DCT

4:12-cv-03733

Droplets Inc v. Yahoo Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:11-cv-392, E.D. Tex., 09/11/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants conducting business and making, using, offering to sell, or selling the accused infringing products and services within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ respective websites, web applications, and related services infringe patents related to systems and methods for delivering remote applications and information over a network connection.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of delivering rich, interactive, and stateful application experiences from a remote server to a client computer, particularly over the low-bandwidth network connections common in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745 underwent an inter partes reexamination, which concluded with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate. This certificate confirmed the patentability of all original claims and added new patentable claims, which may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against the art considered during that proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-14 Earliest Priority Date for '745 and '838 Patents
2004-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745 Issued
2007-08-03 Inter Partes Reexamination of '745 Patent Filed
2009-03-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838 Issued
2011-03-01 Reexamination Certificate for '745 Patent Issued
2011-09-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745 - "System and method for delivering a graphical user interface of remote applications over a thin bandwidth connection," issued February 3, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty and inefficiency of accessing and using remote applications over the early web. It notes that conventional methods required users to navigate away from their current context to follow links and that tracking mechanisms like cookies were often machine-specific and time-sensitive, failing to preserve a user's application state across different machines or over time (ʼ745 Patent, col. 3:20-4:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server architecture to create more persistent, desktop-like web applications. A small piece of software code (a "droplet") is embedded in informational content (like a webpage) and, when executed on a client computer, establishes a dedicated communication connection to a remote application server. This server then delivers "presentational information" needed to run the application on the client. A key feature is the ability for a user to download a storable "interactive link" to their local computer, which, when selected later, can re-establish the connection and restore the application's prior operating state (ʼ745 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:5-30). This architecture is illustrated in the client/server diagram of Figure 1.
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to bridge the gap between web-based services and native desktop software, providing a more seamless and stateful user experience for what would become known as "Rich Internet Applications" (RIAs) (ʼ745 Patent, col. 2:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. For illustrative purposes, the elements of independent claim 1 are listed below.

  • retrieving, in response to a request of a client computer, over a first communication connection first information having computer program code embedded therein and executing the embedded computer program code for establishing a second communication connection to a second host computer;
  • sending second information relating to the operating environment of the client computer, from the client computer to the second host computer;
  • retrieving, over the second communication connection, third information including presentation information for presenting an application and fourth information, the presentation information being based on the second information;
  • presenting, at the client computer, the application and the fourth information based upon the presentational information; and
  • storing, on the client computer, an interactive link for selectively re-establishing the second communication connection.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838 - "System and method for delivering remotely stored applications and information," issued March 10, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the '745 patent, the '838 Patent addresses the same technical problem: delivering rich, stateful remote applications efficiently over potentially thin bandwidth connections and overcoming the limitations of traditional web navigation and state management ('838 Patent, col. 3:20-4:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is the same "droplet" architecture described in the '745 Patent. It involves executing an embedded code module to establish a connection with an application server, which then provides the instructions to render and operate a remote application, with the ability to store a local "interactive link" to restore the session later ('838 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:5-30).
  • Technical Importance: This patent extends the protection for the original "droplet" technology, reinforcing the concepts of making web applications behave more like persistent, native applications ('838 Patent, col. 2:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. For illustrative purposes, the elements of independent claim 1 are listed below.

  • retrieving, in response to a request of a client computer, a content item having computer program code embedded therein, execution of the embedded computer program code establishing a communication connection to a host computer;
  • sending operating environment information regarding the client computer from the client computer to the host computer;
  • retrieving presentation information to present an application and content, the presentation information being based on the operating environment information; and
  • presenting, at the client computer, the application and the content based upon the presentation information.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are broadly identified as the "web applications and software" and associated "computer equipment" that each Defendant makes, uses, or sells. The complaint provides non-limiting examples such as the websites www.amazon.com, www.apple.com, www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, and specific applications like iTunes and Yahoo! Mail (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 28, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the functionality of the accused instrumentalities in general terms, alleging that they are maintained on servers and "transmit and display information" that is "made available to users through web pages" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 28, 30). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of these services or any allegations regarding their commercial importance beyond identifying the well-known Defendants.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants directly and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit by making and using their respective web applications and services (Compl. ¶¶ 22-31). However, the complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims or provide any mapping of claim elements to the features of the accused instrumentalities. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patents describe a specific architecture involving an "embedded computer program code" (a "droplet") that establishes a "second communication connection" and a downloadable "interactive link" stored as a local file. A central question for the court will be whether the general operation of the accused websites, which use technologies like AJAX and JavaScript, falls within the scope of these claim terms. For instance, it raises the question of whether a standard browser bookmark or a desktop shortcut to a URL can be considered the claimed "interactive link," which the patent describes as being associated with a file containing operating environment information ('745 Patent, col. 5:11-20).
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence the Plaintiff can provide that the accused services implement the specific two-connection architecture required by the claims. The infringement theory may require showing that a distinct communication channel is established by client-side code, separate from the initial HTTP request that delivered the webpage. The defense may argue that standard, browser-managed communications (like subsequent AJAX calls) do not meet the claimed limitation of executing an embedded code to establish a "second communication connection."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify asserted claims, making a definitive analysis of terms for construction premature. However, based on the technology and representative independent claims, the following terms are likely to be critical.

  • The Term: "interactive link"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's method of providing persistent access to a remote application. The outcome of the case may hinge on whether this term is construed broadly to cover modern web shortcuts and bookmarks or narrowly to cover only the specific downloadable object described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not inherently complex, and a party might argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any user-selectable element that re-initiates an interactive session with a remote application.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "interactive link" as a "graphical representation" that is downloaded and associated with a "file containing information representing an operating environment of the client computer" ('745 Patent, col.5:11-17, Abstract). The detailed description of a drag-and-drop operation to create this link further suggests a specific type of object, not a simple URL ('745 Patent, FIGS. 4A-4D).

  • The Term: "executing the embedded computer program code for establishing a second communication connection"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from a simple, single-request web page load. The interpretation of whether this requires a truly separate and persistent connection (like a socket), or could read on subsequent, independent HTTP requests initiated by client-side script, will be crucial.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any client-side script (e.g., JavaScript) delivered with a webpage is "embedded computer program code," and any subsequent AJAX call it makes is a "second communication connection."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses "droplets" in the context of "a Java applet, ActiveX controls, a browser plug-in" ('745 Patent, col. 10:55-58), suggesting a discrete, self-contained executable module rather than general-purpose script. The system diagram in Figure 1 also depicts the "droplet" (72) as a distinct component that facilitates the connection (54) to the application server (40).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement against all Defendants. The basis for these allegations is the act of providing the accused web applications, software, and computer equipment, which allegedly causes and contributes to direct infringement by the end-users of those services (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 25, 27, 29, 31).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement and does not allege any facts related to pre-suit knowledge by the Defendants. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a related but distinct legal standard from willfulness (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶ H).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the key terms of these circa-2000 patents, such as "interactive link" and a "second communication connection" established by "embedded computer program code," be construed to read on the standard, browser-based web technologies (e.g., JavaScript, AJAX, bookmarks) used by the accused websites in 2011? The case may turn on whether the patent's specific "droplet" architecture is a requirement or merely a preferred embodiment.
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming a construction favorable to the Plaintiff, what evidence can be produced to show that the accused services actually operate using the specific client-server architecture required by the claims? The Plaintiff will likely need to demonstrate not just a rich, interactive user experience, but a fundamental match to the claimed method of establishing connections and delivering presentational data.