DCT

3:12-cv-05035

Internet Patents Corp v. Active Network Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:12-cv-05035, N.D. Cal., 09/27/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has transacted business there, and has committed, contributed to, or induced acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online registration and application technology infringes a patent related to a dynamic graphical user interface for online forms that maintains data state across user navigation steps.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to user interfaces for complex, multi-page web forms, such as those used for insurance applications or event registrations, where data entered on one page can affect subsequent pages.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff, formerly known as Insweb Corporation, developed the "Dynamic Tabs" technology for its own online insurance marketplace, which it began operating in 1999.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-01-01 Plaintiff (as Insweb) began operating online marketplace
2000-03-23 ’505 Patent Priority Date
2010-04-27 ’505 Patent Issue Date
2012-09-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505 - Dynamic Tabs For a Graphical User Interface

  • Issued: April 27, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art online application forms as "essentially linear," which frustrated users wishing to make changes to previously entered information. It specifically notes that using conventional browser "Back" and "Forward" buttons often did not function properly, resulting in the loss of entered data and forcing users to re-enter information. (’505 Patent, col. 1:29-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an intelligent user interface for an online application, presented as a series of "tabbed panes" on a web page. The interface is designed to be dynamic, where user input can customize the subsequent display of data and queries, and even cause new tabs to appear (e.g., a "Discounts" tab). (’505 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:26-39). A key feature is the system's ability to maintain the application's "state" across all panes, which allows a user to navigate between different sections of the form using either the tabs or the browser's Back and Forward buttons without losing data. (’505 Patent, col. 5:62-66).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to make the process of filling out complex, multi-page online forms with interdependent data fields more flexible, personalized, and less prone to user error. (’505 Patent, col. 1:46-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’505 Patent, and reserves the right to identify specific claims later. Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Furnishing a plurality of icons (e.g., tabs) on a web page, where each icon is a hyperlink to a dynamically generated online application form set, within a web browser that has Back and Forward buttons.
    • Displaying the dynamically generated online application form set, which comprises a "state" determined by at least one user input.
    • Maintaining that state when the user activates another icon, which allows the use of the browser's Back and Forward buttons "without loss of said state."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "online registration and application technology" provided on Defendant’s website, www.activenetwork.com (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused technology provides "automated online registrations and applications." (Compl. ¶8). It is described as a platform for a large network of organizations across market segments including business events, community activities, outdoors, and sports (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused online forms operate.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a side-by-side claim chart analysis. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally, stating that Defendant provides technology "covered by one or more claims of the '505 patent." (Compl. ¶11).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the scope of the patent claims, which are described in the context of an online insurance quoting system, as applied to the defendant's system for online event registration. The construction of key terms will be critical to determining if the patent's scope reads on the accused technology.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not contain factual allegations explaining how the accused technology meets the specific claim limitations. A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused Active Network system does, in fact, "maintain state" in a manner that allows for the use of browser navigation buttons "without loss of said state" as required by the claim. A further question is whether the accused forms are "dynamically generated" in the manner contemplated by the patent, where user input in one section alters the structure or queries presented in another.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"maintaining said state ... without loss of said state"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the central feature of the claimed invention, intended to solve the specific data-loss problem associated with browser navigation buttons identified in the patent's background. The construction of "maintaining state" will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will distinguish the claimed invention from conventional web form behavior that might also be described as preserving data between pages.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular technical method for maintaining state, which could support an interpretation covering any system that preserves user-entered data across multiple web pages in a single user session.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention as a solution to data being "lost when attempting to use the Back and Forward buttons to navigate within a multi-page virtual (on-line) form." (’505 Patent, col. 1:39-43). The specification also describes this state as including not just user-supplied information, but also "virtual application information, relative dependencies, and information context," suggesting a more complex data structure than simple form values. (’505 Patent, col. 5:60-63).

"dynamically generated on-line application form set"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what kind of online form infringes. The dispute will likely center on whether this requires the form's structure to change in response to user input, or if it simply means the form is created by a server-side script.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any web form not delivered as a static HTML file is "dynamically generated," as it is constructed by a server in response to a user request.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses that the "tabs themselves...can be self-configuring based on the user input," for example, by displaying a "Discounts" tab only if a user indicates they are in a state where such discounts are available. (’505 Patent, col. 5:26-39). This suggests the term requires the system to alter the form's navigational structure and available options, not just populate data fields.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement but does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge or intent, such as identifying instructional materials that direct users to infringe. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself, suggesting a theory of post-filing willfulness. (Compl. p. 5, ¶¶ 4, 7-8). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant.

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

  • A central question will be one of claim construction: how narrowly will the court define the core limitation "maintaining said state"? The outcome will depend on whether the term is construed to require a specific solution to the browser-navigation data-loss problem detailed in the patent, or if it covers more generalized methods of data persistence in web forms.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does discovery reveal that the accused Active Network platform actually performs the specific state maintenance and dynamic generation functions required by the patent's claims, as they are ultimately construed by the court?
  • A likely threshold question for the court will be patent eligibility: given that the claims relate to managing the presentation of information in a graphical user interface, the case may turn on whether the patent is found to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or to a specific, patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality that solves a technical problem inherent in prior art web browsers.