DCT

4:13-cv-04204

Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Groupon Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:12-cv-00787, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and transacted business in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s location-based coupon product and service infringes patents related to systems and methods for creating and managing digital information using "containers" with "dynamic registers."
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a framework for making information on computer networks more intelligent and responsive by encapsulating data into logical containers whose behavior and relationships evolve based on user interactions and other contextual data.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit descend from the same 1998 provisional application. U.S. Patent 7,702,682 is a continuation of U.S. Patent 7,010,536. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the ’536 Patent was the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Apple, Inc., Twitter, Inc., and Yelp, Inc. In a certificate issued in 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the ’536 Patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-01-30 Priority Date for ’536 and ’682 Patents
2006-03-07 U.S. Patent 7010536 Issued
2010-04-20 U.S. Patent 7702682 Issued
2012-10-17 Complaint Filed
2013-10-23 IPR Petition Filed against ’536 Patent (IPR2014-00086)
2014-05-23 IPR Petition Filed against ’536 Patent (IPR2014-00812)
2017-07-17 Inter Partes Review Certificate Issued for ’536 Patent

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

U.S. Patent 7,010,536

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536, titled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers,” issued March 7, 2006 (Compl. ¶8).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of static information on computer networks, where content resides in fixed locations and its organization is not automatically altered based on user interaction, search history, or contextual relevance ('536 Patent, col. 1:22-48). This limits the utility of networks and makes complex information discovery a time-consuming, manual process ('536 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of "information containers," which are described as interactive, logical data enclosures ('536 Patent, col. 3:25-35). Each container is associated with "dynamic registers" that store evolving metadata and rules governing the container's interaction with other containers, systems, and users ('536 Patent, Abstract). These registers can define parameters such as time relevance, ownership, and interaction history, allowing the network itself to reconfigure information resources to be more useful and accessible ('536 Patent, col. 13:8-24; Fig. 4).
    • Technical Importance: The described technology represents a conceptual shift from a static, provider-defined information architecture to a dynamic, self-organizing one where the value and accessibility of information can evolve automatically based on collective user behavior ('536 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’536 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus claims and includes the following essential elements:
    • An apparatus for manipulating information comprising a plurality of containers.
    • Each container is a logically defined data enclosure containing an information element.
    • A plurality of registers forming part of the container, including:
      • a first register for a unique container ID;
      • a second register designating time and governing interactions based on utility;
      • an active time register for when the container will act on others;
      • a passive time register for when the container can be acted upon; and
      • a neutral time register for when the container may interact with others.
    • A gateway attached to the container, controlling its interaction with other containers, systems, or processes.

U.S. Patent 7,702,682

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682, titled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers,” issued April 20, 2010 (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’536 Patent, the ’682 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem of static information on computer networks, where there is a need for methods to create more comprehensive information about content and leverage user intelligence to upgrade the network's utility ('682 Patent, col. 2:56-67).
    • The Patented Solution: The ’682 Patent claims methods for implementing the container-based system, focusing on the process of responding to a search query. The claimed method involves searching not the content itself, but the "container registers" which hold "historical data" about past interactions ('682 Patent, Claim 1). The results are then encapsulated in a "new container," and its own registers are updated, thereby creating a dynamic, context-aware response that can be further utilized by the system ('682 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Technical Importance: This patent claims the operational method of leveraging the container architecture, focusing on how historical usage data can be actively used to improve the relevance of search results and dynamically construct new information objects on the network.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’682 Patent (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim and includes the following steps:
    • Receiving a search query.
    • Searching first container registers (which contain 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as Defendant’s "Groupon location-based coupon product and service, accessible at least through Groupon.com and Groupon's mobile applications" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused instrumentality. It identifies the product category but offers no technical description of how the service operates, how deals are stored or presented, or what data is used to generate search results for users (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations detailing how the accused "Groupon location-based coupon product and service" (Compl. ¶9) meets the limitations of the asserted claims. The allegations are conclusory, stating only that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" of the patents-in-suit by making, using, and selling the service (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed based on the provided complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute will likely concern whether the data structures used by the Groupon service to represent and manage commercial offers qualify as the "information containers" recited in the claims. A related question is whether data associated with those offers (e.g., time limits, location, redemption status) function as the claimed "dynamic registers" that evolve based on rules and interaction history.
    • Technical Questions: For the method claims of the ’682 Patent, a key technical question will be whether the Groupon service actually performs the claimed step of searching "historical data associated with interactions" to identify deals for a user. The case may turn on whether infringement can be proven based on the actual operation of Groupon's recommendation and search algorithms, or if they operate on a different, non-infringing basis (e.g., using only static user preferences and current location).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "information container"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted patents. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any logical grouping of data, such as a digital coupon offer, or narrowly to require the specific hierarchical and nestable structures detailed in the patent's embodiments. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is central to the infringement analysis for any accused data structure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a container as a "logically defined data enclosure" that can encapsulate "any element or digital segment" or even a "system component or process" ('536 Patent, col. 8:63-67, col. 12:58-67). This language may support a broad, functional definition.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes containers as "nestable," "hierarchically" arranged, and configurable as "both subset and superset" ('536 Patent, col. 4:46-54, Fig. 3A). A defendant could argue these characteristics are essential limitations of the term.

  • The Term: "dynamic registers"

    • Context and Importance: This term, used in the titles and claims of both patents, is critical for distinguishing the invention from conventional databases with static fields. The dispute will likely focus on what makes a register "dynamic."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the registers' "internal values evolve through interaction with" other system components and user choices, suggesting any data field that changes based on system or user activity could be considered part of a dynamic register ('536 Patent, col. 13:8-13).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification provide an explicit list of specific, function-driven registers, such as "active time register," "passive time register," "ownership register," and "historical container register" ('536 Patent, Claim 1; Fig. 4). This may support an argument that the term requires not just any changing value, but a set of specific, rule-based metadata fields that govern container behavior in a predefined manner.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead indirect infringement or allege specific facts to support claims of inducement or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patents combined with acts encouraging infringement by third parties (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendant's infringement of the ['536 and '682 patents] is willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The complaint does not allege that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit before the lawsuit was filed, which suggests any potential willfulness claim would be based on conduct occurring after the date of filing.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent term "information container," which is described in the specification with complex, nestable, and hierarchical structures, be construed broadly enough to read on the data structures used to manage discrete, time-limited commercial offers in the accused Groupon service?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what evidence can be adduced to show that the accused service performs the specific methods of the ’682 Patent? In particular, does Groupon's system actually search "historical data associated with interactions" to generate and rank coupon results, as the claims require, or does it rely on a different, non-infringing technical mechanism?