DCT

4:07-cv-03602

Speedtrack Inc v. Office Depot Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:07-cv-03602, N.D. Cal., 06/28/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each Defendant resides in the judicial district and has committed acts of infringement within the district. The complaint further alleges that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce websites, conduct substantial business in the district, and that some Defendants maintain regular and established places of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce websites, which feature faceted product search functionality, infringe a patent related to a method for accessing computer files using non-hierarchical, user-defined categories.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for organizing and filtering large sets of data, commonly known in the e-commerce field as faceted search or guided navigation, which allows consumers to refine product searches by selecting from available attributes like brand, price, or specifications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360, survived an ex parte reexamination requested by Endeca Technologies, Inc., with the USPTO confirming the validity of multiple original claims and allowing one new claim. The complaint also references prior litigation against Walmart involving the same patent and the same underlying search technology (the "Endeca Information Access Platform"), which resulted in a judgment of no literal infringement but did not adjudicate the issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-11-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360
1996-08-06 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360
2001-07-12 Earliest alleged date of direct infringement begins
2006-11-29 Plaintiff files infringement suit against Walmart Stores, Inc.
2006-12-20 Plaintiff allegedly sends written notice of the patent and infringement to all Defendants
2008-10-24 Endeca Technologies, Inc. files for ex parte reexamination of the '360 patent
2011-07-05 USPTO issues Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, confirming original claims and adding new claim 22
2012-03-30 Court enters judgment of no literal infringement in the Walmart action
2013-06-28 First Amended and Supplemental Complaint filed in the present action

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360 - METHOD FOR ACCESSING COMPUTER FILES AND DATA, USING LINKED CATEGORIES ASSIGNED TO EACH DATA FILE RECORD ON ENTRY OF THE DATA FILE RECORD

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360, "METHOD FOR ACCESSING COMPUTER FILES AND DATA, USING LINKED CATEGORIES ASSIGNED TO EACH DATA FILE RECORD ON ENTRY OF THE DATA FILE RECORD," issued August 6, 1996.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of conventional hierarchical file structures, where a file can only exist in one location within a rigid "tree" of folders and sub-folders, making it cumbersome to find files that could logically belong in multiple places ('360 Patent, col. 1:26-44). The patent also notes the shortcomings of full-text searching, which can be slow and requires users to remember precise wording ('360 Patent, col. 3:1-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a file access system where users can assign multiple, non-hierarchical "categories" to any given file ('360 Patent, col. 4:60-65). To find files, a user selects one or more categories from predefined lists. A key aspect of the solution is that as the user selects categories to build a search filter, the system automatically updates the lists of remaining categories to exclude any that would result in finding no matching files, thereby guaranteeing that the user's search will always yield at least one result ('360 Patent, col. 4:5-14). This creates dynamic "hybrid folders" based on the user's selections ('360 Patent, col. 4:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: The described method provided a more intuitive and flexible alternative to navigating rigid directory trees, a significant usability improvement for managing and retrieving information as digital data collections grew in size and complexity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the '360 patent generally against the Defendants. Independent claims of the patent include claims 1 (method), 15 (system), 20 (method), and 22 (method, added during reexamination). Claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • (a) initially creating in the computer system a category description table containing a plurality of category descriptions...having no predefined hierarchical relationship...
    • (b) thereafter creating in the computer system a file information directory comprising at least one entry corresponding to a file...and a set of category descriptions selected from the category description table; and
    • (c) thereafter creating in the computer system a search filter comprising a set of category descriptions, wherein for each category description in the search filter there is guaranteed to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter.
  • The complaint notes that infringement of claim 22 is alleged for the period after its issuance (Compl. p. 19, ¶39).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused websites "permit visitors...to search for products available for sale by selecting pre-defined categories descriptive of the products" (Compl. ¶17). This describes the websites' faceted search or guided navigation feature, which allows users to filter large product catalogs by selecting attributes (e.g., brand, price, technical specifications) to narrow the displayed results. The complaint alleges that this functionality was provided to the Defendants by the "Endeca Information Access Platform," a commercial software product now owned by Oracle (Compl. ¶¶18, 33, 48, 63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The allegations are high-level, asserting that the websites' search functionality infringes the '360 patent. The following table summarizes the apparent infringement theory for claim 1 based on the complaint's general descriptions.

