DCT
3:23-cv-06314
Lexos Media IP LLC v. eBay Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lexos Media IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: eBay, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00648, W.D. Tex., 08/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant eBay has maintained a regular and established place of business in the district since 2011 and has committed acts of alleged infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce website, specifically its product image zoom feature, infringes two patents related to dynamically modifying a user's cursor image based on web content.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to online advertising and user interface design, specifically using the mouse cursor as a vehicle for displaying content or branding related to information on a webpage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit were subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Ralph Lauren in 2018. The complaint alleges that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the asserted claims of both patents not unpatentable, and that these decisions were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This history may be raised by the Plaintiff to argue for the validity and strength of the asserted claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-25 | Priority Date for ’102 and ’449 Patents |
| 1999-11-30 | ’102 Patent Issued |
| 2000-09-12 | ’449 Patent Issued |
| 2016-01-01 | Alleged Infringement by eBay Begins (approx.) |
| 2018-09-18 | IPRs filed against the ’102 and ’449 Patents |
| 2022-08-10 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,995,102 - “Server system and method for modifying a cursor image,” Issued Nov. 30, 1999
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, online advertising methods like banner ads were often passive and easily ignored, while other methods like pop-up windows were overly intrusive ('102 Patent, col. 2:5-33). The patent identifies a need for a "simple means to deliver advertising elements" that is neither annoying nor easy to disregard (Compl. ¶16; ’102 Patent, col. 2:26-33). It also notes that in conventional systems, the cursor's appearance does not change to correspond with the specific online content being displayed ('102 Patent, col. 4:48-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system where a server transmits instructions embedded within a web page to a user's computer ('102 Patent, Fig. 2). These instructions cause the user's standard cursor (e.g., an arrow) to be modified into a "specific image" with a desired shape and appearance, such as a brand logo or an image related to on-page content ('102 Patent, Abstract). This transforms the cursor into a dynamic vehicle for advertising or branding.
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed using the cursor—the constant focal point of a user's interaction with a graphical user interface—as a new, non-intrusive medium for advertising and content delivery ('102 Patent, col. 3:17-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 72 (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 72 (Method):
- Receiving a request at a server to provide specified content information to a user terminal.
- Providing the specified content information, which includes at least one cursor display instruction and an indication of cursor image data for a "specific image."
- Transforming the initial cursor image on the user's display into the "specific image" in response to the cursor display instruction.
- The transformation is responsive to the movement of the cursor over a portion of the information displayed on the user's terminal.
- The "specific image" includes content corresponding to a portion of the information displayed on the user's terminal.
U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 - “Server system and method for modifying a cursor image,” Issued Sep. 12, 2000
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’102 Patent, the ’449 Patent shares an identical specification and addresses the same problems of ineffective and intrusive online advertising (’449 Patent, col. 1:44-2:35).
- The Patented Solution: The ’449 Patent also discloses a client-server system for remotely modifying a user's cursor image to correspond with on-page content, using instructions transmitted from a server to a client terminal (’449 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this invention provided a method for leveraging the user's cursor as a novel advertising medium (’449 Patent, col. 3:17-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 38, and 53 (Compl. ¶40).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A server system comprising cursor image data for a "specific image" and a cursor display code.
- A first server computer for transmitting specified content information to a remote user terminal.
- The content information includes a cursor display instruction indicating the location of the cursor image data.
- The instruction and code are operable to cause the user terminal to display a modified cursor image in the shape and appearance of the specific image.
- The specified content information includes information to be displayed on the user's terminal, and the specific image includes content corresponding to a portion of that information.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant eBay's interactive website, "www.ebay.com", and specifically the "cursor modification technology" used on its product pages (Compl. ¶¶7, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that when a user moves their cursor over a product image on the eBay website, the standard arrow cursor is modified (Compl. ¶¶31-32). The complaint provides visual evidence showing the standard cursor as an arrow, which then transforms into a "semi-transparent box surrounding the image of the pointing hand" when positioned over the product photo. This action simultaneously causes an enlarged, or "zoomed," portion of the product photo to appear elsewhere on the page (Compl. ¶¶31, 33; Fig. 2). The complaint alleges this functionality, which it terms the "Accused Instrumentality," enhances the marketing of products and has been used by eBay since at least 2016 to generate significant revenue (Compl. ¶¶7, 24, 51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’102 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 72) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for modifying an initial cursor image displayed on a display of a user terminal... | eBay uses a method to modify the initial cursor image (e.g., an arrow) on its website. Figure 1 shows the initial cursor. | ¶¶24, 32; Fig. 1 | col. 24:10-13 |
| receiving a request at said at least one server to provide specified content information to said user terminal; | eBay's servers receive a request from a user's browser for a web page. | ¶25 | col. 24:14-16 |
| providing said specified content information to said user terminal in response to said request... | eBay's servers transmit the web page, which includes instructions and code, to the user's terminal. | ¶¶26-28 | col. 24:17-18 |
| transforming said initial cursor image... into the shape and appearance of said specific image in response to said cursor display instruction... | The initial arrow cursor is transformed into a "specific image," described as a semi-transparent box with a pointing hand, when moved over a product photo. Figure 2 shows the transformed cursor. | ¶¶28, 31, 32; Fig. 2 | col. 24:18-28 |
