communication session." (Compl. ¶13-14, ¶30-31, ¶45).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 5 is asserted. (Compl. ¶120, ¶124).

Accused Features

The Smashburger App's system for sending push notifications about offers, which allegedly involves a server sending a targeted message that prompts a user to download or access further information, thereby constituting a push-assisted, client-server interaction. (Compl. ¶116, ¶118).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Smashburger App, a mobile device application available on platforms such as Google Play. (Compl. ¶74).

Functionality and Market Context

The Smashburger App is a client-side application that communicates with Defendant's remote servers to provide users with services, including location-based offers and rewards. (Compl. ¶74, ¶76). The complaint alleges that the app operates in an environment with cellular (3G/4G/5G) and WiFi network access. (Compl. ¶77). The core accused functionality involves a multi-step client-server interaction initiated by a push notification. The complaint alleges the server receives a first request, responds with content availability, receives a second, automatically generated request from the app, and then couples the content to the app. (Compl. ¶76, ¶97). A screenshot in the complaint's exhibits shows a push notification from the Smashburger App offering a reward that will expire, prompting the user to take action. (Compl., Ex. E, p. 125).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,058,395 Patent Infringement Allegations

7,292,844 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "geographical web browser," which forms the context of the patents' disclosure, can be construed to read on a modern, standalone mobile application like the Smashburger App. The patents describe a system where physical movement directly controls browser navigation, which raises the question of whether an app receiving location-based push notifications within a broader mobile operating system performs the same function.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a "second request is automatically generated" by the mobile device in response to a server notification (Compl. ¶97, ¶118). A point of contention may be the technical mechanism of this "automatic" generation. The analysis will likely focus on whether this action is a specific, inventive step performed by the Smashburger App itself, as claimed, or a standard function of the underlying mobile operating system's handling of push notifications, which may not be attributable to the Defendant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "communication push message" (’395 Patent, Claim 4)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical, as the entire infringement theory rests on the accused push notifications meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether this term, conceived in 1998, is limited to the "geographical web browser" context or is broad enough to cover modern push notifications sent to third-party apps via an operating system service (e.g., Google's FCM).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes transmitting information "via a push message... without the need to maintain an active user-interactive client-server application layer at all times" (’395 Patent, col. 23:35-37), which could support a broad reading covering any unsolicited, server-initiated message.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and background consistently frame the invention as a "geographical web browser." An argument could be made that a "push message" must be one that directly controls the navigation or display of a browser-like application, not simply a notification delivered to a separate app. (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-64).

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

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation relies on equating a modern TLS (Transport Layer Security) session with the claimed "virtual communication session." The definition of this term will determine if standard, secure communication protocols fall within the patent's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint notes the patents incorporate by reference U.S. Patent 6,574,239, which describes a virtual session as one that maintains an "application layer... communication session in the absence of a physical communication path." ('239 Patent, col. 2:13-16; Compl. ¶27). This general, functional language may support reading the term on modern protocols like TLS that establish, pause, and resume connections while maintaining application state.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments and flow charts in the incorporated '239 patent disclose a particular sequence of establishing, suspending, and reactivating sessions. A narrower construction might limit the term to that specific disclosed protocol, raising the question of whether a standard TLS session operates in the same way. The complaint's own need to analogize the term to TLS suggests they are not identical. (Compl. ¶32).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can claims originating from a 1998 patent application, written for a "geographical web browser," be construed to cover modern smartphone applications that receive push notifications through an operating system's infrastructure? The court will need to determine whether the fundamental architecture of today's mobile ecosystem is equivalent to the patented system.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the client-server communication sequence in the accused Smashburger App, particularly the alleged "automatic" request generation following a notification, perform the same specific steps, in the same way, as the methods claimed in the patents? The analysis will likely distinguish between actions performed by the app itself versus functions handled by the underlying mobile operating system.
• A central question for damages will be one of apportionment: given that the patents expired in 2018 and the accused features are now common, the court will have to determine the incremental value, if any, that the patented technology contributed to the accused Smashburger App, particularly in a mature market with numerous potential non-infringing alternatives and design-arounds.