'360 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) initially creating in the computer system a category description table containing a plurality of category descriptions, each category description comprising a descriptive name, the category descriptions having no predefined hierarchical relationship with such list or each other; The Defendants' websites are populated with product data that includes various non-hierarchical attributes and specifications (e.g., "Brand," "Price," "Color"), which allegedly constitute the "category description table." ¶17, ¶32, ¶47, ¶62 col. 16:56-63
(b) thereafter creating in the computer system a file information directory comprising at least one entry corresponding to a file on the data storage system, each entry comprising...a set of category descriptions selected from the category description table; Each product listing in the Defendants' e-commerce databases (the alleged "file") is associated with specific values for the various categories (e.g., a specific laptop is tagged with "Brand: Dell," "Screen Size: 15-inch"). This database of products and their associated attributes allegedly forms the "file information directory." ¶17, ¶32, ¶47, ¶62 col. 16:64-17:4
(c) thereafter creating in the computer system a search filter...wherein for each category description in the search filter there is guaranteed to be at least one entry in the file information directory having a set of category descriptions matching the set of category descriptions of the search filter. A website user creates a "search filter" by clicking on a category (e.g., selecting "Dell" as the brand). The website's functionality then allegedly ensures that any further selectable category options will correspond to at least one available product, thereby preventing a search that returns zero results. ¶17, ¶32, ¶47, ¶62 col. 17:5-11

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether terms like "file", "file record", and "file information directory", which the patent describes in the context of a computer's operating system, can be construed to read on product listings within a modern e-commerce database.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's theory appears to hinge on the "guaranteed" result limitation in claim 1(c). A central question will be how the accused websites technically achieve this. The dispute may focus on whether the websites' method of updating available filter options is the same as, or equivalent to, the method of disabling categories described in the '360 patent's specification (e.g., '360 Patent, col. 12:21-42). The prior finding of no literal infringement against the same underlying technology suggests this is a critical point of contention (Compl. ¶14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "category description"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the invention. Its construction will determine whether the product attributes used for filtering on the accused websites (e.g., "Brand: Dell", "Price Range: $500-$750") fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a product attribute is a "category description" in the sense contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states, "Each category description is a descriptive name defined by the user" ('360 Patent, col. 5:9-10), which may support a broad definition encompassing any descriptive tag.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples and figures consistently refer to categories for organizing computer files and documents, such as "File Type," "Contents," "Action," and "Names" ('360 Patent, FIG. 3). This context may support an argument that the term is limited to categories for document management rather than commercial product attributes.

The Term: "file information directory"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation requires that the defendants' product databases be construed as a "file information directory." The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this element abstractly as a table or data structure that stores information linking categories to specific files, which could arguably read on a variety of database implementations ('360 Patent, col. 4:60-65, FIG. 4).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus on solving problems with hierarchical file systems and its use of the term "directory" could support an interpretation that limits the term to a structure related to an operating system's file system, as opposed to records in a web application's database ('360 Patent, col. 1:26-31).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the period after Defendants allegedly received notice of the '360 patent (Compl. ¶¶20-25, 35-40, 50-55, 65-70).
    • The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendants operate their websites in a way that encourages and instructs their customers to perform the patented search method (Compl. ¶20).
    • The contributory infringement claim is based on allegations that the website software is a material part of the invention, especially made for this infringing use, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶23).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and continues to be willful, based on their alleged continued infringement after receiving written notice of the '360 patent on December 20, 2006 (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 42, 57, 72).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can key terms from a patent conceived in the era of personal computer file systems, such as "file record" and "file information directory", be construed to cover product data within the distinct technical environment of a modern, web-based e-commerce platform? The resolution of this question during claim construction will be critical.
  • A second central issue will be the viability of the infringement theory. Given that a court has already found no literal infringement by the same underlying Endeca technology, the case may heavily depend on Plaintiff's ability to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents—an issue that the prior litigation explicitly left unresolved.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational comparison: what specific evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused websites' method for filtering products and preventing zero-result queries performs the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the specific steps detailed in the '360 patent claims and specification?