DCT
2:22-cv-08958
Jobvite Inc v. Locket IP LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jobvite, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Locket IP LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchalter; Winstead PC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08958, C.D. Cal., 12/09/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Jobvite alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Locket IP is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district as a result of patent enforcement activities, including sending infringement letters to California-based companies. The complaint also notes that the majority of the patents' inventors are located within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its talent acquisition software does not infringe Defendant's patents and/or that the patents are invalid. The action follows a patent infringement suit filed by Defendant against one of Plaintiff's customers.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to user interface technology for automatically rearranging graphical "cards" or "windows" on a display to highlight regions of interest based on user preferences.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was prompted by a lawsuit Locket IP filed against Jobvite's customer, Office Depot, LLC, in the Western District of Texas on May 31, 2022, alleging infringement of the same patents. The complaint characterizes Locket IP as a patent assertion entity affiliated with IP Edge.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-12-22 | '112 & '832 Patents Priority Date |
| 2018-06-05 | U.S. Patent 9,990,112 Issues |
| 2019-12-24 | U.S. Patent 10,514,832 Issues |
| 2022-05-31 | Locket IP files suit against Office Depot, LLC (W.D. Tex.) |
| 2022-12-09 | Jobvite files Declaratory Judgment Complaint (C.D. Cal.) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112, "Method and Apparatus for Locating Regions of Interest in a User Interface," Issued June 5, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the task of navigating multiple open windows or "cards" on a media device as "cumbersome," particularly when a user must scroll through each one individually to find specific topics of interest on a limited display area (Compl. ¶35; ’112 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method to automatically find and display these "regions of interest." In response to a user command activating an "interest feature," the system analyzes user preferences and rearranges the cards—for example, by moving them or deleting non-relevant cards—so that the specific area of interest on each relevant card becomes visible to the user without requiring individual manipulation of each card (Compl. ¶35; ’112 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve user experience on devices with limited screen real estate by reducing the manual input required to locate desired information across multiple applications or content streams (Compl. ¶35; ’112 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative ('112 Patent, col. 11:55-12:5; Compl. ¶37).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- Generating a plurality of cards for display.
- In response to a user command, determining regions of interest within the cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences.
- Updating the display by repositioning the cards to remove those not in a "first group" (i.e., those without a region of interest) and to visibly display the region of interest within all cards that are in the first group.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but challenges all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 50).
U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832, "Method for Locating Regions of Interest in a User Interface," Issued December 24, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '832 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '112 Patent, addresses the identical problem of users having to manually and cumbersomely scroll through multiple windows or cards to find information (Compl. ¶¶34, 35; ’832 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is functionally identical to that of the '112 Patent: a method that, upon user command, automatically rearranges on-screen cards to display pre-determined regions of interest based on user preferences, thereby minimizing manual navigation (Compl. ¶35; ’832 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
- Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this technology seeks to streamline information discovery on user interfaces by automating the process of surfacing relevant content from multiple sources (Compl. ¶35; ’832 Patent, col. 1:21-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as representative ('832 Patent, col. 11:55-67; Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- Determining, in response to a user command, regions of interest within a plurality of cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences.
- Updating the display by repositioning the cards to remove those not in a "first group" and to visibly display the region of interest within all cards included in the first group.
- This claim is substantially similar to claim 1 of the '112 Patent but omits the initial step of "generating a plurality of cards for display."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff's "Apply" Product (the "Apply Product") (Compl. ¶25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Apply Product as a "talent acquisition solution" that enables companies to "attract, engage, hire, and retain talent" (Compl. ¶25). The dispute arose from the use of this product by Jobvite's customer, Office Depot, LLC, in connection with its careers website,
https://jobs.officedepot.com(Compl. ¶¶24, 26). The complaint alleges that Locket IP's infringement allegations against Office Depot are, in effect, allegations that the Apply Product infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Because this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following tables summarize Jobvite's allegations that its Apply Product does not practice the claimed elements.