| responsive to movement of said cursor image over a display of at least a portion of said information to be displayed on said display of said user's terminal. | The cursor modification occurs when the user moves the cursor over the product image displayed on the webpage. Figure 3 shows a 2022 example of this functionality. | ¶¶32, 34, 35; Fig. 3 | col. 24:23-28 |
| wherein said specific image includes content corresponding to at least a portion of said information that is to be displayed... | The semi-transparent box highlights a portion of the product image, which corresponds to the enlarged view displayed to the right, thereby relating the "specific image" to the content on the screen. | ¶¶29, 33 | col. 24:29-34 |
- ’449 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A server system for modifying a cursor image to a specific image... said system comprising: cursor image data corresponding to said specific image; cursor display code... | eBay's server system provides data for the modified cursor (the semi-transparent box) and code to perform the modification. | ¶¶41, 44 | col. 19:35-41 |
| a first server computer for transmitting specified content information to said remote user terminal... | eBay's servers transmit web pages containing product listings and the necessary instructions to a user's computer. | ¶¶42, 45 | col. 19:42-45 |
| said specified content information including at least one cursor display instruction indicating a location of said cursor image data... | The web page transmitted by eBay includes code that is operable to modify the cursor image and indicates the location of the cursor image data. | ¶¶44, 45 | col. 19:45-53 |
| operable to cause said user terminal to display a modified cursor image... in the shape and appearance of said specific image... | The code on the eBay webpage causes the user's terminal to display the modified cursor (the semi-transparent box) when hovering over a product. | ¶¶46, 48 | col. 19:50-53 |
| wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed... said specific image including content corresponding to at least a portion of said information... | The eBay webpage displays product information. The modified cursor is a zoom tool that highlights a portion of the displayed product image, thus allegedly corresponding to it. | ¶47 | col. 19:56-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "specific image." The patent specification provides examples focused on branding and advertising, such as corporate logos or thematic icons ('102 Patent, col. 17:5-14). The analysis may question whether the accused functional "zoom box" (Compl. ¶33) falls within the scope of a "specific image" as contemplated by the patent, or if the term requires a more thematic or source-identifying character.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether eBay's functionality is a "modification of an initial cursor image" (Compl. ¶32). A technical question is whether the accused system actually alters the operating system's cursor image file or pointer, or if it achieves a similar visual effect by hiding the system cursor and displaying a separate graphical overlay that is not, from a technical standpoint, a "modified cursor image" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "specific image"
Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the infringement allegation. Whether the accused "semi-transparent box" qualifies as a "specific image" will be determinative. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define whether a functional UI element, like a zoom tool, is covered by patents whose specification heavily emphasizes advertising and branding imagery.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the "specific image" include "content corresponding to at least a portion of said information to be displayed" ('102 Patent, col. 24:32-34). Plaintiff may argue this is a broad functional relationship, and a zoom box that highlights part of a product image literally "corresponds" to it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples like a "corporate name or logo," a "brand logo," or an "animated advertising image" ('102 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:1). The detailed examples describe changing the cursor to a "Fizzy Cola bottle" to match a "Fizzy Cola banner advertisement" ('102 Patent, col. 13:38-41). A court could find these examples limit the term "specific image" to images with thematic or source-identifying content, not purely functional UI tools.
The Term: "modifying a cursor image"
Context and Importance: This term is critical to the technical mechanism of infringement. The dispute will turn on what actions constitute "modifying" the cursor image. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical implementation of eBay's feature is key; if it uses a different technical method (e.g., a layered element) that is not a "modification" of the base cursor, there may be no infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to specify a particular method of modification, describing it functionally as a "change or transformation" ('102 Patent, col. 9:18-19) and an effect that is "visible on video monitor" (Id.). Plaintiff could argue any process that results in the visual replacement of the standard cursor with a new one meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes interacting with the operating system's "display driver" and API to "accomplish the actual change of cursor 44" ('102 Patent, col. 8:52-57). Defendant may argue this requires a direct technical interaction with the operating system's cursor-drawing components, and a simple web-based overlay (e.g., via CSS or JavaScript) that hides the real cursor does not constitute "modifying" the "cursor image" itself.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain formal counts for indirect or willful infringement. However, the infringement allegations for the ’449 Patent state that eBay infringes by "making that system and the ebay.com website available to others for use" and by "providing the ebay.com website for use by others" (Compl. ¶40). These allegations could potentially form the basis for a future claim of induced infringement, which would require Plaintiff to prove eBay acted with knowledge of the patents and with the specific intent to encourage its users to infringe. The complaint does not plead facts supporting such knowledge or intent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "specific image," which is described in the patent specification with advertising-focused examples like brand logos, be construed broadly enough to read on the functionally-oriented "semi-transparent [zoom] box" of the accused eBay website?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused eBay feature operate by "modifying" the user's cursor image as required by the claims, or does it use an alternative web-development technique (such as a graphical overlay) that achieves a similar visual result without technically meeting that claim limitation?
- A third question concerns patent purpose: given the patent's repeated emphasis on delivering "advertising" and "branding," will the court view the accused feature—a tool for improved product visualization—as falling within the intended purpose and scope of the invention, or as an unrelated e-commerce utility?