Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Twitter Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Twitter, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.
• Case Identification: 6:12-cv-00792, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2012
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be 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 real-time information network infringes two patents related to a system and method for creating and manipulating "information containers" with dynamic registers.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a framework for creating dynamic, self-organizing data structures on a network, intended to improve information retrieval and utility beyond the capabilities of static content and conventional search engines.
• Key Procedural History: The provided documents indicate that in a later Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2014-00086), the patentability of claims 2-12, 14, and 16 of the '536' Patent was confirmed. The proceeding did not confirm the patentability of other claims, including independent claim 1. This outcome may influence future arguments regarding the scope and validity of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-01-30	Priority Date ('536 & '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

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,010,536

• 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 resources. Content does not evolve based on user interaction, and search technologies provide limited means to organize or enhance the utility of information beyond simple keyword matching. (’536 Patent, col. 1:53-61, col. 2:13-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of "information containers," which are logically defined data enclosures that can hold any type of digital content. (’536 Patent, col. 3:20-34). These containers are paired with "dynamic registers" that store metadata about the container's identity, history, and rules for interaction, including its relevance in time and space. (’536 Patent, col. 3:41-46; Fig. 4). This structure allows information to be intelligently managed, reconfigured, and made more useful as the system observes its usage patterns. (’536 Patent, col. 2:50-68).
  • Technical Importance: The described system represents a conceptual shift from static data repositories to a dynamic information ecosystem where content value and accessibility could evolve based on collective user intelligence and interaction history. (’536 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification; independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶9).
  • 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 with an "information element."
    • A plurality of "registers" forming part of the container, including a unique ID register and specific "active," "passive," and "neutral" time registers that govern the container's interactions.
    • A "gateway" attached to the container that controls its interactions with other system components.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,702,682

• 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: The patent addresses the same problems of static information and limited search utility as its parent, the ’536 Patent. (’682 Patent, col. 2:1-16).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a "method" for leveraging the information container architecture. The method involves receiving a search query and searching the "container registers"—specifically those containing "historical data associated with interactions" of containers—to identify responsive containers. (’682 Patent, col. 30:51-67). The results of this history-aware search are then encapsulated in a new container, and the registers of the involved containers are updated to reflect the new interaction. (’682 Patent, col. 30:60-65).
  • Technical Importance: The method aims to improve search relevance by moving beyond content-only searches to include the historical context of how information has been previously used and interconnected within the network. (’682 Patent, col. 2:56-68).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification; independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A computer-implemented method that begins with 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 from the new interaction.
    • Providing a list characterizing the identified containers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Twitter real-time information network product and service, accessible at least through twitter.com and mobile device applications." (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint broadly accuses the Twitter service but does not provide specific technical details about the architecture, data structures, or operational algorithms of the accused platform. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The allegations are directed at the service's general function as a real-time information network. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed breakdown of how the accused Twitter service meets each limitation of the asserted claims. Therefore, a claim chart cannot be constructed based on the provided complaint. The analysis below identifies the likely points of contention based on the patent and complaint language.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '536 Patent:
    • Scope Question: A central issue will be whether data objects within the Twitter service (e.g., a "Tweet," a user profile, a direct message) can be characterized as a "container" as claimed, which requires a specific set of registers (e.g., active, passive, and neutral time registers) and an attached "gateway" controlling its interactions. (Compl. ¶9; ’536 Patent, col. 29:10-24).
    • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused service includes the specific tripartite "active," "passive," and "neutral" time registers that govern when a container "will act," "can be acted upon," or "may interact" with other entities, as opposed to merely having timestamps? (Compl. ¶9; ’536 Patent, col. 29:17-24). The complaint provides no such evidence.
  • '682 Patent:
    • Scope Question: Does Twitter's search functionality constitute the claimed method of searching "first container registers" that contain "historical data associated with interactions"? This raises the question of whether Twitter's search indexes and algorithms can be mapped to the claimed "registers" and "historical data." (Compl. ¶14; ’682 Patent, col. 30:53-59).
    • Technical Question: Does the presentation of search results on Twitter's platform meet the claim limitation of "encapsulating the identified containers in a new container"? The infringement theory will need to establish that displaying a list of tweets is equivalent to the claimed creation of a "new container" with its own updated registers. (Compl. ¶14; ’682 Patent, col. 30:60-61).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "container"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the foundational element of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether any data structure within the Twitter service falls within the scope of the patents.
  • 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 any system component or process." (’536 Patent, col. 8:63-col. 9:10).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes and depicts a container as a structured entity that, "at minimum," includes a register and a gateway, and is often shown with a rich set of specific registers. (’536 Patent, col. 9:1-10; Fig. 4). This may support an argument that a mere data object without this accompanying structure is not a "container."

• The Term: "register" (in the context of the '536 Patent's time registers)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’536 Patent requires not just registers, but specific "active time," "passive time," and "neutral time" registers. Infringement hinges on whether Twitter's system has data structures that perform these distinct, rule-based functions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "register" itself is not explicitly defined, which could support a plain and ordinary meaning of a location for storing data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes these registers as "governing interactions" and "assigning the time characteristics by which that container will act upon another container or process." (’536 Patent, col. 4:10-16). This functional language suggests more than a simple timestamp, pointing toward a set of configurable rules that control future interactions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 but does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to allege... that Defendant's infringement... is willful and deliberate" after discovery. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This is a placeholder allegation that does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents’ key terms—"container," "register," and "gateway"—which describe a specific, rule-based data architecture, be construed broadly enough to read on the functional components of a real-time social media platform like tweets, user profiles, and APIs? The outcome of claim construction will be critical.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming a favorable claim construction for the Plaintiff, what technical evidence can demonstrate that the Twitter service actually performs the complex, back-end methods claimed in the '682 patent, such as searching historical interaction data stored in discrete "registers" and "encapsulating" results into a "new container"? The complaint's lack of technical detail places a significant future burden on the Plaintiff to prove this functional equivalence.
• A central question of validity exists for the '536 patent: given that its primary independent claim (Claim 1) was not found patentable in a subsequent IPR proceeding, the viability of an infringement case resting on that claim or other unreviewed claims is a significant issue for the court to consider.