DCT
4:13-cv-04205
Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. LivingSocial Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: LivingSocial, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:12-cv-789, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant having allegedly 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 two patents related to systems and methods for creating and manipulating information "containers" that use "dynamic registers" to manage their interaction and relevance.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a framework for structuring and managing digital information, where data objects possess inherent metadata that governs their behavior, aiming to create a more dynamic and intelligent network than one based on static content.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings. However, documents associated with the lead patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536, indicate it was the subject of subsequent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2014-00086 and IPR2014-00812) initiated by third parties after this complaint was filed. An IPR certificate issued in 2017 states that original independent claim 1 was not found patentable, while dependent claims 2-12 and 14, and independent claim 16, survived. This development significantly alters the landscape of the case for the ’536 patent from what is presented in the original complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-01-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’536 and ’682 Patents |
| 2006-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 Issues |
| 2010-04-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 Issues |
| 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 | IPR Certificate Issues 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 identifies a problem with prior art computer networks where information is static and "inert" (’536 Patent, col. 2:60). Search and retrieval are described as inefficient because they rely on simple keyword matching against content in a fixed location, without the system learning from or adapting to user interaction patterns or the context of the information itself (’536 Patent, col. 1:23-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus built around "information containers," which are described as logically-defined data enclosures for any type of digital information (’536 Patent, Abstract). Each container is associated with a "plurality of registers" that store metadata governing the container's identity, history, and rules of interaction, such as its relevance over time or its relationship with other containers (’536 Patent, col. 3:23-41). A "gateway" is described as controlling these interactions, allowing the system to become more intelligent and responsive over time (’536 Patent, col. 3:55-64).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents an architectural approach to move beyond static data repositories and towards a more context-aware system where information objects are imbued with their own rules and history, enabling more dynamic and intelligent organization and retrieval (’536 Patent, col. 2:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶9). The patent’s original independent claim is Claim 1.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An apparatus comprising a plurality of "containers," each being a logically defined data enclosure with an information element.
- A plurality of "registers" forming part of the container, including registers for a unique ID and for designating time to govern interactions.
- Specific time registers including "active," "passive," and "neutral" time registers.
- A "gateway" attached to the container that controls the container's interaction with other entities.
- As noted in Section I, post-filing IPR proceedings found Claim 1 unpatentable, though several dependent claims were upheld.
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: The ’682 Patent, a continuation of the ’536 Patent, addresses the same problem of static, "unrefined" information on computer networks that lacks the ability to evolve based on usage or context (’682 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method for using the container and register architecture. The method involves receiving a search query and searching the "container registers" which contain "historical data" from past interactions (’682 Patent, col. 29:56-66). The results of this history-based search are then used to encapsulate the identified containers into a new container and provide a list to the user, thereby creating a new, contextually relevant information object based on the query (’682 Patent, col. 30:1-14).
- Technical Importance: This shifts the focus from the static structure of the information (the apparatus of the ’536 patent) to the dynamic process of searching and reorganizing information based on its interaction history.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶14). The first independent claim is Claim 1.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A computer-implemented method that receives a search query.
- Searching "first container registers" that contain "historical data" associated with past interactions to identify responsive containers.
- A specific requirement that the act of searching the registers comprises searching the historical data.
- Encapsulating the identified containers into a "new container."
- Updating "second container registers" with data about the interaction with the new container.
- Providing a list that characterizes the identified containers.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "location-based coupon product and service, accessible at least through LivingSocial.com and LivingSocial's mobile applications" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that this service provides coupons to users based on their location (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not, however, provide specific details regarding the technical implementation of the service, such as how data for users, merchants, and coupons is structured, stored, or processed. No allegations regarding the product's market position or commercial importance are made.
Visual Evidence
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without an element-by-element analysis or claim chart. The following tables summarize a potential infringement theory based on the complaint's assertions and the patents' claims.
’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 | The complaint does not specify, but a theory would likely map this to data structures within the LivingSocial system that hold information for individual coupons, merchants, or users. | ¶9 | col. 29:10-13 |
| a plurality of registers... a second register having a representation designating time and governing interactions | An infringement theory would require showing that the accused data structures contain metadata fields, such as coupon validity periods or time-of-day restrictions, that govern their availability. | ¶9 | col. 29:17-23 |
| a gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the container | Plaintiff would need to identify a software component, such as an API or service layer in the LivingSocial backend, that controls access to and interactions with the coupon data structures. | ¶9 | col. 29:29-32 |
’682 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a search query | The LivingSocial service receives user location data, which functions as an implicit query for relevant coupons, or receives explicit user searches for deals. | ¶14 | col. 29:57 |
| searching... first container registers... comprising historical data... wherein searching... comprises searching the historical data | An infringement theory would require demonstrating that the LivingSocial system searches its database of deals by querying fields containing historical data (e.g., popularity, past purchases) to find relevant results. | ¶14 | col. 29:58-66 |
| encapsulating the identified containers in a new container | Plaintiff would need to show that the system dynamically generates a new logical grouping or data object that contains the search results. | ¶14 | col. 30:1-2 |
| providing a list characterizing the identified containers | The results page or screen displayed to the user showing the available location-based coupons would be alleged to be the claimed list. | ¶14 | col. 30:7-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the patent’s specific terms like "container", "register", and "gateway" can be construed to cover the potentially more conventional database and web service architecture of the accused product. The patent’s use of idiosyncratic terminology raises the question of whether its claims are limited to the specific architecture disclosed or read more broadly.
- Technical Questions: For the ’682 patent, a key question is whether the accused service's search function operates as claimed. Does the system's primary search act upon "historical data," or does it perform a geographic search and then merely append historical information (like user ratings) to the results for display? The complaint lacks the technical evidence to resolve this.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "information container" (’536 and ’682 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This is the core architectural element of the inventions. Whether a standard data object or a row in a database qualifies as a "container" will likely be a dispositive issue for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a container broadly as a "logically defined data enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment" or even "any system component or process" (’536 Patent, col. 8:65-9:4).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also repeatedly illustrates containers as specific, complex structures that include not just data but also an integrated "gateway" and a particular suite of registers (e.g., ’536 Patent, Fig. 4). A defendant may argue the term is limited to such a self-contained, rule-based object.
The Term: "gateway" (’536 Patent)
- Context and Importance: The structure and function of the "gateway" is a critical limitation in the apparatus claims. Its definition will determine what kind of software architecture can infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a gateway as a "logically defined passageway" that governs interactions, which could potentially be argued to cover any API or data access control layer (’536 Patent, col. 15:43-46).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes gateways as active components that work as "an agent of an analysis engine and execution engine" and manage data collection and reporting according to rules, suggesting a more complex and intelligent function than a simple access point (’536 Patent, col. 5:1-11).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of specific intent or knowledge.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff states it "reserves the right to allege" willfulness after discovery (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The complaint as filed does not contain factual allegations to support a claim for willful infringement based on either pre-suit or post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s unique terminology, particularly "information container" and "gateway," be construed broadly enough to read on the architecture of a modern, database-driven web service, or are the claims limited to the specific, self-referential object model detailed in the specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: for the ’682 patent, can Plaintiff prove that the accused system’s search functionality meets the claim limitation of "searching... historical data," or will discovery show that historical data is merely displayed alongside results of a fundamentally different type of search (e.g., geographic)?
- A threshold validity question for the ’536 patent is the impact of the post-filing IPR proceedings. With the sole independent claim apparently invalidated, the viability of the infringement case for that patent depends on whether Plaintiff can successfully assert one of the surviving dependent claims.