Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
• Case Identification: 6:12-cv-783, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2012
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and transacted business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iOS mobile operating system and compatible devices infringe patents related to systems and methods for creating and manipulating information "containers" that use "dynamic registers" to manage their interaction and behavior.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to object-oriented data management where information is encapsulated in intelligent structures that can evolve based on usage history, aiming to make large-scale data networks more organized and responsive.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are related, with the '682 patent being a continuation of the application that led to the '536 patent. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the '536 patent was the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Apple Inc. and other technology companies. An IPR certificate issued in 2017 indicates that claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the '536 patent survived the challenge and were found patentable, a development that may strengthen their presumption of validity against certain invalidity arguments.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-01-30	Earliest Priority Date for '536 & '682 Patents
2006-03-07	'536 Patent Issue Date
2010-04-20	'682 Patent Issue Date
2012-10-17	Complaint Filing Date
2013-10-23	IPR Filed Against '536 Patent (IPR2014-00086)
2014-05-23	IPR Filed Against '536 Patent (IPR2014-00812)
2017-07-17	IPR Certificate Issued for '536 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 - "System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536, "System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers," issued March 7, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional computer networks as having static and inert information, where content resides in fixed locations and its utility is defined by its creator rather than its user (’536 Patent, col. 1:49-62). This makes complex inquiries time-consuming and inefficient, as the network lacks inherent intelligence to organize resources based on usage or relevance (’536 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of "information containers," which are "logically defined data enclosure[s]" that encapsulate not only information but also a set of "dynamic interactive evolving registers" (’536 Patent, col. 3:25-35). These registers define the container's identity and govern its interactions with other containers, systems, and users. The values in these registers can change over time based on usage history, allowing the information architecture to become more intelligent and responsive to user needs (’536 Patent, col. 13:9-22).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a self-organizing information ecosystem, moving beyond static file-and-folder structures to an object-oriented model where data itself carries the rules and history of its own use.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is a representative apparatus claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • An apparatus for manipulating information on a computer system.
  • A plurality of "containers," each being a logically defined data enclosure comprising:
    • an "information element" (the data).
    • a plurality of "registers," including a unique ID register and registers designating time to govern interactions.
    • a "gateway" attached to the container that controls the container's interaction with other entities.
• The complaint reserves the right to allege infringement of other claims after discovery (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 - "System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682, "System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers," issued April 20, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '536 patent's application, the '682 patent addresses the same problem of static information on computer networks, where resource groupings are fixed and content is inert (’682 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
• The Patented Solution: The '682 Patent claims methods for implementing the container-based system. It focuses on the process of receiving a search query, searching the "historical data" within container registers to find responsive containers, and then dynamically creating new containers and updating registers based on the interaction (’682 Patent, col. 29:50-30:21). This operationalizes the architectural concept from the parent patent.
• Technical Importance: The method claims extend the invention from a static architecture to a dynamic process, describing how the intelligent network would actually function and evolve in response to user activity.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving a search query.
  • Searching first "container registers" that contain "historical data" associated with interactions to identify responsive containers.
  • "Encapsulating" the identified containers in a "new container."
  • "Updating" second container registers with data associated with the new interaction.
  • Providing a list characterizing the identified containers.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses Apple's "iOS mobile operating system and compatible devices (i.e., the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad devices)" of infringement (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly alleges that these products and services infringe the patents-in-suit without providing any specific details about the technical operation of the accused iOS functionalities. The allegations are conclusory and do not describe how specific features of iOS map to the patented technology (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or specific factual allegations that map features of the accused iOS system to the limitations of any asserted claim. The infringement theory is presented as a high-level, conclusory statement that Apple's products practice the patented inventions (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). Without specific allegations, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The general theory appears to be that the architecture of iOS, including its applications, files, and data objects, function as the claimed "information containers," and that system-level metadata and APIs function as the claimed "dynamic registers" and "gateways." The method claims would presumably be infringed by iOS functions like system search (e.g., Spotlight) that access and potentially update this metadata based on user activity.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely involve claim construction and whether the abstract terms of the patents read on the concrete software components of iOS. For example, does an application sandbox or a file with extended attributes in iOS meet the definition of an "information container" that includes an attached "gateway" and "dynamic interactive evolving registers"?
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the complaint can be substantiated with proof that iOS performs the dynamic and evolving functions required by the claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that metadata in iOS is not merely updated, but evolves based on a "hierarchically rated history of usage" to govern future interactions, as described in the patents (’536 Patent, col. 3:58-61)? The complaint itself provides no such evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "information container"

• Context and Importance: This term is the foundational element of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether any software or data structure within Apple's iOS could be considered an infringing structure. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a single, integrated logical structure or can be met by a collection of disparate components.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a container broadly as a "logically defined data enclosure" that can encapsulate "any system component or process, or other containers" (’536 Patent, col. 8:64-9:4). This language could support an argument that various logical constructs in an OS, such as an application or a complex document, qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures often depict the container, its registers, and its gateway as a tightly integrated unit (e.g., ’536 Patent, Fig. 4). This could support a narrower construction requiring all components to be part of a single, specifically defined object, rather than a loose association of a file and system-level metadata.

• The Term: "gateway"

• Context and Importance: This term defines how the "container" interacts with the outside world. Its construction is critical to determining whether standard operating system mechanisms, like APIs or file system interfaces, fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a gateway as a "logically defined passageway" that "govern[s] the interactions of containers" (’536 Patent, col. 15:43-48), which a plaintiff might argue is functionally equivalent to an API.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the gateway as an active agent that "gather[s] and store[s] container register information" and acts as an "agent of an analysis engine and execution engine" (’536 Patent, col. 3:55-4:1), suggesting a more complex and intelligent function than a simple, passive interface.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of fact to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. It alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 generally (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendant's infringement... is willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This pleading strategy defers the allegation of willfulness, likely to avoid the heightened pleading requirements for such a claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the abstract architectural concepts from the 1998-priority patents, such as "information container" and "gateway," be construed to read on the structures and interfaces of a modern mobile operating system like iOS? The outcome of claim construction for these foundational terms will be critical.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Assuming a favorable claim construction, can the plaintiff produce technical evidence that iOS actually performs the dynamic, evolutionary functions at the heart of the patents—specifically, altering the behavior of data objects based on a "hierarchically rated history of usage"? The complaint's bare allegations will need to be substantiated with significant evidence from discovery.
• A third question will be the strategic impact of the IPR: How will the fact that multiple claims of the '536 Patent survived an IPR challenge, instituted by the Defendant itself, influence settlement leverage and litigation strategy? While this bolsters the patent's validity, it does not alleviate the plaintiff's burden of proving infringement.