DCT
4:13-cv-04202
Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Facebook Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:12-cv-00784, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on allegations that Defendant has committed acts of infringement and transacted business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Facebook social networking and advertising service infringes two patents related to systems and methods for creating, manipulating, and searching for information organized into "containers" that possess "dynamic registers."
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of managing and searching large volumes of digital information by creating data structures that can evolve and be re-organized based on usage history and other contextual metadata.
- Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 was the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. An IPR certificate issued in 2017 indicates that original claims 1, 13, and 15 were found unpatentable, while claims 2-12, 14, and 16 were confirmed as patentable. This post-filing development will significantly influence the scope of any infringement case on the ’536 patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-01-30 | Priority Date for ’536 and ’682 Patents |
| 2006-03-07 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 |
| 2010-04-20 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 |
| 2012-10-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2013-10-23 | IPR Petition Filed against ’536 Patent (IPR2014-00086) |
| 2017-07-17 | Inter Partes Review 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"
Issued March 7, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art computer networks as having static and "inert" information, where content groupings and access routes are fixed by the original author and do not evolve based on user behavior or context ('536 Patent, col. 2:1-24). This makes complex inquiries inefficient and limits the overall utility of the network ('536 Patent, col. 2:37-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of "containers," which are logically defined data enclosures for information ('536 Patent, col. 3:28-35). Each container is appended with "dynamic registers" that hold metadata governing the container's interactions, such as its relevance over time or its relationship to other containers ('536 Patent, col. 3:1-5). "Gateways" control the interactions between these containers, allowing the system to re-organize information and "develop intelligence" based on accumulated usage data ('536 Patent, col. 3:55-64).
- Technical Importance: The invention represents an early architectural approach to creating self-organizing and context-aware information systems, aiming to make data networks more responsive to user needs without manual reprogramming ('536 Patent, col. 2:53-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, with independent claim 1 being representative of the apparatus claims at the time of filing.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating information, comprising a plurality of containers.
- Each container is a logically defined data enclosure comprising an information element, a plurality of registers, and a gateway.
- The plurality of registers includes a first register for a unique ID, a second register for time-based interactions, and active, passive, and neutral time registers for different interaction types.
- A gateway is attached to and forms part of the container, controlling the container's interactions with other system components.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9). It is noted that claim 1 was subsequently found unpatentable in an IPR proceeding.
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 with its parent patent, the ’682 patent addresses the problem of static information on computer networks that is difficult to search and re-organize intelligently (’682 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for searching the "containers" described in the patent family. The method involves receiving a search query and searching the "container registers," which contain historical data about the containers' past interactions ('682 Patent, Claim 1). After identifying responsive containers, the method involves "encapsulating" them in a "new container" and updating the registers of the identified containers to reflect this new relationship, thereby providing an evolving list of results ('682 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This method aims to improve search relevance by not only querying content but also leveraging a rich, evolving history of how information has been previously used and interconnected within the system (’682 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, with independent claim 1 being a representative method claim.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Receiving a search query.
- Searching first container registers, which include historical interaction data, to identify responsive containers.
- Encapsulating the identified containers in a new container.
- Updating second container registers of the identified containers with data about their interaction with the new container.
- Providing a list characterizing the identified containers.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant’s "Facebook social networking and advertising product and service, accessible at least through facebook.com" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint broadly accuses the entire Facebook platform but does not provide specific technical details on the operation of its features. The allegations imply that various components of the Facebook service—such as user profiles, photo albums, groups, and individual posts—function as the claimed "containers," and that the associated metadata—such as timestamps, likes, shares, tags, and user interaction histories—function as the claimed "dynamic registers" that govern how content is organized, displayed, and searched. The complaint makes no allegations regarding the product's specific commercial importance beyond its general availability.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without reference to claim charts or a detailed narrative theory. The analysis below outlines the likely infringement positions Plaintiff must take, framing the required evidentiary showings as open questions for the court. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’536 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of containers, each container being a logically defined data enclosure and comprising an information element... | Plaintiff would need to establish that data objects on the Facebook platform (e.g., user profiles, posts, photo albums) meet the definition of a "container" as a "logically defined data enclosure" holding information. | ¶9 | col. 29:8-12 |
| a plurality of registers... including a first register for storing a unique container identification value... | It would need to be shown that Facebook associates its data objects with metadata that functions as the claimed "registers," including a unique identifier for each object. | ¶9 | col. 29:13-16 |
| a second register having a representation designating time and governing interactions of the container with other containers... | Plaintiff must demonstrate that Facebook not only stores time-based metadata (e.g., post timestamps) but that this metadata actively "governs interactions" between data objects in the specific manner claimed. | ¶9 | col. 29:17-22 |
| a gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the container with other containers... | The theory would need to identify a software component or API within Facebook's architecture that functions as a "gateway" that is both "attached to" a container and "controls" its interactions, a structurally specific limitation. | ¶9 | col. 29:30-34 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question, particularly in light of the subsequent IPR, is which claims of the ’536 patent remain asserted and valid. For any surviving claims, a central dispute will be whether the architectural term "gateway attached to and forming part of the container" can be read onto a feature of a distributed software platform like Facebook.
