DCT

3:21-cv-01534

Abhyanker v. Nextdoor Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:21-cv-01534, N.D. Cal., 03/03/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Nextdoor, Inc. conducts business in the state and judicial district, and because individual defendant Tolia and a non-party co-conspirator allegedly reside in San Francisco County.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that six U.S. patents owned by Defendant Nextdoor are invalid, alleging the patented inventions were derived from Plaintiff's earlier work and that Defendants concealed material prior art and litigation history from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to location-based social networking, specifically systems for defining neighborhood boundaries and enabling communications within and between geographically proximate communities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of conflict between the parties, alleging Plaintiff developed the core concepts for Nextdoor in 2006-2007. It references prior litigation initiated by Plaintiff against Nextdoor in 2011, which included a patent infringement suit filed in May 2014 and a trademark cancellation proceeding. This prior litigation was confidentially settled on December 2, 2014, with Nextdoor allegedly taking a secret license to Plaintiff’s inventions. The current complaint alleges that this prior litigation and the licensed patents were material prior art that Defendants failed to disclose during prosecution of the patents-in-suit, forming a basis for the current invalidity and inequitable conduct allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-01 Plaintiff Abhyanker alleges conception of the idea for Nextdoor social network
2007-03-13 Plaintiff Abhyanker files patent application related to postcard-based user verification
2007-08-30 Plaintiff Abhyanker files patent application related to drawing community boundaries
2011-10-26 Defendant Nextdoor publicly launches its website
2013-02-01 Priority date for U.S. Patent No. 10,078,431
2014-05-13 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 10,078,431
2014-05-20 Plaintiff Abhyanker files patent infringement suit against Nextdoor (“Fatdoor Litigation”)
2014-12-02 Parties enter into a confidential Settlement Agreement
2015-03-10 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 10,129,345
2015-11-02 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 10,157,412
2015-11-02 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 10,122,671
2016-03-31 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 9,940,008
2018-04-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,940,008 issues
2018-09-10 Application filed for U.S. Patent No. 10,534,521
2018-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,078,431 issues
2018-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,122,671 issues
2018-11-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,129,345 issues
2018-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,157,412 issues
2020-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,534,521 issues
2021-03-03 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,078,431 - SOCIAL NETWORKING BASED ON NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS

Issued September 18, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that global online social networks fail to exploit the fact that people in the same geographical area share common interests and concerns. It states that such networks "typically do not collect accurate and reliable residence information from their users, and therefore cannot offer many advantageous features requiring such information" (’431 Patent, col. 1:44-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a location-based social network where users are assigned to a "home" neighborhood. The system then determines a set of "nearby neighborhoods" and allows a user to selectively activate communications with one or more of these nearby neighborhoods. This enables users to receive a customized feed of messages and posts based not only on their own neighborhood but also on a user-defined selection of surrounding communities, filtering content for local relevance (’431 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a social network architecture that is more granular and locally relevant than global platforms, enabling communication about proximate events (e.g., local government, lost pets, contractor recommendations) while giving users control over the geographic scope of their information feed (’431 Patent, col. 9:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Creating and storing neighborhood data defining a plurality of geographical neighborhoods.
    • For a user account, identifying a particular neighborhood as the "home neighborhood."
    • Selecting a set of "nearby neighborhoods" that are geographically proximate to the home neighborhood.
    • Receiving "activation input" from the user specifying a selection of one or more of these nearby neighborhoods.
    • Updating a database to associate the user's selections as activated.
    • In response to a request, displaying a feed of messages based only on the user's home neighborhood and the selected, activated nearby neighborhoods.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to challenge dependent claims, but seeks to invalidate the patent as a whole (Compl. ¶151(a)).

U.S. Patent No. 9,940,008 - SOCIAL NETWORKING BASED ON NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS

Issued April 10, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The problem is identical to that described in the ’431 Patent: existing social networks are not sufficiently location-aware to facilitate neighborhood-based communication (’008 Patent, col. 1:39-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is also substantially similar to that of the ’431 Patent, focusing on a system that assigns users to a home neighborhood and allows them to selectively view content from nearby neighborhoods. The claims of this patent appear to have a different scope and focus, but the underlying technical disclosure is largely the same (’008 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:41-48).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’431 Patent, centering on creating a locally relevant, user-filterable social network experience (’008 Patent, col. 9:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Storing neighborhood data defining a plurality of geographical neighborhoods.
    • Determining, for a particular neighborhood, one or more nearby neighborhoods based on proximity.
    • Receiving activation input from a user's computer specifying a selection of fewer than all of the nearby neighborhoods.
    • Updating a database to associate the selected nearby neighborhoods as activated for that user.
    • Performing an action (e.g., displaying a map, displaying a message feed, creating a new message) based only upon the user's activated selections.
  • The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent as a whole (Compl. ¶151(b)).

