Modern Font Applications LLC v. Habit Restaurants LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Modern Font Applications LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: The Habit Restaurants, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP; Kunzler Bean & Adamson
• Case Identification: Modern Font Applications LLC v. The Habit Restaurants, LLC, 8:19-cv-01660, C.D. Cal., 08/29/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged principal executive offices and multiple restaurant locations within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for iOS and Android infringe a patent related to methods for delivering and rendering non-standard fonts on a client device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of ensuring that text in electronic documents and applications displays with the intended custom fonts, regardless of the fonts pre-installed on the end-user's device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit claims priority to an application filed in 2001, predating the widespread adoption of modern mobile operating systems. The complaint also alleges that licensed articles under the patent have been marked since at least June 2018, potentially establishing a date for notice for damages purposes. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,886,421 - "Allowing Operating System Access to Non-Standard Fonts in a Network Document"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,886,421, "Allowing Operating System Access to Non-Standard Fonts in a Network Document," issued February 6, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of electronic documents using "non-standard fonts" (i.e., fonts not installed on a reader's computer) failing to display as the author intended (’421 Patent, col. 1:55-65). Prior art solutions, such as representing text as images, are described as suboptimal due to large file sizes, poor scalability, and the inability to style or edit the text (’421 Patent, col. 2:4-20). Another prior art approach using a proprietary "character shape player" is described as inefficient and restrictive, as it prevents fonts from being used by other applications and can slow down rendering (’421 Patent, col. 2:21-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a network document (or application) is bundled with or references a "font package" containing the necessary data for the non-standard fonts. An "exposure module," also delivered with the document, automatically installs or temporarily exposes this font information to the client computer's operating system (’421 Patent, col. 3:9-29). This allows the operating system to render the non-standard fonts correctly, as if they were originally installed, enabling functions like copying, pasting, and printing across different applications (’421 Patent, col. 3:30-40).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a seamless way to maintain design fidelity in electronic documents across different computer systems without the drawbacks of image-based text or closed, proprietary rendering systems (’421 Patent, col. 14:42-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶41).
• Independent Claim 1 (non-transitory computer-readable medium):
  • An "electronic file package" including display characters and computer executable instructions.
  • A "font package" with one or more external font files, where the font package is "separate from" the computer executable instructions.
  • An "exposure module" for installation of the external font files in a "temporary fonts directory" on a hand-held device.
  • Wherein, in response to the font files being installed, a "system font table" of the hand-held device is updated to reflect the availability of the external font files.
• Independent Claim 11 (hand-held device):
  • A device with a processor and memory configured to download an "electronic file" that references a "font package".
  • The device installs an "exposure module" for automatically installing or exposing the font package.
  • The exposure module causes the font package to be installed in a "temporary fonts directory".
  • The device causes a "system font table" to be updated to reflect the font's availability.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, including claim 6 (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "The Habit Burger Grill application for iOS devices" (version 1.7 and later) and "The Habit Burger Grill application for Android devices" (version 1.7 and later) (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶41).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are mobile applications for handheld devices, distributed through the Apple iTunes and Google Play application stores (Compl. ¶41, ¶47). The complaint alleges that these applications are provided as package files (".ipa" for iOS, ".apk" for Android) that contain both executable instructions and separate, external font files (".ttf", ".otf") (Compl. ¶43, ¶44, ¶45). When the application is installed, the operating system is allegedly made aware of these bundled fonts, allowing the application to render text using the custom fonts (Compl. ¶48, ¶49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'421 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the components of a modern mobile application package map cleanly onto the terminology of the patent, which was drafted with reference to web browsers and documents in 2001. For instance, does the entire ".ipa" or ".apk" application file function as the claimed "exposure module", or does the claim require a more discrete software component?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that mechanisms like an Info.plist key (iOS) or placing files in an /assets/ directory (Android) constitute an "updat[e] to a system font table." A technical dispute may arise over whether these OS-specific mechanisms for making fonts available to a single application are equivalent to the "system font table" (506 in Fig. 6) described in the patent, which could be interpreted as implying a more system-wide registration.
  • Temporal Scope: Does an application's asset directory, which persists for the life of the application's installation, qualify as a "temporary fonts directory" as contemplated by the patent? The patent mentions a "hidden temporary file" or a "virtual memory mapped file" (col. 13:53-55), raising the question of whether a more ephemeral storage location is required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "exposure module"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical as it is the active agent that performs the installation or exposure of the fonts. The complaint identifies the entire application package file (".apk" or ".ipa") as the "exposure module" (Compl. ¶46). Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes the "exposure module" as something that is "installed on browsing computer 204" (col. 11:35-37) and then "communicates with operating system 505" (col. 13:20-22), suggesting it could be a distinct entity from the document or application it is delivered with.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states "An exposure module is also downloaded...which in turn either permanently installs or temporarily exposes" the font information, which could support the idea that it is the overall installation mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that in one embodiment, the "exposure module" "comprises an ACTIVEX® control" (col. 11:40-42) and installation module 501 is shown as a discrete component in Figure 2, separate from the network document 202. This could support an argument that the module is a specific, executable component, not the entire application package.

• The Term: "temporary fonts directory"

• Context and Importance: The claims require installation into a "temporary" directory. The nature of "temporary" is central to infringement, as the complaint alleges application-specific directories that are deleted upon uninstallation are "temporary" (Compl. ¶46).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define a maximum duration for "temporary." An argument could be made that any non-permanent storage that is eventually removed (e.g., upon app uninstallation) meets the definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of temporary exposure, such as copying files into "hidden temporary files" or "virtual memory mapped files" (col. 13:51-55). It also discusses mechanisms for deleting these files when a "browser is turned off or when...closing network document 202" (col. 14:10-14). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more short-lived, session-based directory, rather than one that persists for the entire installation life of an application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s advertisements and product listings in public application stores "encourage customers to infringe" by using the Accused Products (Compl. ¶52). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the products are especially made for practicing the invention and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶53).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant. It does allege that licensed articles have been marked since June 2018, which may be used to argue for post-issuance notice to the public (Compl. ¶39). The prayer for relief seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" (Compl. p. 14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's terminology, developed in the context of 2001-era web documents and browsers, be construed to read on the architecture of modern mobile applications? Specifically, the case may turn on whether an entire application package (".apk" or ".ipa") is an "exposure module" and whether an application's standard asset directory is a "temporary fonts directory" as those terms are used in the claims.
• A second key question will be one of technical mapping: does the process by which a modern mobile OS loads fonts bundled within an application for that specific application's use constitute the "updat[ing of] a system font table" as claimed? The resolution will likely depend on evidence regarding whether this OS function is technically equivalent to the system-wide font registration tables contemplated by the patent's disclosure.