DCT
4:13-cv-04206
Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Millennial Media Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Millennial Media, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:12-cv-00790, 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 mobile advertising products and services infringe two patents related to systems and methods for creating and managing dynamic, interactive data structures called "information containers."
- Technical Context: The technology relates to organizing and managing data on computer networks to make it more interactive and intelligent, a concept fundamental to modern targeted advertising and dynamic content delivery systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing. However, the provided patent documents for U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 include an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate issued on July 17, 2017, subsequent to the filing of this complaint. The IPR, initiated by third parties, resulted in a finding that claims 2-12, 14, and 16 are patentable, which may focus the scope of the dispute for that patent on the surviving claims.
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 Issued |
| 2010-04-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 Issued |
| 2012-10-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2017-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536 IPR Certificate Issued |
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 Mar. 7, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where information on computer networks is static and inert. Content resides in fixed locations, its organization is unchangeable without direct human intervention, and its utility is limited because it cannot evolve based on user interaction or its relationship to other data (’536 Patent, col. 2:7-18, 53-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of "information containers," which are logically defined data enclosures that encapsulate information elements (’536 Patent, col. 3:23-34). Each container is associated with "dynamic registers" that store metadata and rules governing the container's behavior, such as its interaction history, its relevance in time and space, and its ownership (’536 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This structure allows information to become interactive and its organization to evolve based on system-analyzed usage, thereby creating a more intelligent network (’536 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
- Technical Importance: This approach describes a framework for creating self-aware, manageable data objects that can be automatically reorganized and repurposed based on user behavior and other system inputs, a foundational concept for dynamic content personalization and targeted advertising.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶9). Given the post-filing IPR history, analysis may focus on surviving independent claims such as Claim 2.
- Independent Claim 2 includes the following essential elements:
- An apparatus with a plurality of "containers," each a logically defined data enclosure.
- Each container comprises an "information element."
- Each container includes a plurality of "registers," including registers for a unique ID, a representation of "space," and active, passive, and neutral space registers to govern interactions.
- Each container has an attached "gateway" that controls the container's interactions.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶9).
U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682 - "System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers with Dynamic Registers" (Issued Apr. 20, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’682 Patent arises from the same disclosure as the ’536 Patent and addresses the same problems of static network information (’682 Patent, col. 2:5-16).
- The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a method of using the information container system. The method involves receiving a search query and searching the "container registers"—specifically their "historical data"—to find responsive containers (’682 Patent, col. 29:53-59). The identified containers are then "encapsulated" into a new container, and the system updates the registers of the original containers to reflect this new interaction, allowing the system to learn and adapt over time (’682 Patent, col. 30:1-9).
- Technical Importance: This patent claims a specific method for leveraging the historical usage data stored in the registers to perform intelligent search and dynamically repackage content, a process that mirrors how modern recommendation engines and advertising platforms learn from user queries to refine future results.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶14). Independent Claim 1 is a representative method claim.
- Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- Receiving a search query.
- Searching first container registers, including searching historical data within them, 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 other claims (Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising products and services" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products and services are accessible through the websites millennialmedia.com and mmedia.com (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). However, the complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the architecture, features, or operation of the mMedia or MYDAS platforms. The functionality is broadly characterized as "mobile advertising products and services," but the specific mechanisms of ad targeting, data management, or content delivery are not described (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without reference to specific claim elements or a claim chart. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’536 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for transmitting, receiving and manipulating information on a computer system, the apparatus including a plurality of containers... | The complaint alleges that the mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising products and services constitute an infringing apparatus. | ¶9 | col. 29:6-10 |
| an information element having information | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶9 | col. 29:11-12 |
| a plurality of registers... including a first register for storing a unique container identification value... a second register having a representation designating space... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶9 | col. 29:13-21 |
| a gateway attached to and forming part of the container, the gateway controlling the interaction of the container... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶9 | col. 29:46-50 |
’682 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a search query | The complaint alleges that the mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising services perform this method. | ¶14 | col. 29:51-52 |
| searching... first container registers... to identify identified containers responsive to the search query, the... registers having defined therein data comprising historical data... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶14 | col. 29:53-59 |
| encapsulating the identified containers in a new container | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶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 | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶14 | col. 30:3-7 |
| providing a list characterizing the identified containers | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶14 | col. 30:8-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal issue is whether the complaint's conclusory allegations, which lack specific facts mapping accused product features to claim elements, meet federal pleading standards. The lack of detail raises the question of whether the complaint provides the defendant with fair notice of the infringement theory.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the data objects managed by Defendant's advertising platforms can be considered "containers" with "gateways" as claimed in the ’536 Patent. For the ’682 Patent, a key question is whether delivering a set of targeted ads in response to user data constitutes the claimed method of "encapsulating... containers in a new container."
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary dispute will concern whether the accused platforms actually use "dynamic registers" that store and evolve based on "historical data" as required by the claims, or if their functionality is based on different technical principles. The complaint does not offer evidence on this point.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "container" (’536 Patent, Claim 2; ’682 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the patented inventions. Its construction will determine whether the patents cover a broad class of logical data structures or are limited to the specific, complex entities detailed in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is arguably the dispositive issue for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification at one point defines a container as a "logically defined data enclosure which encapsulates any element or digital segment" (’536 Patent, col. 8:65-67).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes containers as being part of an "interactive nestable logical domain" (’536 Patent, col. 3:30-31) and possessing a unique identity and a suite of specific registers (e.g., time, space, ownership) and an attached "gateway" that governs its behavior, suggesting a structure more complex than a generic data packet (’536 Patent, Fig. 4).
The Term: "encapsulating the identified containers in a new container" (’682 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This method step defines the dynamic repackaging at the heart of the ’682 Patent’s invention. The key dispute will be whether generating a transient set of search results or targeted advertisements qualifies as creating a "new container" that "encapsulates" prior ones.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to cover any aggregation of data objects for presentation to a user following a query.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s emphasis on creating persistent, evolving entities suggests that a "new container" must itself be a structural entity with its own identity and registers, rather than just a temporary collection of data. The process is described as one of "reconstruction" where the system can "reconstruct itself internally" (’536 Patent, col. 9:11-12).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly "reserves the right to allege" that infringement is willful pending discovery (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This indicates no allegation of pre-suit willfulness is being made at this time.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Pleading Sufficiency and Evidentiary Support: The most immediate issue is whether the complaint's bare-bones allegations can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A subsequent and related question will be evidentiary: what technical evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused advertising platforms actually practice the specific "container," "register," and "encapsulation" elements required by the claims?
- Claim Scope and Technical Equivalence: A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "container," described in the patents as a sophisticated, self-aware logical entity with dynamic registers, be construed to cover the data structures used in Defendant's mobile advertising system? This leads to a key question of functional operation: does the accused system’s method of targeting ads align with the patents’ specific claims of encapsulating containers and updating historical registers, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technology?