U.S. Patent No. 10,534,521 - SOCIAL NETWORKING BASED ON NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,534,521, SOCIAL NETWORKING BASED ON NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS, issued January 14, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the ’431 and ’008 patents and addresses the same technical problem of creating a location-based social network. The invention facilitates communication among users based on their assignment to specific, geographically-defined neighborhoods and their selective interaction with "nearby" communities (’521 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this patent is invalid based on Plaintiff's prior work (Compl. ¶79).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally (Compl. ¶151(c)).
  • Accused Features: This is a declaratory judgment action; no product features are accused.

U.S. Patent No. 10,157,412 - GENERATING AND DISPLAYING RECOMMENDATION COUNTERS BASED ON RECOMMENDATION DIALOGUE CAPTURED THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORK AND CONSTRAINED BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF THE RECOMMENDERS

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,157,412, GENERATING AND DISPLAYING RECOMMENDATION COUNTERS BASED ON RECOMMENDATION DIALOGUE CAPTURED THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORK AND CONSTRAINED BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF THE RECOMMENDERS, issued December 18, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for generating and displaying recommendation counts for businesses within a social network. The system constrains the recommendations to specific geographic regions, ensuring that recommendation counters reflect the opinions of users within a local community, thereby enhancing their relevance and trustworthiness (’412 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this patent is invalid based on Plaintiff's prior art patents (Compl. ¶88).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally (Compl. ¶151(e)).
  • Accused Features: This is a declaratory judgment action; no product features are accused.

U.S. Patent No. 10,129,345 - PROVIDING CONTENT TO A GEOGRAPHICALLY CONSTRAINED SET OF RECIPIENTS

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,129,345, PROVIDING CONTENT TO A GEOGRAPHICALLY CONSTRAINED SET OF RECIPIENTS, issued November 13, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for delivering content from a creator (e.g., a municipal official) to a geographically constrained set of recipients within a social network. The system transforms user location information into geo-coded coordinates and allows content providers to define specific geographic areas to target with messages, ensuring that only users located within those areas receive the content (’345 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this patent is invalid based on Plaintiff's prior work (Compl. ¶97).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally (Compl. ¶151(d)).
  • Accused Features: This is a declaratory judgment action; no product features are accused.

U.S. Patent No. 10,122,671 - IDENTIFYING SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED SERVICE REQUESTS AND USING STORED ACCOUNT DATA TO CONNECT THE REQUESTER WITH PROVIDERS

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,122,671, IDENTIFYING SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED SERVICE REQUESTS AND USING STORED ACCOUNT DATA TO CONNECT THE REQUESTER WITH PROVIDERS, issued November 6, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for connecting users seeking services (e.g., a babysitter) with service providers within a social network. The system uses stored account data, including location, to identify and notify relevant local providers of a service request, facilitating the hiring of trusted individuals from the community (’671 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this patent borrows substantially from Plaintiff's prior art patents (Compl. ¶105).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks to invalidate the patent generally (Compl. ¶151(f)).
  • Accused Features: This is a declaratory judgment action; no product features are accused.

III. Analysis of Invalidity Allegations

The complaint does not accuse a product of infringement but rather seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants' patents are invalid. For each patent-in-suit, the complaint alleges it will demonstrate invalidity through detailed claim charts (Exhibits 1-6), which are referenced but not attached to the complaint filing. The core theory of invalidity is that the claims of the Nextdoor patents are anticipated by or obvious over Plaintiff Abhyanker's own earlier patents and patent applications, which were allegedly concealed from the USPTO. The complaint presents a historical narrative arguing that Plaintiff conceived of the core Nextdoor features, such as drawing neighborhood boundaries and using postcards for user verification, between 2006 and 2007 (Compl. ¶¶14-15). A figure from one of Plaintiff's 2007 patent applications shows a user interface for drawing a community boundary on a geo-spatial map (Compl. p. 6, FIGURE 3).