- Technical Questions: What evidence can be presented that Facebook's use of metadata (e.g., timestamps, user data) rises to the level of "governing interactions" as required by the claims, rather than simply describing attributes?
’682 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| searching... first container registers... data comprising historical data associated with interactions... | Plaintiff would need to show that Facebook's search functionality queries not just content but also historical metadata about past user interactions with that content (e.g., prior likes, shares, or views) to determine search results. | ¶14 | col. 29:56-65 |
| encapsulating the identified containers in a new container... | The infringement theory must establish that the presentation of search results on Facebook constitutes "encapsulating" those results in a "new container," which suggests the creation of a new, distinct data object. | ¶14 | col. 30:1-2 |
| updating second container registers of the identified containers with data associated with interactions of the identified containers with the new container... | It must be proven that after generating a search result (the "new container"), Facebook's system modifies the metadata ("registers") of the original items in that result list to record their inclusion in that specific search result. | ¶14 | col. 30:3-7 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The key dispute will likely focus on the meaning of "encapsulating... in a new container." Does a transient list of search results on a webpage meet this definition, or does the claim require the creation of a new, persistent, and structured data object with its own identity and registers?
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that Facebook’s system performs the specific "updating" step, where the metadata of an original post is altered simply because it appeared in a user's search results?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "gateway attached to and forming part of the container" (’536 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance:
This term is a critical structural limitation. Its interpretation will determine whether the claim can map onto a modern, distributed software architecture or is limited to more monolithic systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a primary point of potential non-infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a container is a "logically defined data enclosure" and that system components may be "distributed throughout a network," which may support an argument that the gateway is a logical or software-based function, not a physical chokepoint (col. 3:28-31; col. 3:12-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict gateways as distinct architectural boxes that control the flow of information between containers, suggesting a more formal, gate-keeping role rather than a simple API or pointer (e.g., ’536 Patent, Fig. 4, element 200).
Term: "encapsulating the identified containers in a new container" (’682 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance:
This term defines the core "re-manufacturing" step of the claimed search method. Whether simply displaying a list of results constitutes "encapsulating" is central to the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The repeated use of "logically defined" throughout the patent family could support an argument that any logical grouping of results, such as a search results page, meets the definition of a "new container" (’536 Patent, col. 8:65-67).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating containers with a "unique network-wide lifelong identity" and their own set of registers, suggesting that "encapsulating" requires the creation of a new, persistent data structure, not merely a transient display of hyperlinks (’536 Patent, col. 3:35-39).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement. It contains only conclusory statements of infringement "literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege" that infringement is willful after discovery (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This indicates an intent to potentially pursue a claim based on post-filing knowledge of the patents but does not allege any pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Impact of Post-Filing IPR: A threshold issue for the ’536 patent will be the legal and practical effect of the IPR proceeding that found its broadest independent claim unpatentable. The case will depend on whether Plaintiff can advance a viable infringement theory under one of the surviving, narrower dependent claims.
- Architectural Mapping: A core dispute for both patents will be one of definitional scope: can the patents’ architectural vocabulary, which includes terms like "container" and "gateway attached to... the container," be construed to read on the components of a highly distributed, non-monolithic social networking platform? The outcome of claim construction on these terms will be critical.
- Functional Mismatch: For the ’682 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the Facebook search system perform the specific, sequential method steps of "encapsulating" results into a distinct "new container" and then "updating" the registers of the original source items, or is this a fundamentally different process than how the accused platform actually functions?