'112 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating a plurality of cards for display; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 11:56 |
| in response to a user command, determining regions of interest within each of the plurality of cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 11:57-60 |
| and updating for display the plurality of cards to visibly show in a display area of a display device the at least one region of interest of multiple cards included in a first group of the plurality of cards... | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 11:61-12:1 |
| wherein said updating includes repositioning the plurality of cards to remove cards not included in the first group from the display area and to visibly display the at least one region of interest within all of the multiple cards included in the first group within the display area of the display device. | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step, which further defines the "updating" limitation (Compl. ¶43). | ¶43 | col. 12:1-5 |
'832 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining, in response to a user command, regions of interest within each of a plurality of cards by searching information indicating previous user preferences; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step (Compl. ¶60). | ¶60 | col. 11:56-59 |
| and updating for display the plurality of cards to visibly show in a display area of a display device the at least one region of interest of multiple cards included in a first group of the plurality of cards... | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step (Compl. ¶60). | ¶60 | col. 11:60-64 |
| wherein said updating includes repositioning the plurality of cards to remove cards not included in the first group from the display area and to visibly display the at least one region of interest within all of the multiple cards included in the first group within the display area of the display device. | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality does not perform this step, which further defines the "updating" limitation (Compl. ¶60). | ¶60 | col. 11:64-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute may center on whether the user interface elements of a "talent acquisition solution" fall within the scope of the term "cards" as used in the patents, which describe the concept in the context of media guides and libraries ('112 Patent, FIGS. 5-6). A related question is whether the functionality of a job application platform involves determining "regions of interest" based on "previous user preferences" in the manner contemplated by the patents.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Apply Product performs the specific function of "repositioning the plurality of cards to remove cards not included in the first group". The patents describe a distinct filtering and rearrangement action ('112 Patent, FIGS. 15-16), and the case may turn on evidence of whether the accused product operates in this specific manner.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cards"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental. The infringement analysis depends on whether the user interface components of the accused "Apply Product" can be properly characterized as "cards." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether the patents, which are grounded in a media-browsing context, can read on the accused talent acquisition software.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the technology in the general context of "displaying multiple windows/cards" and a user having "multiple windows of content open at one time," suggesting the term could be interpreted broadly to mean any discrete graphical window ('112 Patent, col. 1:26-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments and figures exclusively depict "cards" as elements in an electronic program guide or media library, containing items like television shows and movies ('112 Patent, FIGS. 5, 6, 11). This may support a narrower construction limited to a media content context.
The Term: "regions of interest"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the core function of the claimed invention. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused product identifies and displays information in a way that meets the definition of "regions of interest" determined "by searching information indicating previous user preferences."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the term functionally as being determined from "user preference information" without further limitation, which could be argued to cover any user-specific data ('832 Patent, cl. 2). Step 1715 of the flowchart in FIG. 17 refers broadly to "referencing a user profile or other types of user preference information" ('832 Patent, col. 10:11-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of user preferences, such as interests in "actors, television shows, directors, sports teams, music, and the like" ('832 Patent, col. 9:23-26). This could support an interpretation where "user preferences" require explicitly or implicitly defined user interests in specific types of content attributes, rather than general usage history.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Jobvite seeks a declaration of non-infringement for indirect infringement (inducement and contributory infringement). The complaint's argument is that because its customers do not directly infringe any patent claims when using the Apply Product, Jobvite cannot be liable for indirectly infringing those same claims (Compl. ¶¶ 44-46, 61-63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cards," which is described in the patents' preferred embodiments as an element of a media browsing interface, be construed broadly enough to read on the graphical user interface components of a corporate talent acquisition and job application platform?
- A second core issue will be patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Jobvite alleges that the claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of "selecting, sorting, and displaying program information by user interest or subject matter" without adding an inventive concept (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 68). The case will likely require the court to determine if the claimed "repositioning" of cards is a specific, unconventional technological improvement or merely the application of an abstract idea on a generic computer.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Apply Product in fact perform the specific claimed function of automatically "repositioning" a plurality of UI elements to "remove" non-relevant elements from a display area and surface "regions of interest" based on "previous user preferences", or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the accused software operates compared to the method claimed in the patents?