  • '431 Patent and '008 Patent Invalidity Allegations:
    • The complaint alleges that every limitation of the granted claims of the ’431 Patent and the ’008 Patent is either "patentably equivalent to a claim of the Abhyanker ‘545 Patent or is based on disclosure from its specification" (Compl. ¶57, ¶71). The ‘545 Patent was allegedly asserted against Nextdoor in the 2014 "Fatdoor Litigation," putting Nextdoor on notice of its relevance (Compl. ¶59, ¶73).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the disclosure of Plaintiff's asserted prior art, such as the ‘545 Patent, is coextensive with the scope of the claims in the Nextdoor patents. The analysis will turn on whether Plaintiff's prior art teaches every element of the independent claims of the patents-in-suit, as is required for a finding of anticipation.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Plaintiff invented the idea to "draw neighborhood boundaries" (Compl. ¶15). A key technical question will be whether the specific method of creating, storing, and using neighborhood boundary data as claimed in the Nextdoor patents is fully enabled and described by the methods disclosed in Plaintiff’s prior art, such as the interface depicted in Figure 3 of the complaint (Compl. p. 6).
    • Legal Questions: A central legal issue is the allegation of inequitable conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendants and their counsel were "legally and ethically required" to disclose the Fatdoor Litigation and Plaintiff’s asserted patents to the USPTO during prosecution of the patents-in-suit and intentionally concealed them (Compl. ¶62, ¶75). The court will have to determine if this alleged prior art was material and if Defendants acted with an intent to deceive the USPTO.

IV. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"nearby neighborhoods" ('431 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the patent's scope, as it defines the universe of content (beyond the user's "home" neighborhood) that can be accessed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the invalidity argument depends on whether Plaintiff's prior art discloses a system for determining and presenting a constrained set of "nearby" communities, as opposed to a more general geo-fenced system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that they are "associated with a geographical area proximate to the particular neighborhood," which could be interpreted broadly to include any adjacent or overlapping defined area (’431 Patent, col. 24:41-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific algorithms for selecting the "Nearby Neighborhoods" set, for example, by adding households outward from a center point until a population or area threshold is met. This suggests "nearby" may not just mean adjacent, but rather a computationally selected set based on specific parameters like population density (’431 Patent, col. 11:1-12:56).

"activation input" ('431 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it relates to the user's specific, affirmative selection of which "nearby neighborhoods" to receive content from. The dispute may turn on whether Plaintiff's prior art discloses this level of user-driven filtering, as opposed to a system where filtering is automatic or administrator-defined.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "receiving activation input specifying selections of one or more nearby neighborhoods," which could be read on any user interaction that results in a neighborhood being toggled "on" (’431 Patent, col. 24:47-49).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as Figure 8, which shows a map page with a list of nearby neighborhoods, each having a distinct "ON/OFF widget" (808). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of user interface element for providing the "activation input" (’431 Patent, col. 16:36-44).

V. Other Allegations

Inequitable Conduct

The complaint makes extensive allegations that could form the basis of an inequitable conduct claim, which, if proven, would render the patents unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶61-66). The central allegation is that during the prosecution of the applications leading to the patents-in-suit, Defendants and their counsel intentionally concealed material information from the USPTO (Compl. ¶61). This allegedly includes the failure to disclose: (1) the prior "Fatdoor Litigation" between the parties; (2) Plaintiff's patents that were asserted in that litigation (e.g., the '545 Patent); and (3) the 2014 Settlement Agreement under which Nextdoor licensed Plaintiff's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶61, ¶75). The complaint further alleges that Nextdoor took the "unusual step" of requesting non-publication for the application leading to the '431 patent, which it argues impugns "knowledge and intentional withholding of material information" (Compl. ¶65).

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

This case presents a complex dispute rooted in the founding history of a company, extending into claims of patent invalidity and inequitable conduct. The resolution will likely depend on the court’s findings on the following key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of derivation and prior invention: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient corroborating evidence to prove that he conceived of the specific inventions claimed in the six patents-in-suit prior to Defendants, and that Defendants derived the inventions from him? The court will need to compare the technical disclosures of Plaintiff's early patent applications and other evidence with the specific limitations recited in the claims of the Nextdoor patents.
  • A second central question is one of materiality and intent: Did the prior litigation between the parties, the patents asserted in that litigation, and the subsequent license agreement constitute information that was "but-for" material to the prosecution of the patents-in-suit? If so, does the evidence support an inference that Defendants deliberately withheld this information from the USPTO with the intent to deceive the agency?
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of prior art scope: Independent of the derivation and conduct allegations, do the technical disclosures in Plaintiff's prior patents and applications, such as the ‘545 patent, teach each and every element of the asserted claims of the Nextdoor patents, as required to prove anticipation?